-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> > >
> > > As opposed to being able to recognize that the legacy is going to be
> > > utterly dead less than 2 years?
> >
> > That's only partially true. Analog TVs will continue to work with cable
> > TV, satellite TV and digital converter boxes.
>
> Or partially false, since these all rely on alternative and non-
> original signal dissemination infrastructure.
>
> I don't want to say that this is all a "glass half empty" in as much
> as simply recognizing that things change, and sometimes its not just
> extensions of current technology, but paradigm changes.
>
> For example, a bit more than 100 years ago, if you asked a man what
> technology he wanted to improve his individual transportation
> solution, his answer was "A faster horse". Shortly thereafter, the
> the automobile was popularized and the answer change to "I no longer
> want a horse, but a car". This was a paradigm change to that view of
> the technology of indvidual transportation.

And the Otto Cycle is with us still, and looks like staying for decades
yet.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Peter Hayes wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't want to say that this is all a "glass half empty" in as much
> > as simply recognizing that things change, and sometimes its not just
> > extensions of current technology, but paradigm changes.
>
> > For example, a bit more than 100 years ago, if you asked a man what
> > technology he wanted to improve his individual transportation
> > solution, his answer was "A faster horse". Shortly thereafter, the
> > the automobile was popularized and the answer change to "I no longer
> > want a horse, but a car". This was a paradigm change to that view of
> > the technology of indvidual transportation.
>
> And the Otto Cycle is with us still, and looks like staying for decades
> yet.

Try changing your paradigms of perspective: Otto has existed for less
than 2% of human civilization.



-hh

Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> DTC wrote:
> > [Attribution?]:
> > > there's no way a ragtag
> > > assortment of unlicencensed equipment will ever outperform a similar
> > > service in a commercial environment, period.
>
> > Usually, but not period.
>
> > My ragtag WiFi assortment delivers 30 Mbps carrier class service to
> > customers. When will cellular companies be able to provide that speed?
>
> Long before you can provide their coverage area, I'll wager! ;-)
>
> By "outperform" I don't just mean speed- I mean speed x coverage.

But this is symptommatic of the problem: no one individual gets to
dictate the definition of "better" that applies to everyone, for
everyone's 'best value' product decision-making.


> By speed alone, T-Mobile's "Hotspot" service "outperforms" Verizon EVDO,
> but fast Wi-Fi speeds at Starbucks and Barnes & Noble shops pales vs.
> ubiquitous EVDO coverage in major cities.

True, but the need for ubiquity is an attribute for the individual
consumer to decide how important it is/isn't to him.


> Seriously, cell companies could provide 30Mbps speed whenever they choose
> to implement it. Currently the bandwidth vs. cost equation doesn't make
> it economical to do so, and competitive forces currently don't provide
> pressure to do so.

Right.


> The price such a service would be offered for via cellular would be
> astronomical in order to limit adoption and threfore bandwidth usage.

Under today's technology paradigms and constraints. But things can
change.


> Just see how fast Verizon and Cingular implement faster service if/when
> Sprint's WiMax is successful! ;-)

Thus fulfilling that principle that free & open competition in the
marketplace invariably sweetens the value for the consumer.



