How I would like to change the *digital* cell phone industry

[Kurt]

In article <nfCdnQ3t-4ojLD_bnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Brenda Ann" <brendad@shinbiro.com> wrote:

"D Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:rjxoi.86$iX3.14@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-AEBDD9.20275920072007@news.giganews.com...
I want getting phone service like when I buy a Mac.

You only want them to work in a few dozen exchanges, and use a codec that
only other phones of that brand use, so you can't talk to anyone else but
other customers of that company (sort of like Sprint's "Friends and
Family" plan). ?






There was a time that was true. Not so much since about OS X.2.

Truth is that I had a Mac on line at work since '89, and from home since
'84, and with the exception of those who bothered to read the headers in
e-mail, no one ever knew it. I've had my Macs and my PC's talking to each
other the entire time.

As long as the output files are the same format, there's no more
compatibility issue between Mac and Windows than between HP and Dell
printers. And with Solaris and Linux making a showing in the marketplace,
compatibility in general has become largely a non issue.

That's why the pissing match between the Microsoft and the keepers of
standards is such a concern. Because if MS has their way, their
proprietary formats, will continue to play havoc with compatibility
between platforms that currently play well together using standards
compliant output.

On my Macs, I use only open source software with the exception of one or
two Apple branded programs for document and presentation creation. With
the exception of nicer, more eye catching documents, and presentations
with full animation and stereo sound, none of my colleagues can tell that
I've used a Mac.

On my PC's the only MS software is the OS. Everything else... browser,
IM client, office suite...everything, is open source.

The ONLY time I've ever had a compatibility issue is using MS software.
And that's been true for more than a decade, now.


My biggest problem with Mac (I like the machines, always have) is the
relative lack of software available for them. For instance, I have several
video editing applications, and several internet webcasting applications,
and they cannot be duplicated in Mac. (or at least they could not). I'll
concede that their machines, and to an extent their OS, are very reliable.

The proprietary stuff will always be an issue (yes, not having
DesignMyCloset couyld be an issue for some people).

Final Cut Pro is pretty swell for most of the pro world.

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

 

[Kurt]

In article <C2C78F75.70C91%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 7/21/07 9:28 AM, in article
labolide-FDDD0E.09284621072007@news.giganews.com, "Kurt"
labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:

In article <C2C76B2D.70C11%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 7/20/07 8:27 PM, in article
labolide-AEBDD9.20275920072007@news.giganews.com, "Kurt"
labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:

In article <1184978126.894452.166610@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 19, 12:06 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/4b14d9c79e614fe3?hl



=
en&
:

Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> hath wroth:

On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/696d6abf90c..
.

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

I would do what Apple is doing right now. Use their power to force the
phone companies to offer (finally) great phones with simple plans that
their employees can't screw up or misinform customers about.

Apple can't and isn't forcing "the phone companies" to do anything.
You're
an idiot.


I want getting phone service like when I buy a Mac.

You have a monthly payment plan for minutes of use of your Mac? Is this
something they forced you to buy?

You miss my point. Why do you think the iPhone is so successful?
Why the iPod?

Until there are more facts, the iPhone's current success is due to people
wanting a very cool instrument with good features.

The iPod's success is from Apple having a top-notch product line with good
features, and cool looks. And people should not overlook, but often do,
iTunes. It is iTunes that makes the iPod easy to use, giving it easy
access to their CD and MP3 music regardless of where they buy it. People
who don't want an iPod can still use the free iTunes to good advantage.

Apple doesn't make anyone do anything.

So, what was your point?

Don

Never said they do. People want to buy iPhones and iPods because of the
ease of use and right-on-the-nose product design. Then there is the
coolness factor.

Why is this so hard for other companies to do?

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Don Bowey wrote:

* We senior citizens aren't perceived as being a large enough market.

http://www.jitterbug.com/Phones.aspx


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Kurt]

In article <C2C7B1AB.70D03%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 7/21/07 12:19 PM, in article
1185045590.471407.165270@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "RHF"
rhf-newsgroups@pacbell.net> wrote:

(snip)


Until there are more facts, the iPhone's current success {?}
is due to people wanting {Gotto Have the Latest} a very cool
instrument {Newest Bells and Whistles} with good features
{of Questionable Utlity}.

