Verizon Wireless thumbs its nose at the iPhone

[email protected] wrote:
> M-M wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The only BT profile that Verizon is missing off any modern phone
>>> that I've seen is the "Multimedia File Sharing" profile, which is
>>> mostly WORTHLESS.
>>
>> VZW won't allow you to add your own ringtones or transfer photos by
>> BT and that's irritating. It's a pain to have to use the card.
>
> SURE THEY DO, use bitpim if you insist on doing it that way. If you
> still want to use bluetooth you totally missed the whole ****ing point
> of my post.
>
>>> Personally I consider Verizon pretty damned open, especially when it
>>> comes to data services.
>>
>> I agree with you there. That's why I'm staying.
>
> Some people want a "personal communications device", some people only
> need bling-bling.
>
>>> I really haven't seen anything the iPhone does that the
>>> already-been-off-the-market-6-months VX9800 can't do.
>>
>> The iPhone is WAY cooler and that's the name of the game and Apple
>> knows that.
>
> "cooler" for what? They did a lot of marketing, paid a lot of people
> to claim how goddamn cool it was on the internet, etc.
>
> The ****ing thing is bigger than a Microtac. If big phones are the
> new kewl thing, I guess I'll pull a brick out and start using it (at
> least until Febuary...)
>
>>> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't
>>> one of them, obviously. They're not in a position to be
>>> competitive with folks like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
>>
>> Don't underestimate Apple.
>
> Why the **** not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER
> ACTUALLY HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.

That is just plain wrong with the ipod.

>>> Oh well, nothing like good ol' Usenet. Full of loudmouth jackasses
>>> and the corporate ringers that lead them around...
>>
>> Quite right you are.
>
> How much did apple pay you to blow their goat?

---

› See More: Verizon Wireless thumbs its nose at the iPhone

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

> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:38:05 -0500, "[email protected]"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't one of
> >> them, obviously. They're not in a position to be competitive with folks
> >> like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
> >
> >
> > NICE TRY
>
> Selling a lot of units doesn't constitute success. Success is having
> those people buy the second unit.
>
> Keep ringing, faggot.

You sound like you've got issues coming out.
try here:

http://htalk.proboards100.com/

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

Rod Speed wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> M-M wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only BT profile that Verizon is missing off any modern phone
>>>> that I've seen is the "Multimedia File Sharing" profile, which is
>>>> mostly WORTHLESS.
>>> VZW won't allow you to add your own ringtones or transfer photos by
>>> BT and that's irritating. It's a pain to have to use the card.
>> SURE THEY DO, use bitpim if you insist on doing it that way. If you
>> still want to use bluetooth you totally missed the whole ****ing point
>> of my post.
>>
>>>> Personally I consider Verizon pretty damned open, especially when it
>>>> comes to data services.
>>> I agree with you there. That's why I'm staying.
>> Some people want a "personal communications device", some people only
>> need bling-bling.
>>
>>>> I really haven't seen anything the iPhone does that the
>>>> already-been-off-the-market-6-months VX9800 can't do.
>>> The iPhone is WAY cooler and that's the name of the game and Apple
>>> knows that.
>> "cooler" for what? They did a lot of marketing, paid a lot of people
>> to claim how goddamn cool it was on the internet, etc.
>>
>> The ****ing thing is bigger than a Microtac. If big phones are the
>> new kewl thing, I guess I'll pull a brick out and start using it (at
>> least until Febuary...)
>>
>>>> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't
>>>> one of them, obviously. They're not in a position to be
>>>> competitive with folks like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
>>> Don't underestimate Apple.
>> Why the **** not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER
>> ACTUALLY HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.
>
> That is just plain wrong with the ipod.

Actually, those dinky chinky flash-based mp3 players sold A LOT MORE
worldwide than all the apple players put together. Most of the folks I
saw carrying ipods a few years ago now carry somebody else's mp3 player
or already upgraded to a media-playing cellphone and an SD card.

I personally think they're attempting to peddle a 3 year old phone
inside of a LCD picture frame. Not very cool at all.

"Tim Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 1, 2007, [email protected] wrote:
>> Pundits said Apple would have to sell 100,000 phones this weekend to
>> keep from being a flop, and 200,000 to be a success. Apple will blow
>> by 300,000 before Sunday is over. The bar has been raised ! !
>
> So 100,001 to 199,999 is a ... successful flop? A floppy success?
>
Thank heaven for early adapters. They drive the cost down for us more
rational folks. I'll wait a year or two for version 2.0 or 3.0, at a lower
price, more features, and (hopefully) a better carrier.

(20-some years in tech world has taught me- never buy the first version of
ANYTHING. Let somebody else do the field beta-testing, and amortize the R&D
costs.)

aem sends...

ed <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally* disables
>>>>>> bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be able to take
>>>>>> advantage of bitpim...
>>
>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively ****ed with such an
>>>>> expensive phone.
>>
>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use the
>>>> wifi to do that instead.

