Wall Street Journal, starting to catch my drift

[email protected] (Daniel Packman) wrote:

> >or are you starting to understand that apple will control the entire
> >cell industry in 10 years?
>
> It seems likely that the iphone has redefined the user interface,
> but if Apple follows its past history, it might dominate the high
> end, but won't be interested in low margin entry level units.

see:

http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/

so in less than 6 years apple has come out with a $79 cell phone, (all
things considered) during a similar roll out.

-

---

› See More: Wall Street Journal, starting to catch my drift

The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]> wrote:

> > or are you starting to understand that apple will control the entire
> > cell industry in 10 years?
> >
>
> Don;t be dumb.
>
> There will be me2 copies if the iphone at half the price in a years time.

well, not for a decade or so... you are forgetting Apple has over 200
patents on the iPhone, so you won't see "copies" of it for at least 17
years, just like you don't see copies of the iPod. they are illegal.

nice try though!

none wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>or are you starting to understand that apple will control the entire
>>>cell industry in 10 years?
>>>
>>
>>Don;t be dumb.
>>
>>There will be me2 copies if the iphone at half the price in a years time.
>
>
> well, not for a decade or so... you are forgetting Apple has over 200
> patents on the iPhone, so you won't see "copies" of it for at least 17
> years, just like you don't see copies of the iPod. they are illegal.
>
> nice try though!


Nice try with your recitation of practical patent law.

You might want to take that course again, for effect.

I still contend that you have NO CLUE.
Zero, zip, nada...

Just continuing to contend that wi-fi will kill cellular is
indicative of just how ****ing stupid you really are.

Or blind from drinking 'kool-aid'.....

"none" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Now the big news boys are starting to catch on to what I've been saying
> about WiFi replacing Cell Phone Networks.
>
> WSJ reported today....
>
> Apple's iPhone, which has generated more than enough buzz itself, is
> also corralling a lot of attention for wireless fidelity, or Wi-Fi
> networks.
>
> Since the iPhone's launch late last month, network services are
> reporting more device connections on Wi-Fi networks as consumers seek a
> faster connection to the Web. The technology is a double-edged sword for
> carriers: While it provides a short-term benefit by reducing loads on
> their cellular networks, it could potentially wrest away their control
> over Internet service.
>
> (exactly what i've said!)
>
> If anyone has an account with WSJ, there is more here:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118419582680863931.html
>
> ----
>
> Basically what is going to happen is WiFi is going to replace the "for
> pay" cell networks. The iPhone is GREAT at WiFi, so why pay a monthly
> fee when you can talk for free? Steve Jobs knows this idea extremely
> well, that's why he has ATT in a massive headlock upon the release of
> iChat VOIP or iTalk (the chosen name for it)
>
> Free calls to anywhere in the world from any iPhone to any iPhone is the
> "PageMaker" of this coming era. (the old school cell guys like Tom Gay
> Allcock & Justin, won't understand a word I'm saying) but Apple has just
> pulled off one of the biggest (but admittedly, pending) social changes
> to our world since "the phone". No joke!
>
> It will be known as:
>
> Bi & Ai
>
> "Much like the Western calendar marks time from before and after Jesus
> Christ, and how the computer world changed totally by the Macintosh -
>
> - I am certain that the mobile telecoms world will count its time in two
> Eras. The Era BI: time Before the iPhone, and the ERA AI: time After the
> iPhone."
>
> - Tomi T Ahonen
>
> http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...ng_iphone.html
>
> -------
>
> There will be INCREDIBLE pressure to put up lowcost WiFi access points
> everywhere in the world once the iPhone sells in the 40+ million range
> (about 1.3 years away)
>
> So for $20, you can broadcast a free connection to the internet, thus
> making Cell Towers OBSOLETE. (unless you are hunting Buffalo, of course)
>
> Quality Netgear stuff is CHEAP, so open your own tower today, and get
> rid of those nasty "pay by the month" companies. Learn more here:
>
> http://www.seattlewireless.net/AntennaHowTo
>
> The whole hacker ethic is going to make sure Cell Towers SERVE no
> purpose beyond, 2010. Is that a deal? yep! People still paying for
> "cell" service in 2011 are idiots!
>
> So now I know why Tom and Justin are mad at me, but I have to laugh,
> since they have NO IDEA about how Apple operates.
>
> When they enter a new "market" they nearly KILL it. They did it with
> mainframes, they did it with accounting firms, they did it with
> printers, they did it with CD music sellers, now they are going to wipe
> out the "cell industry' as we know it.
>
> Tom & Justin, you'll see what I'm saying in 2-6 years.
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> -----

