Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

Oxford wrote:
> George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
>>> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>> So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
>> exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.
>
> not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
> nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.

No, you meet the definition of a fanboi. You read marketing speak that
is intended as bait for fanbois. Then you decide to post it in groups
where it is not wanted like it is the news of the century without even
knowing it is BS.

I will give you a free clue. You may think you are posting exciting
"news" but most people are already on overload and annoyed by BS
marketing speak.


>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>
> -
I am not mad but I can understand why you might be. You posted something
you didn't understand and totally discredited yourself.

---

› See More: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network

Oxford wrote:
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_46.html

Written for the lowest common denominator, like you...not for a real
professional.

Go back for the past fifty years and see how PopSci's revelation of new
technologies are downright funny. Like steam powered airliner.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/3290931.html

"They give dumbed-down explanations of simple technologies which leads
me to believe that perhaps they don't actually understand how it really
works."

In news:[email protected],
Oxford <[email protected]> typed:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>>> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
>>> that simple.
>>
>> Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.
>
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
>
> -
>
> Gadgets
> Apple iPhone
>
> Cellphone 2.0
>
>>>SNIP<<<
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_46.html



On the same page they also had an award for the following:

Verizon Wireless V CAST Mobile TV

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_54.html

Oxford wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>>> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
>>> that simple.
>> Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.
>
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
>
> -
>
> Gadgets
> Apple iPhone
>
> Cellphone 2.0
>
> While other phone makers piled on half-baked features, Apple rethought
> the way we interact with mobile devices. The iPhone puts an end to
> confusing menus, whether you¹re flipping through album covers by swiping
> a finger or turning the phone sideways to get a wider view of a Web page.
>
> It starts with the 3.5-inch capacitive touchscreen, the first on a
> cellphone that can recognize simultaneous touches, for tricks like
> zooming in on a photo by spreading your fingers apart. A grid of sensors
> behind the glass detects‹with great accuracy‹where your finger disrupts
> the electrical field above it, so you can tap the correct link even on a
> Web page that¹s littered with them.
>
> The iPhone is also the best iPod ever, with a built-in YouTube
> interface, movie player and iTunes downloads. For anything else you want
> it to do, it runs third-party Web applications, and‹as long as hackers
> stay ahead of Apple‹unofficial programs like games and instant
> messaging. The competition looks downright primitive.
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_46.html

How can the iPhone be better if:

1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!

Oxford wrote:
> George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
>>> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>> So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
>> exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.
>
> not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
> nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.
>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>
> -

Nokia N800? LG Voyager?

I guess you never heard of them. They do everything the iphail does AND
MORE AND BETTER!

Oxford wrote:
> Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
>>> experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
>>> possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
>> No, Apple cannot outbid google.
>
> Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.
>
>> And guess what, GOOGLE HAS SALES EXPERIENCE!
>
> Yes, selling little classified Ads on websites, but to sell a phone,
> they have no idea. That's why they confirmed they wouldn't try and make
> a phone a few weeks ago.
>
> If the technical details can be worked out, Apple will buy a portion of
> the spectrum, Apple has far more engineering talent that Google could
> ever dream of...

You never heard of Google Earth Pro? Google Web Tools (server
management tools)?

You really are stupid

Jon <[email protected]> wrote:

> How can the iPhone be better if:
>
> 1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!

ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
phone fat and battery draining.

> 2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!

nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?

> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!

actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.

It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
you think about it.

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
[email protected]:

> Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How can the iPhone be better if:
>>
>> 1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
>
> ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
> phone fat and battery draining.

My phone's 3G, the battery is far from fat and it goes for days between
charges.

>
>> 2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
>
> nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?

Because we need something more than the fanboi crap you watch.

>
>> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
>
> actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
> popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
> the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.

Actually, Verizon told Apple to go away.

>
> It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
> you think about it.
>

No- many people that "do" have them are more upset than we are, fanboi.

Oxford wrote:
> Jon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How can the iPhone be better if:
>>
>> 1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
>
> ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
> phone fat and battery draining.
>
No actually, my phone is smaller than most phones, is 3G, and battery
hasnt seen a charger for 8 days, and still has 3 out of 4 batter levels
left.
>> 2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
>
> nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?
Why have just youtube and other web videos when you can have youtube,
web videos, AND TV?!?!
>
>> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
>
> actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
> popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
> the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.
>
> It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
> you think about it.

No, they didn't lose the contract, the said NO to Apple, as the iPhone
is old technology.

Oxford wrote:
> actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
> popular the iPhone would become.

Sorry, but the reason has been well hashed over and your offering is way
incorrect.

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

> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!

Verizon probably passed because Apple wouldn't let them cripple it like
they do the rest of their hardware.

At 19 Nov 2007 08:07:47 -0800 Mr. Strat wrote:

> Verizon probably passed because Apple wouldn't let them cripple it like
> they do the rest of their hardware.

Probably.

The irony is, of course, Apple then crippled it themselves in the same
major way Verizon does- limit BT to handsfree only, preventing DUN and BT
file transfer.


Stick a red and black theme on it, and it'd fit right in with Verizon's
lineup! ;-)

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:

So you were stating fact in your original post? I'll try to remember
that next time you state that analog TV is networked like wi-fi and could
easily be changed to offer nationwide internet with little change or
expense.

> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it
> and weep!

There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
buying one...

Except for one problem.

Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
"work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
like a champ.

Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
award...its associated wireless carrier did not.

So when Steve gets his head out of his ass and his penis out of his hand
and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
NETWORK that works.

AND the non user changeable battery....

AND no 3G



"David M. Moore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
> surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
> and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
> would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
> also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
> buying one...
>
> Except for one problem.
>
> Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
> pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
> "work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
> area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
> network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
> phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
> quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
> to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
> Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
> with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
> they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
> like a champ.
>
> Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
> award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
>
> So when Steve gets his head out of his ass and his penis out of his hand
> and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
> up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
> NETWORK that works.
>

"Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> AND the non user changeable battery....
>
> AND no 3G
>
>
>
AND no voice dial

AND no streaming TV

AND no seamless sync

AND no GPS


Wow- the list of stuff not on the phone is almost as long as the small list
of things it does have.