-RANT-
While Senior Citzens like myself with Tired Old Eyes
and Big Old Fingers just want a basic CellPhone that
we can use without our Glasses like the "JitterBug" .

http://www.firststreetonline.com/product.jsp?id=50814&promotion=86678&PID=1583
97
8

That's as ugly as they get.....

Why doesn't AT&T, Sprint, Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc
offer a CellPhone designed for Senior Citizens and the
Visually Limited-Impaired like the "JitterBug" ?
Here is where the ADA Laws should apply and force
the Cellphone providers to design and market these
Cellphone to Seniors with needs. -end-rant- ~ RHF

(snip)

Lots of reasons..... Here's a couple:

* We senior citizens aren't perceived as being a large enough market.

* We aren't a cohesive group of a same mind. I'm one, but I'd have an
iPhone in a minute just cause it is cool, if it weren't for the ridiculous
rate structures.

Far better for data than anyone else's offerings. Take a look.

I need reading glasses for my Treo, but there are those who simply want
a phone with large numbers and no features other than voice.

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

 

[Kurt]

In article
<kurtullman-A7FC30.14000021072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx

,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <C2C78F75.70C91%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:


You miss my point. Why do you think the iPhone is so successful?
Why the iPod?

Until there are more facts, the iPhone's current success is due to people
wanting a very cool instrument with good features.

Which is pretty much the definition of putting out a product that the
public wants. But, yet, I seem to have feelings that you did not mean
this as a positive.

We had these same naysayers in these groups who were predicting the flop
of iPhone a week before it came out. The more rabid ones disappeared.
Now we have this more ambiguous approach.

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

 

[Kurt]

In article <1185043499.283610.124020@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
RHF <rhf-newsgroups@pacbell.net> wrote:

On Jul 21, 11:14 am, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 7/21/07 11:00 AM, in article
kurtullman-A7FC30.14000021072...@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx,

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <C2C78F75.70C91%dbo...@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:

You miss my point. Why do you think the iPhone is so successful?
Why the iPod?

Until there are more facts, the iPhone's current success is due to people
wanting a very cool instrument with good features.

Which is pretty much the definition of putting out a product that the
public wants. But, yet, I seem to have feelings that you did not mean
this as a positive.

You are reading in something I did not say.

The iPhone is off to a great start, but it has no track record at this time.
I anticipate that it will be very successful, but we can only guess at it
now. From an investor point-of-view, I think the monthly kickback from AT&T
that Apple negotiated, is good. From a personal POV I think it sucks, and
will likely antagonize Apple supporters.

IPhone Buyers and Users -and- Apple Supporters
may not be one and the same. ~ RHF

Bottom line - People want products that work for them. Period.
Mac delivers, like them or not.

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Kurt wrote:

Never said they do. People want to buy iPhones and iPods because of the
ease of use and right-on-the-nose product design.

'Right-on-the-nose product design'? What you like and want may be
totally useless to a lot of other people. When i saw that Iphone on TV,
I thought it looked like another useless piece of junk. 'Right on' is
doing what you need, and doing it as easily and cheap as possible. Not
cramming every damn gimmick and stupid idea you can come up with. There
are already complaints about battery life. Don't you even wonder how
much longer it would work without all the crap?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/21/07 6:24 PM, in article
nfCdnQ3t-4ojLD_bnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@giganews.com, "Brenda Ann"
<brendad@shinbiro.com> wrote:

"D Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:rjxoi.86$iX3.14@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-AEBDD9.20275920072007@news.giganews.com...
I want getting phone service like when I buy a Mac.

You only want them to work in a few dozen exchanges, and use a codec that
only other phones of that brand use, so you can't talk to anyone else but
other customers of that company (sort of like Sprint's "Friends and
Family" plan). ?