-hh

"William Michael Greene" <wmg63@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rULpi.13876$7G1.7647@bignews4.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1185383604.657000.28810@r34g2000hsd.googlegro ups.com...
>> On Jul 25, 7:13 am, DCA <d...@dcca.com> wrote:
>>> In article <jIFpi.3481$P32.2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "William Michael Greene" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > <asjbio...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:1185292107.945696.264710@k79g2000hse.googleg roups.com...
>>> > > You guys need a reality adjustment if you think the under-powered,
>>> > > toy
>>> > > iPhone is going to "conquer" anything...whatever...
>>>
>>> > >http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...hone24-ON.html
>>>
>>> > > "Demand for the iPhone has had a "significant decline" in the past
>>> > > 10
>>> > > days, according to CIBC World Markets. Apple introduced the iPhone,
>>> > > its first mobile device, in the U.S. on June 29. "We have noticed
>>> > > decent inventories at stores, and thin demand at best," analyst
>>> > > Ittai
>>> > > Kidron wrote in a note. "Among the stores we visited, most visitors
>>> > > were not looking at the device, and only a very small subset bought
>>> > > it.""
>>>
>>> > >http://in.reuters.com/article/busine...28631020070724
>>>
>>> > > Shares of Apple Inc fell 4 percent on Tuesday after AT&T Inc issued
>>> > > initial subscriber numbers for customers of Apple's iPhone that were
>>> > > below analyst estimates.
>>>
>>> > > Shares of Apple were off $5.70 to $138.02 on Nasdaq after AT&T, the
>>> > > exclusive service provider for iPhone, said it signed up 146,000
>>> > > iPhone customers as subscribers in the first two days of iPhone
>>> > > sales,
>>> > > well below analyst estimates for sales.
>>>
>>> > > Pacific Crest analyst Andy Hargreaves said that while iPhone sales
>>> > > figures for coming months would be more telling than the first few
>>> > > days, AT&T's number had disappointed investors as some analysts
>>> > > estimated sales "north of 500,000."
>>>
>>> > > Hargreaves had himself estimated 400,000 iPhone sales for the first
>>> > > two days, he said.
>>>
>>> > Hey, why spend so much time knocking the iPhone.
>>
>> Probably because he feels he has as much right to free speech as do
>> the Apple fan boys.
>>
>>> Why don't you just "Not get
>>> > one" and leave those who want one alone.
>>
>> It's pretty telling that your object of worship can't stand up to
>> public scrutiny by those whom Apple hasn't brainwashed.
>>
>>> > Can't figure out why people spend
>>> > so much time knocking the iPhone.
>>
>> Maybe it's because of all the time they've had that POS waved in their
>> faces?
>>
>>> > If you don't think it's a good phone then
>>> > don't get one.
>>
>> Well, duh!
>>
>>> > Must be something about it that motivates people to knock it
>>> > so much.
>>
>> An analogy to having an iPhone is people deciding it's 'cool' to wear
>> a turd on their head for a hat. Others are just going to come up and
>> tell them they've got a stinking piece of turd on their heads, no
>> matter how much they whine "then just don't get one."
>>
>>> It's called Mac-envy.
>>
>> What does the Mac have to do with an iPhone?
>>
>>> Fuels this whole group (csma), year after year.
>>
>> According to the illusion of grandeur you're expressing.
>>
>>> Lots of people have been burned in their personal lives in some way by
>>> the Mac's superiority,
>>
>> They were? Who? How? When?
>>
>>> and they're here to lash out about it rather than
>>> deal with it rationally.
>>
>> Hmm... showing how the PC gives more for less money is "irrational" to
>> you? Weird.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Sure, laughing at you helped to brighten my day. Thanks a bunch.
>>
>
>
> Edwin huh? Yep if you need a laugh you needn't look too far.....

.... to see you? ;-)

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-4EC016.15415630072007@news.telus.net...
> In article <F9GdnblrW8GEgzDbnZ2dnUVZ_ruqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46a9b6b3$0$27196$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> > Steve de Mena wrote:
>> >
>> >> ATT did ALL the activations. All phones are paperweights unless
>> >> activated.
>> >
>> > Actually the iPhone can be used as an iPod and Wi-Fi web browser
>> > without
>> > being activated.
>> >
>> > See "http://nanocr.eu/2007/07/03/iphone-without-att/"
>> >
>> > In any case, I don't think any product could live up to the hype that
>> > the
>> > iPhone generated.
>> >
>> > I was more impressed with how well Mac sales are going for Apple. This
>> > more than offset the disappointing iPhone sales and sent their stock
>> > skyrocketing.
>>
>> Sandman and Alan Baker claim it was the sales of 270,000 iPhones (with
>> only
>> 146,000 activations) that raised Apple's stock prices.
>
> Nope.

You're lying again. You're even contradicting what you write further down.

> I claimed that if you want to attribute the fall of Apple's stock price
> to the iPhone,

It was attributed to that by the press, not by myself.

> then you have to accept that its rise might be due to the
> iPhone also.

The press has already reported the rise was due to Mac sales.

Oh look, everybody...

.... Alan Baker is wrong...

.... AGAIN! <G>

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:45:04 GMT, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in
<q2n8a3lg3kof53h7apkp267um68qrk6t8t@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:43:43 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
>someone who said :
>
>>>1. greater availability of software. It does not have to be written
>>>for a specific model of phone.
>>>
>>>2. more efficient use of RAM.
>>>
>>>3. less efficient use of CPU.
>>>
>>>The usual problem is the lack of RAM in such beasts.
>>
>>The "consumer" couldn't care less about those things.
>
>The consumer might not think of the advantages in those terms, but he
>certainly is impressed by how much software is available, and well it
>runs.

The "consumer" couldn't care less about those things.
He cares about how well it works AS A PHONE.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:29:21 -0500, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <CB5pi.3667$Dx2.1639@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net> :

>Mitch wrote:
>> Not a bit. You're doing something ENTIRELY different, and trying to
>> covince yourself you are the one who's advancing something.
>
>I agree, he comparing apples to kumquats.
>
>I don't use my phone for Google or Mapquest, nor instant messaging or text
>messages.

That's too bad. They are wonderful.

>In spite of how Navas touts how functional his cellphone is, its
>virtually worthless for any professional use on the road or out in the field.

Wrong. It's actually wonderful.

>I have my laptops and a 24x7 internet connection with a sprint aircard.

I also have my laptop and my RAZR V3xx, tethered by cable or bluetooth.
HSDPA is wonderful fast.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>