the iPhone Widget List!

100's of thpusands of iPhones got sold.

Even the tiny Alvin, TX AT&T store had a long line by 5 PM.

Nationwide they sold so many iPhones that the AT&T computers got
hammered and couldn't keep up with all the activations they had to
perform.

http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...1&page=1&pp=15

---

› See More: the iPhone Widget List!

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:20:42 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>This guy nailed it, although I think the iphone will just become like
>any other smartphone as opposed to an outright flop, albeit a lot more
>CRIPPLED because you actually can't do anything with it.
>
>http://news.com.com/The+Apple+phone+...3-6141607.html
>
>So, anyways,

Go ahead and biolate copyright by posting this nonsense.

Apple sold 100's pf thousands of iPhones, and then AT&Ts computers
couldnt keep up with Activations.

http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...1&page=1&pp=15

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:25:17 -0000, [email protected] wrote:

>On Jun 29, 10:31 pm, Kurt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > This guy nailed it, although I think the iphone will just become like
>> > any other smartphone as opposed to an outright flop, albeit a lot more
>> > CRIPPLED because you actually can't do anything with it.
>>
>> LOL I'd love to repost this 6 months from now.
>> We'll see how good your spinning skills are.
>>
>
>
>Perhaps you'd like to post valid arguments instead of vacuous taunts
>to the writer of the article.
>

You're the one who posts insults when someone posts links proving what
a resounding success iPhone is.

http://www.engadget.com

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Jun 29, 10:31 pm, Kurt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > This guy nailed it, although I think the iphone will just become like
> > > any other smartphone as opposed to an outright flop, albeit a lot more
> > > CRIPPLED because you actually can't do anything with it.
> >
> > LOL I'd love to repost this 6 months from now.
> > We'll see how good your spinning skills are.
> >
>
>
> Perhaps you'd like to post valid arguments instead of vacuous taunts
> to the writer of the article.
>
> Since the iPhone has absolutely no application capability, no IM, no
> email integration capabilities, and not even the ability to edit
> documents or spreadsheets or powerpoint presentations, it
> automatically won't affect the business smartphone market (thus, the
> fact that Rim Blackberry shares went up by $34 today).
>
> Since it does not play any of the thousands of consumer Java games and
> apps (IM, messaging, picture sharing, social networking, etc) already
> in the market today, it is also a crippled CONSUMER phones.
>
> In other words, it's a pretty GUI with nothing underneath.

Bwaaaaa..

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <[email protected]>,
"John" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> >
> >
>
>
> The iPhone will be a tremendous success based on what I saw tonight at the
> Apple and ATT stores. Joe Sixpack wants it. Its appeal is not limited
> to techies.

Which is what most of the posters (techies) in this group ignore. They
base it on their needs and wants.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Jun 29, 11:56 pm, "John" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > The iPhone will be a tremendous success based on what I saw tonight at the
> > Apple and ATT stores. Joe Sixpack wants it. Its appeal is not limited
> > to techies.
>
> J6P can't afford it....most people want a less than $100 phone.

iPhone data plan alone saves you $720 for 2 years over the standard PDA
data plan.
You've paid for your phone with this savings.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Kurt wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 11:56 pm, "John" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > The iPhone will be a tremendous success based on what I saw tonight at the
> > > Apple and ATT stores. Joe Sixpack wants it. Its appeal is not limited
> > > to techies.
> >
> > J6P can't afford it....most people want a less than $100 phone.
>
> iPhone data plan alone saves you $720 for 2 years over the standard PDA
> data plan.
> You've paid for your phone with this savings.
>

dude, i that $19 plan is a standard...that's what i have.

At 30 Jun 2007 05:57:35 -0700 [email protected] wrote:

> lol....Notice I never said that Java is somehow superior to native
> apps for end-users in PCs.

Yet you bash a phone for not supporting Java, even when it has it's own
apps available. Java is great for when there's no other alternative.
With more advanced phones it's basically a low-end phone emulator.

> To a consumer end user, there usually isn't (and should not be) any
> difference.between the two

Sure there is- there's yet another "layer" between the code and the
processor running it, which slows it down, or limits it's access to the
device's resources.

> (Since we're talking PCs,

Not really- I just used them as an analogy...

>the fact is that
> the some of most popular desktop apps are java apps - Limewire and
> Azureus, to name two,

Your dictionary must have a different definition of "popular" than mine.

"Word" is a popular desktop app- "Photoshop" is a popular desktop app.
BT clients don't really crack the top 50.

> although I agree Java on desktops has faltered,
> unlike in server and mobiles, where it is strongly dominant).