There was a time that was true. Not so much since about OS X.2.

Truth is that I had a Mac on line at work since '89, and from home since
'84, and with the exception of those who bothered to read the headers in
e-mail, no one ever knew it. I've had my Macs and my PC's talking to each
other the entire time.

As long as the output files are the same format, there's no more
compatibility issue between Mac and Windows than between HP and Dell
printers. And with Solaris and Linux making a showing in the marketplace,
compatibility in general has become largely a non issue.

That's why the pissing match between the Microsoft and the keepers of
standards is such a concern. Because if MS has their way, their
proprietary formats, will continue to play havoc with compatibility
between platforms that currently play well together using standards
compliant output.

On my Macs, I use only open source software with the exception of one or
two Apple branded programs for document and presentation creation. With
the exception of nicer, more eye catching documents, and presentations
with full animation and stereo sound, none of my colleagues can tell that
I've used a Mac.

On my PC's the only MS software is the OS. Everything else... browser,
IM client, office suite...everything, is open source.

The ONLY time I've ever had a compatibility issue is using MS software.
And that's been true for more than a decade, now.


My biggest problem with Mac (I like the machines, always have) is the
relative lack of software available for them. For instance, I have several
video editing applications, and several internet webcasting applications,
and they cannot be duplicated in Mac. (or at least they could not). I'll
concede that their machines, and to an extent their OS, are very reliable.

I've been a Mac user since the MacIIci. Usually, at home, I stayed one
model ahead of what I got at work. My primary home computer now is a recent
MacBook Pro, and I like it, but Apple's think different finally got to me.
When I decided to do some serious video/DVD work and discovered there was no
way to get video into the Mac except through a digital camera or a $300 box,
I just bought a PC tower and equipped it with a PCI card, which works fine.
Hardware and software for the PC is much less expensive than for the Mac and
it does a great job. Also, Windows XP is a trouble free system. I'll
probably add XP as a native system to the MacBook Pro too. I have two Macs
and two PCs on my home wireless lan and all have high speed internet access
and at least one printer to share off the Mac Airport. The PCs were at
least as easy to integrate as the Macs. Word, Excel, photo, and music files
are shared by all.

 

[Kurt]

In article <46A2C55E.913D0713@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Kurt wrote:

Never said they do. People want to buy iPhones and iPods because of the
ease of use and right-on-the-nose product design.


'Right-on-the-nose product design'? What you like and want may be
totally useless to a lot of other people. When i saw that Iphone on TV,
I thought it looked like another useless piece of junk. 'Right on' is
doing what you need, and doing it as easily and cheap as possible. Not
cramming every damn gimmick and stupid idea you can come up with. There
are already complaints about battery life. Don't you even wonder how
much longer it would work without all the crap?

Yes, for you, buy a phone with large numbers and voice only.

I'm a lot older than you and the iPhone does it right for 90% of what
people really want.

Youth market fuels gimmicks. Ringtones reap untold millions.

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

 

[Kurt]

In article <C2C819E1.70D66%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 7/21/07 6:24 PM, in article
nfCdnQ3t-4ojLD_bnZ2dnUVZ_ualnZ2d@giganews.com, "Brenda Ann"
brendad@shinbiro.com> wrote:


"D Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:rjxoi.86$iX3.14@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-AEBDD9.20275920072007@news.giganews.com...
I want getting phone service like when I buy a Mac.

You only want them to work in a few dozen exchanges, and use a codec that
only other phones of that brand use, so you can't talk to anyone else but
other customers of that company (sort of like Sprint's "Friends and
Family" plan). ?






There was a time that was true. Not so much since about OS X.2.

Truth is that I had a Mac on line at work since '89, and from home since
'84, and with the exception of those who bothered to read the headers in
e-mail, no one ever knew it. I've had my Macs and my PC's talking to each
other the entire time.

As long as the output files are the same format, there's no more
compatibility issue between Mac and Windows than between HP and Dell
printers. And with Solaris and Linux making a showing in the marketplace,
compatibility in general has become largely a non issue.