It's an AAPL troll.

Like "Oxford", last seen holding his breath waiting for large scale
adoption of fashion victim handset technology.


Ness_net wrote:

> I still contend that you have NO CLUE.
> Zero, zip, nada...
>
> Just continuing to contend that wi-fi will kill cellular is
> indicative of just how ****ing stupid you really are.
>
> Or blind from drinking 'kool-aid'.....
>
> "none" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Now the big news boys are starting to catch on to what I've been saying
>>about WiFi replacing Cell Phone Networks.

At 12 Jul 2007 17:42:19 -0600 none wrote:

> well, not for a decade or so... you are forgetting Apple has over 200
> patents on the iPhone, so you won't see "copies" of it for at least 17
> years, just like you don't see copies of the iPod. they are illegal.

Correct- instead you'll see a bunch of cheap Chinese knock-offs, like
those fake Nanos that sell for $50 and play videos (which the Nanos they
ripped-off couldn't!)

You'll see MP3/MP4 devices that LOOK like iPhones but without the multi-
touch screens and accelerometers (and probably no phone either!) and sell
for half the price or less. They'll be good enough for the poseur crowd
that makes up over 1/2 the potential iPhone market.

> nice try though!

They'll be on eBay by Christmas for $200 or so.




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

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> > well, not for a decade or so... you are forgetting Apple has over 200
> > patents on the iPhone, so you won't see "copies" of it for at least 17
> > years, just like you don't see copies of the iPod. they are illegal.
>
> Correct- instead you'll see a bunch of cheap Chinese knock-offs, like
> those fake Nanos that sell for $50 and play videos (which the Nanos they
> ripped-off couldn't!)

yes, i actually got one of those on ebay, shipped from china "4GB Nano
iPod", the box was a pure rip off, then the ipod, looked pretty damn
close, but when you turned it on, it was el cheapo, not even 10% like an
ipod, kinda funny. i put it back up on ebay as a "fake ipod" and sold it
for $86

> You'll see MP3/MP4 devices that LOOK like iPhones but without the multi-
> touch screens and accelerometers (and probably no phone either!) and sell
> for half the price or less. They'll be good enough for the poseur crowd
> that makes up over 1/2 the potential iPhone market.
>
> > nice try though!
>
> They'll be on eBay by Christmas for $200 or so.

yes, you'll see them, but nobody will buy them, you use a real iphone,
you'll never even think about using a fake one, they are that good!

none wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> none wrote:
>>> ps: appl stock has shot up a full point since i wrote this note
>>
>>
>> At least you are a blindingly f'n transparent shill. I'll give you
>> that.
>
> ??? what does shill mean?
>
> it's now up 1.36, and that's just based on the iPhone success, nothing
> what I have said, except what the WSJ has said that cell companies
> will probably die because of the wifi iphone.
>
> is that what you mean?

Sorry to hear the stock did so poorly today... The market went up 284 points
(about 2 1/2 percent), looks like apple only went up by about 1 percent...
Hmmmm.. must mean the iphone was a major failure compared with every other
stock on the market...

none wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> My bad. Make that blindingly disingenuous f'n transparent shill.
>
> apple is at at all time high as i post this, 134.07 is that what you
> mean?
>
> or are you starting to understand that apple will control the entire
> cell industry in 10 years?
>
> please advise.
>
> -

Yeah, went up a whole 1.29 %, while the market as a whole, and most other
stocks, went up 2.37 %! Wonder why Apple did so bad today, when everyone
else did good? Must be the POS iPhone thang

none wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> or are you starting to understand that apple will control the entire
>>> cell industry in 10 years?
>>>
>> Don;t be dumb.
>>
>> There will be me2 copies if the iphone at half the price in a years time.
>
> well, not for a decade or so... you are forgetting Apple has over 200
> patents on the iPhone, so you won't see "copies" of it for at least 17
> years, just like you don't see copies of the iPod. they are illegal.
>
> nice try though!