It's only dominant where there's no other realistic choice- there are too
many phones with proprietary OSes to develop for each one separately .

> The advantage overall is that to developers Java is a superior
> development platform in general than creating native apps in terms of
> ease of development, range of target markets, and safety.

Easier for YOU as a developer, but it results in a slower, less-
fulfilling app for the end-user. Again, that's fine for when there's no
other choice, like with a typical mobile, but why would I want to run an
app inside a VM on a Palm or WinMo device where native apps are available
to do the same job better or faster? Putting java on the iPhone would be
a marketing disaster- why "admit" the $600 iPhone has the same software
availability as a free Nokia 6030?


> > I' amused as well, since Google's GMM for Windows Mobile works better
> > than the Java version, and Opera makes a better native browser for
> > Windows (Opera Mobile) that doesn't have the inherent security
problem of
> > running all of my data through their proxy.
>
> Uh...DUH...since Google Maps Mobile for Windows (and also the Palm
> version) was developed SPECIFICALLY for windows mobiles and Palms, I
> would rather hope that it is somehow better than an app that was
> developed for several hundred different models of cells, including
> phones that have barely any memory. Please think before opening mouth,
> it helps save spit.


I'm not the one who's touting Java as the ultimate feature of a
cellphone, or implying it's the iPhone's achille's heel. If iPhone's
widgets accomplish the same task, end users won't care if it's Java or not.


> You actually highlighted a FEATURE of java, not a disadvantage.

Sometimes they're the same thing- backwards compatibilty is what held
back PCs for years- the DOS 640k limits, etc.

> The
> ability to be able to write to an enormous range of devices and thus
> blanket a market.


Just like with a BASIC interpreter in the 70's! How many "bestselling
programs" were written in BASIC?


> As to Opera Mobile, LOL, that must be the reason why so many users are
> flocking to Opera Mini away from Opera Mobile (and all the Windows
> Mobile browsers)...again, the speed of Opera Mini because of the
> superior architecture is what makes the difference.

It's not the "superior architecture" of Mini- it's the Opera servers
doing all the work! Some employers might not like having their data
funnelled through Opera! Opera Mini is really only widely used on WinMo
because it's free, and the best alternative on non-touchscreen devices
that can't run Mobile or Netfront.

> The user honestly
> does not care about anything else, whether the app is native or java
> or whatever, so long as it renders their pages quickly and correctly
> (and Opera Mini continues to improve leaps and bounds after every
> version release on this score).


I'm glad you're happy with it. I'll stick with Opera Mobile. Mini can't
render a corporate website I require access to for work, whereas Mobile
can. I don't have a choice (other than drag a laptop around with me!)

> >Beats me, I could care less- I'm a user, not a developer. No program I
> >use has required me to install it, so my installed programs are either
> >using whatever version is already built into my MDA's ROM, or they
don't
> >need it.
>
> Like i said, too bad you don't represent several billion other people
> on this planet.

I don't, because my phone runs a better OS. Java's for RAZRs and Nokia
series 40 phones.

> I honestly don't give an owl's fart about what you do
> or do not prefer.

Really? I sometimes lie awake at night worried about your preferences...

> All I care about is that there is a huge target
> market for my apps.


Which proves your concern about the iPhone's lack of Java support is more
about your needs, not the needs of iPhone users. Thanks for clearing
that up for us!

>
> PS. CF dotnet was Microsoft's answer to Java ME...didn't do very
> well ,,,ROTFLOL....

You seem to be the only one here "LOL"ing at yourself.

Again, I'm not a developer, so it's not my problem- it's yours. Good
luck porting your apps to Safari widgets. As of today, there's
apparently a new market of a few hundred thousand phone users you have
nothing to sell to...



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At 30 Jun 2007 09:45:58 -0700 Kurt wrote:

> iPhone data plan alone saves you $720 for 2 years over the standard PDA
> data plan.


Except it isn't a PDA!

> You've paid for your phone with this savings.

And maybe have enough left over to buy a PDA!>

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 30 Jun 2007 05:57:35 -0700 [email protected] wrote:
>
>> lol....Notice I never said that Java is somehow superior to native
>> apps for end-users in PCs.
>
> Yet you bash a phone for not supporting Java, even when it has it's own
> apps available. Java is great for when there's no other alternative.
> With more advanced phones it's basically a low-end phone emulator.

even with more advanced phones, it's good to have java available, because
the app you want may not have a native version available. for example, with
the iphone, the native google maps app is obviously the prefereable choice-
however, on the same phone, the java gmail app *would* be a much better
choice than the web based mobile gmail, but it's not an option, and there's
also no native version.