That's why the pissing match between the Microsoft and the keepers of
standards is such a concern. Because if MS has their way, their
proprietary formats, will continue to play havoc with compatibility
between platforms that currently play well together using standards
compliant output.

On my Macs, I use only open source software with the exception of one or
two Apple branded programs for document and presentation creation. With
the exception of nicer, more eye catching documents, and presentations
with full animation and stereo sound, none of my colleagues can tell that
I've used a Mac.

On my PC's the only MS software is the OS. Everything else... browser,
IM client, office suite...everything, is open source.

The ONLY time I've ever had a compatibility issue is using MS software.
And that's been true for more than a decade, now.


My biggest problem with Mac (I like the machines, always have) is the
relative lack of software available for them. For instance, I have several
video editing applications, and several internet webcasting applications,
and they cannot be duplicated in Mac. (or at least they could not). I'll
concede that their machines, and to an extent their OS, are very reliable.


I've been a Mac user since the MacIIci. Usually, at home, I stayed one
model ahead of what I got at work. My primary home computer now is a recent
MacBook Pro, and I like it, but Apple's think different finally got to me.
When I decided to do some serious video/DVD work and discovered there was no
way to get video into the Mac except through a digital camera or a $300 box,
I just bought a PC tower and equipped it with a PCI card, which works fine.
Hardware and software for the PC is much less expensive than for the Mac and
it does a great job. Also, Windows XP is a trouble free system. I'll
probably add XP as a native system to the MacBook Pro too. I have two Macs
and two PCs on my home wireless lan and all have high speed internet access
and at least one printer to share off the Mac Airport. The PCs were at
least as easy to integrate as the Macs. Word, Excel, photo, and music files
are shared by all.

You really enjoy that MS interface?

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

 

[Scott]

Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-89B489.20230021072007@news.giganews.com:

I'm a lot older than you and the iPhone does it right for 90% of what
people really want.

And what do you base this claim on?

 

[Brenda Ann]

"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-89B489.20230021072007@news.giganews.com...

In article <46A2C55E.913D0713@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Kurt wrote:

Never said they do. People want to buy iPhones and iPods because of the
ease of use and right-on-the-nose product design.


'Right-on-the-nose product design'? What you like and want may be
totally useless to a lot of other people. When i saw that Iphone on TV,
I thought it looked like another useless piece of junk. 'Right on' is
doing what you need, and doing it as easily and cheap as possible. Not
cramming every damn gimmick and stupid idea you can come up with. There
are already complaints about battery life. Don't you even wonder how
much longer it would work without all the crap?

Yes, for you, buy a phone with large numbers and voice only.

I'm a lot older than you and the iPhone does it right for 90% of what
people really want.

Youth market fuels gimmicks. Ringtones reap untold millions.

Do people REALLY want something that is easily broken, lost or stolen that
would pretty much give away their entire life if it fell into the hands of
someone else? And hey, my iPaq does most of what the iPhone does. Besides,
sometimes I want to do more than one thing at a time. For that it takes more
than one device. Cute gimmick, yeah, and young people will buy any gimcrack
that comes out just to be "kewl". That doesn't make it worth what they're
paying for it.

As far as Apple being the be all and end all of gimmickry, I have a very
nice (and reliable) mp3/video player with a 60GB HDD in it that cost me far
less than a similar iPod, and I don't have to deal with proprietary files.

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/21/07 8:24 PM, in article
labolide-5E65B6.20242121072007@news.giganews.com, "Kurt"
<labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:

In article <C2C819E1.70D66%dbowey@comcast.net>,
Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

(snip)

I've been a Mac user since the MacIIci. Usually, at home, I stayed one
model ahead of what I got at work. My primary home computer now is a recent
MacBook Pro, and I like it, but Apple's think different finally got to me.
When I decided to do some serious video/DVD work and discovered there was no
way to get video into the Mac except through a digital camera or a $300 box,
I just bought a PC tower and equipped it with a PCI card, which works fine.
Hardware and software for the PC is much less expensive than for the Mac and
it does a great job. Also, Windows XP is a trouble free system. I'll
probably add XP as a native system to the MacBook Pro too. I have two Macs
and two PCs on my home wireless lan and all have high speed internet access
and at least one printer to share off the Mac Airport. The PCs were at
least as easy to integrate as the Macs. Word, Excel, photo, and music files
are shared by all.