>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-

>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.

> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?

Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.

Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.

[email protected] wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> M-M wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only BT profile that Verizon is missing off any modern phone
>>>>> that I've seen is the "Multimedia File Sharing" profile, which is
>>>>> mostly WORTHLESS.
>>>> VZW won't allow you to add your own ringtones or transfer photos by
>>>> BT and that's irritating. It's a pain to have to use the card.
>>> SURE THEY DO, use bitpim if you insist on doing it that way. If you
>>> still want to use bluetooth you totally missed the whole ****ing
>>> point of my post.
>>>
>>>>> Personally I consider Verizon pretty damned open, especially when
>>>>> it comes to data services.
>>>> I agree with you there. That's why I'm staying.
>>> Some people want a "personal communications device", some people
>>> only need bling-bling.
>>>
>>>>> I really haven't seen anything the iPhone does that the
>>>>> already-been-off-the-market-6-months VX9800 can't do.
>>>> The iPhone is WAY cooler and that's the name of the game and Apple
>>>> knows that.
>>> "cooler" for what? They did a lot of marketing, paid a lot of
>>> people to claim how goddamn cool it was on the internet, etc.
>>>
>>> The ****ing thing is bigger than a Microtac. If big phones are the
>>> new kewl thing, I guess I'll pull a brick out and start using it (at
>>> least until Febuary...)
>>>
>>>>> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't
>>>>> one of them, obviously. They're not in a position to be
>>>>> competitive with folks like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
>>>> Don't underestimate Apple.
>>> Why the **** not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER
>>> ACTUALLY HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART
>>> OF.
>>
>> That is just plain wrong with the ipod.

> Actually, those dinky chinky flash-based mp3 players sold A LOT MORE worldwide than all the apple
> players put together.

Apple still had A SIGNIFICANT PORTION of that particular market.

The only market they did manage that with.

> Most of the folks I saw carrying ipods a few years ago now carry somebody else's mp3 player or
> already upgraded to a media-playing cellphone and an SD card.

You didnt say the majority, just A SIGNIFICANT PORTION.

The portion that Apple did achieve is certainly SIGNIFICANT.

> I personally think they're attempting to peddle a 3 year old phone inside of a LCD picture frame.

More fool you.

> Not very cool at all.

It is a pretty decent design, with some real lacks like
not being able to run 3rd party apps, no removable
battery, no SD card etc and the wrong cellphone network.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
>>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
>>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally* disables
>>>>>>> bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be able to take
>>>>>>> advantage of bitpim...
>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively ****ed with such an
>>>>>> expensive phone.
>>>
>>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use the
>>>>> wifi to do that instead.
>
>>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-
>
>>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.
>
>> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
>> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?
>
> Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
> the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.
>
> Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.

well, reading pogue's review you definately can *not* even sync contacts,
calendars, etc with wifi... and if you can't transfer ringtones and images
to/from your computer over cable (which you can use to sync), why would you
be able to transfer them over wif?

Michael Paris wrote:
>
>>
>> True. However, you'll have a hard time might hearing that bluetooth-
>> transfered ringtone in a "no-service" area...
>>
> And can I have your documented areas where the have "no-service" areas,
> and not your rhetoric. Since you don't use ATT, how would you know?

I know for a fact that there is zero GSM coverage in the following
locations (where I have usable CDMA coverage from either Alltel or Verizon)

31d 30' 22" N / 95d 14' 21" W (location where my car jumped a couple
teeth on the timing belt, leaving me stranded. Verizon got decent voice
service standing on the rear bumper of my car, and enough service to
browse the internet via 1xRTT (at 2-5KB/sec) from the windshield, the
unlocked GSM and AT&Tular AMPS/TDMA phones I carried at the time showed
nothing)

31d 28' 25" N / 95d 24' 45" W (rural backroad that I travel frequently,
heavily populated for rural)

31d 26' 00" N / 95d 28' 34" W (Yep, the middle of US 287, the longest US
highway, and a part busy enough to be 4 lanes wide - Verizon never
really had a problem here, but they just erected a 250' tower about a
mile away)

You'll also find these locations to be on Cingular's high resolution
coverage maps as weak or no service locations.

And, last but not least - inside of my own damned house. My house
doesn't have a POTS line (VoIP with cellular fallback) so the phone
actually being able to work inside of my wood-frame home is important.