<snip>

AT&T stores are just about all sold out now. All 1800 of them

In article <[email protected]>, Kurt
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Perhaps you'd like to post valid arguments instead of vacuous taunts
> > to the writer of the article.
> >
> > Since the iPhone has absolutely no application capability, no IM, no
> > email integration capabilities, and not even the ability to edit
> > documents or spreadsheets or powerpoint presentations, it
> > automatically won't affect the business smartphone market (thus, the
> > fact that Rim Blackberry shares went up by $34 today).
> >
> > Since it does not play any of the thousands of consumer Java games and
> > apps (IM, messaging, picture sharing, social networking, etc) already
> > in the market today, it is also a crippled CONSUMER phones.
> >
> > In other words, it's a pretty GUI with nothing underneath.
>
> Bwaaaaa..

I like this guy's criticism of 'vacuous taunts' -- and then 9 (!)
silly and exaggerated taunts of the device.

He is totally wrong about not integrating e-mail, which shows just how
informed he is.
He notes, oddly, that it cannot edit a spreadsheet. He doesn't seem to
be aware that reading a file is the most important function.
He foolishly ignores all the included apps just to cite that it won't
play someone else's programs. (So what? It has the major apps already!)
He (extremely foolishly) suggests it has nothing underneath this pretty
GUI. Everyone who has heard anything about it knows that isn't true --
every single demonstration shows it doing stuff.

Apparently, for this guy, Apple's apps and designs just aren't ever
enough. He must be a Windows or Linux user, trained to think he needs
to fix everything to get basic operations out of it.

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Like i said, too bad you don't represent several billion other people
> > on this planet.
Neither does ANYTHING you have ever said.
Let's not get stupid -- at the very very highest, you MAY be talking
about a few million potential users.
NEVER "several billion," dummy.

> > All I care about is that there is a huge target
> > market for my apps.
Aha; you aren't criticizing what you perceive as a real missing feature
for users, then. You're just annoyed that everyone doesn't make more
customers for YOU.
Well, since that has been the case in every industry for all time, you
get no sympathy at all.


> > PS. CF dotnet was Microsoft's answer to Java ME...didn't do very
> > well ,,,ROTFLOL....
It doesn't take much to entertain the simple.
No, .Net was not an answer to Java. That's not just an
oversimplification, it's a foolish conclusion.

> As of today, there's
> apparently a new market of a few hundred thousand phone users you have
> nothing to sell to...
And rather than do some work, he's going to whine about it and tell
people that Apple screwed up.
Even though he never had any reason to assume phone makers would always
support Java, he's going to pretend everyone has that obligation.
Apparently, if it makes sense to him, it's stupid for anyone else to
decide otherwise.

Sounds like a lot of Windows users in here. They accept it, many others
do, and therefore it must be good enough and good enough for everybody.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Kurt wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 29, 11:56 pm, "John" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > The iPhone will be a tremendous success based on what I saw tonight at
> > > > the
> > > > Apple and ATT stores. Joe Sixpack wants it. Its appeal is not
> > > > limited
> > > > to techies.
> > >
> > > J6P can't afford it....most people want a less than $100 phone.
> >
> > iPhone data plan alone saves you $720 for 2 years over the standard PDA
> > data plan.
> > You've paid for your phone with this savings.
> >
>
> dude, i that $19 plan is a standard...that's what i have.

For PDA, not Smartphone.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

[snip]

> Apple opted to adopt the 1.8-inch hard drive, a piece of hardware
> spurned by other manufacturers. That was the world's mistake. The 1.8-
> inch drive let Apple put a huge amount of storage--the real problem
> with MP3 players--into a small form factor. The first iPod sported 5GB
> of storage, or nearly 40 times as much as the upper crust of flash
> players. The company even locked up supply of 1.8-inch drives for a
> while, so no one could copy it.

There were other hard drive based music players, some of which even had
more features than iPods. This was a necessary component for the iPod's
success, but it doesn't explain it.

> The iPod also conquered the problem of small screens and cheesy
> navigation. With its newfound popularity, the company was also able to
> get music publishers to agree to its terms.
>
> Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset
> business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they
> are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a
> Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the
> device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people
> are addicted to it.

Some current cell phones are not *physically* clunky. (Though many smart
phones are) However, the *software* on them is extremely clunky. The
author of this article just mentioned that better navigation was one of
the iPod's major advantages... why does he not understand that the same
thing will be even more true with a more complex device?

Also notable is a complete lack of discussion in this article of the
fact that the iPhone *is* an iPod. If you're looking for a phone that
doubles as a music player, all of the iPod's advantages count for the
iPhone. This is going to be a significant selling point.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006