You really enjoy that MS interface?

It works trouble free and there isn't all that much difference between the
XP interface and many of the Mac interfaces. I can make the XP interface
appear about any way I wish. When I'm in a Word or Excel document, and many
other types, there isn't any interface difference between OSX and XP.

Do you have a specific point you wish to make?

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/21/07 8:35 PM, in article
-aidnXqikI8STT_bnZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@giganews.com, "Brenda Ann"
<brendad@shinbiro.com> wrote:

"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-89B489.20230021072007@news.giganews.com...
In article <46A2C55E.913D0713@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Kurt wrote:

Never said they do. People want to buy iPhones and iPods because of the
ease of use and right-on-the-nose product design.


'Right-on-the-nose product design'? What you like and want may be
totally useless to a lot of other people. When i saw that Iphone on TV,
I thought it looked like another useless piece of junk. 'Right on' is
doing what you need, and doing it as easily and cheap as possible. Not
cramming every damn gimmick and stupid idea you can come up with. There
are already complaints about battery life. Don't you even wonder how
much longer it would work without all the crap?

Yes, for you, buy a phone with large numbers and voice only.

I'm a lot older than you and the iPhone does it right for 90% of what
people really want.

Youth market fuels gimmicks. Ringtones reap untold millions.


Do people REALLY want something that is easily broken, lost or stolen that
would pretty much give away their entire life if it fell into the hands of
someone else? And hey, my iPaq does most of what the iPhone does. Besides,
sometimes I want to do more than one thing at a time. For that it takes more
than one device. Cute gimmick, yeah, and young people will buy any gimcrack
that comes out just to be "kewl". That doesn't make it worth what they're
paying for it.

As far as Apple being the be all and end all of gimmickry, I have a very
nice (and reliable) mp3/video player with a 60GB HDD in it that cost me far
less than a similar iPod, and I don't have to deal with proprietary files.

I have an original iPod and my wife has a nano, and we don't have to deal
with proprietary files either.

What's your point?

 

[D Peter Maus]

RHF wrote:

On Jul 21, 5:14 pm, D Peter Maus <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt" <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-AEBDD9.20275920072007@news.giganews.com...
I want getting phone service like when I buy a Mac.
You only want them to work in a few dozen exchanges, and use a codec that
only other phones of that brand use, so you can't talk to anyone else but
other customers of that company (sort of like Sprint's "Friends and Family"
plan). ?
There was a time that was true. Not so much since about OS X.2.

Truth is that I had a Mac on line at work since '89, and from home
since '84, and with the exception of those who bothered to read the
headers in e-mail, no one ever knew it. I've had my Macs and my PC's
talking to each other the entire time.

As long as the output files are the same format, there's no more
compatibility issue between Mac and Windows than between HP and Dell
printers. And with Solaris and Linux making a showing in the
marketplace, compatibility in general has become largely a non issue.

That's why the pissing match between the Microsoft and the keepers of
standards is such a concern. Because if MS has their way, their
proprietary formats, will continue to play havoc with compatibility
between platforms that currently play well together using standards
compliant output.

On my Macs, I use only open source software with the exception of one
or two Apple branded programs for document and presentation creation.
With the exception of nicer, more eye catching documents, and
presentations with full animation and stereo sound, none of my
colleagues can tell that I've used a Mac.

On my PC's the only MS software is the OS. Everything else...
browser, IM client, office suite...everything, is open source.

The ONLY time I've ever had a compatibility issue is using MS
software. And that's been true for more than a decade, now.