From anywhere in my home I can catch service from Verizon (-65 to -85
dBm) and Alltel (both using 800B, I'm on the edge of their licenses)

Also, when tower climbing I've noticed that GSM (especially 850) tends
to flop at some point not-that-far above the trees. I've had no problem
making calls from 200' up (as far as I climb) with Verizon. the GSM
issue may be related to the fact we're near a 3-way-point between 800A
carriers, and there may be just too damned much noise.

ed <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
>>>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
>>>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally*
>>>>>>>> disables bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be
>>>>>>>> able to take advantage of bitpim...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively ****ed with such
>>>>>>> an expensive phone.
>>>>
>>>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use the
>>>>>> wifi to do that instead.
>>
>>>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-
>>
>>>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.
>>
>>> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
>>> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?
>>
>> Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
>> the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.
>>
>> Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.
>
> well, reading pogue's review you definately can *not* even sync
> contacts, calendars, etc with wifi... and if you can't transfer
> ringtones and images to/from your computer over cable (which you can
> use to sync), why would you be able to transfer them over wif?

Because synching is nothing like browsing using wifi.

Every wifi capable laptop can move files over the wifi and I bet the iphone can too.

In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Don't underestimate Apple.
>
> Why the **** not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER ACTUALLY
> HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.

Oh really? Having something like 70% of the portable music player
market isn't significant? Being the third largest music retailer
(behind Best Buy and Walmart) is not a significant part of that market?



--
--Tim Smith

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

> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ed <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
> >>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
> >>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally* disables
> >>>>>>> bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be able to take
> >>>>>>> advantage of bitpim...
> >>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively ****ed with such an
> >>>>>> expensive phone.
> >>>
> >>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use the
> >>>>> wifi to do that instead.
> >
> >>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-
> >
> >>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.
> >
> >> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
> >> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?
> >
> > Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
> > the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.
> >
> > Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.
>
> well, reading pogue's review you definately can *not* even sync contacts,
> calendars, etc with wifi... and if you can't transfer ringtones and images
> to/from your computer over cable (which you can use to sync), why would you
> be able to transfer them over wif?

Apple may want to tie the sync feature to .Mac as they do with their
computers?
Anyway, i read there would be plenty of updates for the iphone in the
next few months prior to the release of leopard so a number of features
common to todays devices but for whatever reason were omitted from the
iphone will most likely be addressed between now and then.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
>>>>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
>>>>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally*
>>>>>>>>> disables bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be
>>>>>>>>> able to take advantage of bitpim...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively ****ed with such
>>>>>>>> an expensive phone.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use the
>>>>>>> wifi to do that instead.
>>>
>>>>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-
>>>
>>>>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.
>>>
>>>> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
>>>> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?
>>>
>>> Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
>>> the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.
>>>
>>> Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.
>>
>> well, reading pogue's review you definately can *not* even sync
>> contacts, calendars, etc with wifi... and if you can't transfer
>> ringtones and images to/from your computer over cable (which you can
>> use to sync), why would you be able to transfer them over wif?
>
> Because synching is nothing like browsing using wifi.
>
> Every wifi capable laptop can move files over the wifi and I bet the
> iphone can too.

that's a useless comparison, eh? every laptop w/ a usb cable can move files
over the cable too, but the iphone can't...

ed <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ed <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
>>>>>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
>>>>>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally*
>>>>>>>>>> disables bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be
>>>>>>>>>> able to take advantage of bitpim...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively ****ed with such
>>>>>>>>> an expensive phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use
>>>>>>>> the wifi to do that instead.
>>>>
>>>>>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-
>>>>
>>>>>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.
>>>>
>>>>> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
>>>>> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
>>>> the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.
>>>>
>>>> Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.
>>>
>>> well, reading pogue's review you definately can *not* even sync
>>> contacts, calendars, etc with wifi... and if you can't transfer
>>> ringtones and images to/from your computer over cable (which you can
>>> use to sync), why would you be able to transfer them over wif?
>>
>> Because synching is nothing like browsing using wifi.
>>
>> Every wifi capable laptop can move files over the wifi and I bet the
>> iphone can too.

> that's a useless comparison, eh?

Nope.

> every laptop w/ a usb cable can move files over the cable too, but the iphone can't...

At 01 Jul 2007 16:40:43 +0000 [email protected] wrote:

> And to think, Microsoft is on Version 6 of Windows for cell phone
> devices.

Um, no. What we now call Windows Mobile began it's life as a PDA OS,
like Palm OS did. Integrated phone support didn't show up until 2002 in
what counting backwards would've been "Windows Mobile 3," but was then
called "Pocket PC Phone Edition."

For the record, however, all versions of Windows Mobile even back to 1.0
offered cut-n-paste as a feature... ;-)

Oh, yes, and all Windows Mobile phones' Media Players and PIM functions
operated with or without a SIM, activated or not.




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

At 01 Jul 2007 15:59:23 -0700 Tim Smith wrote:

> Being the third largest music retailer
> (behind Best Buy and Walmart) is not a significant part of that market?

Maybe, maybe not. Being the 3rd largest soft-drink manufacturer behind
Coke and Pepsi, for example, might not give you a significant market share.


The 3rd largest car manufacturer in the US had to be bailed out by the US
government in my lifetime to save it from going out of business.

Apple won't even talk about how iTunes does, so I'm not sure how anyone
knows where they rank!


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