No patent that is specific enough to be enforceable is not so specific
that you can't find a way around it.

none <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > WiFi is FREE, anyone can put up their own antenna and broadcast
> > > bandwidth for miles for nearly free. You just need to learn about
> > > antennas, which is completely free.
> >
> > http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials...le.php/1428941
> >
> > "When using omni-directional antennas having less than 6 dB gain [...],
> > the FCC rules require EIRP to be 1 watt (1,000 milliwatts) or less."
>
> yes, peter but the FCC isn't going to spend money on "testing rules"...
> in america it doesn't work that way. freedom is much more important than
> "rules", the FCC has 4 part time people for the entire US that test this
> stuff, so rules don't matter with the overriding goal is to change
> worldwide society.

The FCC will come calling when someone complains a base station is
pumping out excessive power.

> > Directional antennas are useless for anyone hoping to broadcast
> > bandwidth for miles so you're limited to 1 watt EIRP which certainly
> > won't go for miles, or even one mile.
> >
> > No amount of learning about antennas will fix that.
>
> but again, the FCC isn't going to be checking for this, only the CELL
> companies... once they are being strapped for cash, from being SUCKED
> dry by wifi will it happen, so it's a moot point at least in a free
> country.
>
> put up all the 802.11 wireless antennas you want, you will NOT be
> harassed.
>
> mine is called "iPhone" and reaches around 800 feet, for free!

Interesting. So you advocate breaking the law?

The law is there for a purpose which is to minimise interference between
users' networks. Your "iPhone" a/p monopolises one channel within a half
mile radius. If everyone in an apartment block or suburbia adopted the
same approach wifi would slow to a crawl or be unuseable.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

> yes, but established printers in the 80's said the same thing about the
> LaserWriter, now 90% of those printers are "gone", put out of business
> by a device that cost 2% of what they were selling.

Your analogy using printers is weak, at best. It's not about the device
it's about the network. Wifi networking as it stands now has no prayer of
competing effectively with managed telco circuits.

> ps: appl stock has shot up a full point since i wrote this note

And are you jerking yourself off to these fanboy fantasies? God I hope so,
otherwise it's REALLY a pathetic way to spend your free time, gushing about
some company...

Bill Kearney wrote:

>>yes, but established printers in the 80's said the same thing about the
>>LaserWriter, now 90% of those printers are "gone", put out of business
>>by a device that cost 2% of what they were selling.
>
>
> Your analogy using printers is weak, at best. It's not about the device
> it's about the network. Wifi networking as it stands now has no prayer of
> competing effectively with managed telco circuits.
>
>
>>ps: appl stock has shot up a full point since i wrote this note
>
>
> And are you jerking yourself off to these fanboy fantasies? God I hope so,
> otherwise it's REALLY a pathetic way to spend your free time, gushing about
> some company...
>

He's either a pay-to-play AAPL shill, or if not, as you say.

The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]> wrote:

> > well, not for a decade or so... you are forgetting Apple has over 200
> > patents on the iPhone, so you won't see "copies" of it for at least 17
> > years, just like you don't see copies of the iPod. they are illegal.
> >
> > nice try though!
>
> No patent that is specific enough to be enforceable is not so specific
> that you can't find a way around it.

but apple won't allow for that, it's something you are overlooking.

show me someone that sells a click wheel like apple's ipod, bet you
can't.

Did you figure out "shill" yet?

No? Well do keep trying.


none wrote:

> but apple won't allow for that, it's something you are overlooking.