DPM - I would suspect that you are right most of my
PC related problems have come from MicroSoft (MS)
Software related issues. ~ RHF

Didn't Wal*Mart offer some PC that had a Linux OS
with some of there store brand Computer Systems
for a while ? => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2125057,00.htm

Yeah, they did for awhile. And Lindows, IIRC. Even a basic machine to
which you could bring your own O/S.

They didn't sell well.

Truth is, that there are two things that play heavily against non-MS
systems, today. There is the FUD spread by MS itself. The shadow of
lawsuits against users of Linux, and other non-MS O/S's. The huge mass
of mis and disinformation about MS compatibility, and the refusal of
many network sysadmins to even consider non-MS product on their
networks. And the built in compatibility restraints that MS builds into
their code. Especially to drive upgrades to more recent product at end
user cost, despite the fact that the end user's product is, in fact,
perfectly serviceable. MS turns off functionality when they want to
force an upgrade. Something I've had first had dealings with. Something
I also forced MS to turn back on with some very loud and very public
complaints.

Then there is the fact that Linux other systems are not quite user
friendly. Not that Windows is any prize, but it's familiar. The Devil
you know, and all that. As Linux becomes more user friendly, market
share will increase. This is what's driving the shadow of lawsuits and
the tribute payments MS has extracted from Novell and other purveyors of
Linux.

They've made similar noise against Apple for years. And even as
recently as a year and a half ago, threatened to pull the Mac division
from their catalog.

So, alternative systems are not selling well. And as they make
inroads, you can watch Redmond play different and more aggressive games
to spread FUD about non MS product.

None of it's true.

But if you afraid to believe, you don't ever take the step.

 

[D Peter Maus]

Brenda Ann wrote:

"D Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:rjxoi.86$iX3.14@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-AEBDD9.20275920072007@news.giganews.com...
I want getting phone service like when I buy a Mac.
You only want them to work in a few dozen exchanges, and use a codec that
only other phones of that brand use, so you can't talk to anyone else but
other customers of that company (sort of like Sprint's "Friends and
Family" plan). ?





There was a time that was true. Not so much since about OS X.2.

Truth is that I had a Mac on line at work since '89, and from home since
'84, and with the exception of those who bothered to read the headers in
e-mail, no one ever knew it. I've had my Macs and my PC's talking to each
other the entire time.

As long as the output files are the same format, there's no more
compatibility issue between Mac and Windows than between HP and Dell
printers. And with Solaris and Linux making a showing in the marketplace,
compatibility in general has become largely a non issue.

That's why the pissing match between the Microsoft and the keepers of
standards is such a concern. Because if MS has their way, their
proprietary formats, will continue to play havoc with compatibility
between platforms that currently play well together using standards
compliant output.

On my Macs, I use only open source software with the exception of one or
two Apple branded programs for document and presentation creation. With
the exception of nicer, more eye catching documents, and presentations
with full animation and stereo sound, none of my colleagues can tell that
I've used a Mac.

On my PC's the only MS software is the OS. Everything else... browser,
IM client, office suite...everything, is open source.

The ONLY time I've ever had a compatibility issue is using MS software.
And that's been true for more than a decade, now.


My biggest problem with Mac (I like the machines, always have) is the
relative lack of software available for them. For instance, I have several
video editing applications, and several internet webcasting applications,
and they cannot be duplicated in Mac. (or at least they could not). I'll
concede that their machines, and to an extent their OS, are very reliable.

The applications...very likely are not duplicated under Mac, no.
Their functionality will be found in other apps, however. Especially in
video and audio editing. Most of them in open source, or at least
standards compliant apps. The challenge is finding them.

There are websites that are dedicated to nothing but video and audio
apps for Macintosh. The names escape me at the moments, but if you do a
websearch you can find thousands of audio, video and webcasting apps for
Mac. Some of which are produced by Apple.

 

[RHF]

On Jul 21, 8:35 pm, "Brenda Ann" <bren...@shinbiro.com> wrote:

"Kurt" <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote in message

news:labolide-89B489.20230021072007@news.giganews.com...





In article <46A2C55E.913D0...@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Kurt wrote:

Never said they do. People want to buy iPhones and iPods because of the
ease of use and right-on-the-nose product design.

'Right-on-the-nose product design'? What you like and want may be
totally useless to a lot of other people. When i saw that Iphone on TV,
I thought it looked like another useless piece of junk. 'Right on' is
doing what you need, and doing it as easily and cheap as possible. Not
cramming every damn gimmick and stupid idea you can come up with. There
are already complaints about battery life. Don't you even wonder how
much longer it would work without all the crap?

Yes, for you, buy a phone with large numbers and voice only.

I'm a lot older than you and the iPhone does it right for 90% of what
people really want.

Youth market fuels gimmicks. Ringtones reap untold millions.

Do people REALLY want something that is easily broken, lost or stolen that
would pretty much give away their entire life if it fell into the hands of
someone else? And hey, my iPaq does most of what the iPhone does. Besides,
sometimes I want to do more than one thing at a time. For that it takes more
than one device. Cute gimmick, yeah, and young people will buy any gimcrack
that comes out just to be "kewl". That doesn't make it worth what they're
paying for it.

As far as Apple being the be all and end all of gimmickry, I have a very
nice (and reliable) mp3/video player with a 60GB HDD in it that cost me far
less than a similar iPod, and I don't have to deal with proprietary files.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BAD,

Let see to date I have never used the Camera
on my Motorola RAZR V3 Cellphone -and-
only down loaded on Ring Tone {Tune} :
"Hello Goodbye" -by- The Beattles

Two of the three iPhone owners that I know of
are ready to show everyone their iPhones . . .
but the third one already has a broken LCD
Display Screen. Oops ! They each average
$100 plus a Month in their AT&T Bill just for
the priviledge of saying : Hey Look At My iPhone !

As for me give me something like a "JitterBug"
Cellphone design with Senior Citizens in mind.
http://www.firststreetonline.com/product.jsp?id=50814&promotion=86678&PID=1583978
-but- make it comatable with the AT&T Wireless
System.

Back to the Suject of Shortwave Radio :
Currently at 4:50 UTC on 5935 kHz is Pastor Melissa $cott
keeping the $pirit of Dr Gene $cott alive -by- Teaching and
Preaching the BIBLE Word for Word -If- You see Her on
TV She has taken to wearing the Gene $cott "Look" right
down to the Shoes ) => http://www.drgenescott.org/
Has Her own website WWW . Pastor Melissa $cott . Com
PMS => http://www.pastormelissascott.com/
WWCR =>
Say "PMS" is that a recurring Prophecy ?
Yes it is "That Time* of the Month Again . . .
.. . . . . . . When We Ask For Money !" )
* Hell It Is Always Time To Ask For Money !
.
.
.. .

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Kurt wrote:

In article <46A2C55E.913D0713@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Kurt wrote:

Never said they do. People want to buy iPhones and iPods because of the
ease of use and right-on-the-nose product design.


'Right-on-the-nose product design'? What you like and want may be
totally useless to a lot of other people. When i saw that Iphone on TV,
I thought it looked like another useless piece of junk. 'Right on' is
doing what you need, and doing it as easily and cheap as possible. Not
cramming every damn gimmick and stupid idea you can come up with. There
are already complaints about battery life. Don't you even wonder how
much longer it would work without all the crap?

Yes, for you, buy a phone with large numbers and voice only.

I already have a very good digital camera, and I don't like to listen
to music through earphones or headsets. Blow all your money on gimmicks
now, so all you can afford to eat when you retire is Chinese canned cat
food.

I'm a lot older than you and the iPhone does it right for 90% of what
people really want.

Really? How old would that be?

Youth market fuels gimmicks. Ringtones reap untold millions.

Youth are generally ignorant and very wasteful.


For you I would have to buy the "Braying Jackass" ringtone. OTOH,
someone who doesn't want to be bothered when he's not home doesn't need
anything more than 911 capability on a cell phone and I can do that for
free. I have boxes full of used, working cell phones with good
batteries that the recyclers won't pay for. I might as well use up the
old batteries before I give them to the local battered women's group.
They have a good supply at the moment, so why dump more on them? They
will need new batteries before they are given out, and the used
batteries are shipped off for recycling.

The newer phones go to charity to raise money for Disabled, and other
Veterans groups.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[RHF]

On Jul 21, 9:42 pm, D Peter Maus <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

RHF wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:14 pm, D Peter Maus <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt" <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-AEBDD9.20275920072007@news.giganews.com...
I want getting phone service like when I buy a Mac.
You only want them to work in a few dozen exchanges, and use a codec that
only other phones of that brand use, so you can't talk to anyone else but
other customers of that company (sort of like Sprint's "Friends and Family"
plan). ?
There was a time that was true. Not so much since about OS X.2.

Truth is that I had a Mac on line at work since '89, and from home
since '84, and with the exception of those who bothered to read the
headers in e-mail, no one ever knew it. I've had my Macs and my PC's
talking to each other the entire time.

As long as the output files are the same format, there's no more
compatibility issue between Mac and Windows than between HP and Dell
printers. And with Solaris and Linux making a showing in the
marketplace, compatibility in general has become largely a non issue.

That's why the pissing match between the Microsoft and the keepers of
standards is such a concern. Because if MS has their way, their
proprietary formats, will continue to play havoc with compatibility
between platforms that currently play well together using standards
compliant output.

On my Macs, I use only open source software with the exception of one
or two Apple branded programs for document and presentation creation.
With the exception of nicer, more eye catching documents, and
presentations with full animation and stereo sound, none of my
colleagues can tell that I've used a Mac.

On my PC's the only MS software is the OS. Everything else...
browser, IM client, office suite...everything, is open source.

The ONLY time I've ever had a compatibility issue is using MS
software. And that's been true for more than a decade, now.

DPM - I would suspect that you are right most of my
PC related problems have come from MicroSoft (MS)
Software related issues. ~ RHF

Didn't Wal*Mart offer some PC that had a Linux OS
with some of there store brand Computer Systems
for a while ? =>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2125057,00.htm

Yeah, they did for awhile. And Lindows, IIRC. Even a basic machine to
which you could bring your own O/S.

They didn't sell well.

Truth is, that there are two things that play heavily against non-MS
systems, today. There is the FUD spread by MS itself. The shadow of
lawsuits against users of Linux, and other non-MS O/S's. The huge mass
of mis and disinformation about MS compatibility, and the refusal of
many network sysadmins to even consider non-MS product on their
networks. And the built in compatibility restraints that MS builds into
their code. Especially to drive upgrades to more recent product at end
user cost, despite the fact that the end user's product is, in fact,
perfectly serviceable. MS turns off functionality when they want to
force an upgrade. Something I've had first had dealings with. Something
I also forced MS to turn back on with some very loud and very public
complaints.

Then there is the fact that Linux other systems are not quite user
friendly. Not that Windows is any prize, but it's familiar. The Devil
you know, and all that. As Linux becomes more user friendly, market
share will increase. This is what's driving the shadow of lawsuits and
the tribute payments MS has extracted from Novell and other purveyors of
Linux.

They've made similar noise against Apple for years. And even as
recently as a year and a half ago, threatened to pull the Mac division
from their catalog.

So, alternative systems are not selling well. And as they make
inroads, you can watch Redmond play different and more aggressive games
to spread FUD about non MS product.

None of it's true.

But if you afraid to believe, you don't ever take the step.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt a Sales or Marketing
Strategy of disseminating Negative (and vague) Information
on a Competitor's Product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt
.
.
.. .

 

[Warren Oates]

In article <labolide-93EACF.19291921072007@news.giganews.com>,
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:

Final Cut Pro is pretty swell for most of the pro world.

.... and Avid have a pretty good track record too.
--
W. Oates