# The New Apple i Phone



## shepherdboy (Jan 10, 2007)

I just watch the full (1 hour plus) presentation of the soon to be release (June 2007) Apple i Phone. What a technological marvel. It does it all. Music,Pictures,Internet, and of course mobil phone. The spec's on this thing looks like borrowed alien technology. There is nothing on the market currently or fourth coming that can even come close to this new device. I hear the patented technology is well protected from copy cats and people who would seize the new multi touch format and re engineer it. I know PC's rule the planet in numbers, but for highly skilled computing, the newer iMac are light years ahead in everything from multi media to just being better at user friendly. If you currently own or have seen an Apple iPod this is the next step in evolution for the Internet, multi media, mobil phone and so on. I give it a perfect 10!   Just my 2 cents


----------



## Annie (Jan 10, 2007)

shepherdboy said:


> I just watch the full (1 hour plus) presentation of the soon to be release (June 2007) Apple i Phone. What a technological marvel. It does it all. Music,Pictures,Internet, and of course mobil phone. The spec's on this thing looks like borrowed alien technology. There is nothing on the market currently or fourth coming that can even come close to this new device. I hear the patented technology is well protected from copy cats and people who would seize the new multi touch format and re engineer it. I know PC's rule the planet in numbers, but for highly skilled computing, the newer iMac are light years ahead in everything from multi media to just being better at user friendly. If you currently own or have seen an Apple iPod this is the next step in evolution for the Internet, multi media, mobil phone and so on. I give it a perfect 10!   Just my 2 cents



Funny, I was just talking today to a friend, he's so excited about this. When I said, 'too exspensive', he replied, '$$$ for blackberry; $$$ for ipod, I think 80 something or other; $$$ for razer phone; and Safari! It's a bargain!' 

Well since I have none of those, I just saved another $600, but for those that do employ all that, now it's 'all in one.'


----------



## sitarro (Jan 11, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Funny, I was just talking today to a friend, he's so excited about this. When I said, 'too exspensive', he replied, '$$$ for blackberry; $$$ for ipod, I think 80 something or other; $$$ for razer phone; and Safari! It's a bargain!'
> 
> Well since I have none of those, I just saved another $600, but for those that do employ all that, now it's 'all in one.'



Apple has never been in the business of doing cheap, they leave that to everyone else. Apple is about innovation, ease of use, beautiful intelligent intuitive design that in the long run is less expensive. Their fans are legendary but not that easy to please(check the MAC Rumors site to see how very critical they are of every new release).

The innovations in this latest creation do not come easily or cheap, this thing took years and hundreds of exceptional minds to design and produce. The miniturization, the touch screen controls, the vivid colors and sharpness of the big screen, the ambient light sensors that set the power used to preserve battery life, the 2 gig camera, extraordinary phone features, the scrolling feature for the ipod and the internet searching, the google maps, widgets, ridiculously thin, full internet abilities, able to pick specific voice mails, syncs with computer to download your address book........the list is unbelievable even for Apple.

With all that said, you can drop thousands on a ring that does nothing, 15 grand for a Rolex watch that doesn't tell time any better than a Timex, or 600 dollars for a Mont Blanc pen that doesn't write any better than a Bic throw away.

I doubt that I will get one, don't really have the want or need for that kind of device (not big on small, I would rather a 20" portable) but I do see technology that I am sure will be used in a full size computer that will be controlled with your fingers directly on the screen and I love that.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 11, 2007)

Too bad Apple is about to get sued big time.  Cisco already trademarked the name i-phone several years ago.


----------



## 90K (Jan 11, 2007)

I think about getting a cell phone sometimes but I really can't justify having one.  I see other people who are wrapped around them and it controls their life and every move.  I think back a mere 15 years ago and how we survived withot cell phones and yet today if you don't have one you are completely outta touch....I don't think and so my life is so much easier and less stressful.  I see it as this you can't reach me via land line or email then it ain't important.


----------



## shepherdboy (Jan 11, 2007)

theHawk said:


> Too bad Apple is about to get sued big time.  Cisco already trademarked the name i-phone several years ago.



The jury is still out if Cisco even has a case. It would be very uncharacteristic for Apple not check to see if that name was already licensed and in use.


----------



## shepherdboy (Jan 11, 2007)

90K said:


> I think about getting a cell phone sometimes but I really can't justify having one.  I see other people who are wrapped around them and it controls their life and every move.  I think back a mere 15 years ago and how we survived without cell phones and yet today if you don't have one you are completely outta touch....I don't think and so my life is so much easier and less stressful.  I see it as this you can't reach me via land line or email then it ain't important.



Yea I can agree with part of your statement, but the work place has really accelerated its communication needs and the flow of information in the business world demands a cell phone for continuing and changing information to meet the customers needs. What ever happen to my two cans and the wire between them that was my tree house phone.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 11, 2007)

Apple should get rid of that silly name anyway. It certainly is not merely a phone and the name doesn't do it justice.


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 11, 2007)

shepherdboy said:


> The jury is still out if Cisco even has a case. It would be very uncharacteristic for Apple not check to see if that name was already licensed and in use.



apple stole the apple records logo and name wtf do they care about cisco....

i will never own anything they make


----------



## theHawk (Jan 12, 2007)

shepherdboy said:


> The jury is still out if Cisco even has a case. It would be very uncharacteristic for Apple not check to see if that name was already licensed and in use.



They do have a case.  Apple was in negotiations with Cisco about use of the name.  Cisco assumed that when Apple was revealing their new phone they would live up to their end of the bargain....they didn't.  Lawsuit filed the next day.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 12, 2007)

manu1959 said:


> apple stole the apple records logo and name wtf do they care about cisco....
> 
> i will never own anything they make



Umm, Cisco is a way bigger company than Apple.  80-90% of internet equipment is Cisco.  Trust me you're using Cisco if your reading this.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 12, 2007)

manu1959 said:


> apple stole the apple records logo and name wtf do they care about cisco....
> 
> i will never own anything they make



Being a huge Beatle fan who watched them first appear on Ed Sullivan's show on our black and white TV I have to say that besides Yoko, Apple Corp. was one of the worst things to happen to the Beatles. A great idea in concept it quickly became a monster that helped destroy the group. The original logo, a Granny Smith Apple was an idea of McCartney who took it directly from a very famous painting by Belgian Surrealist Rene' Magritte, "Son Of Man", which he had aquired.  Magritte died in 1967. Apple Corp. was formed in 1968.

The Beatles broke up in 1970, dissolved their partnership in 1975 and most od Apple Corp.'s divisions died at the same time. Neil Aspinall, the Beatles former road manager, has kept Apple Corp. alive since. 

Apple Computers began in 1976 and it's original logo was a complicated drawing of Sir Isaac Newton under an apple tree with the famed apple about to fall on his head. It was soon replaced by a stylistic rainbow colored apple with a bite taken out of it by designer Rob Janoff. This design was replaced by Steve Jobs when he returned to Apple in 1999. It is now basically the same shape but with a solid color. It is said to be one of the most recognized brand symbols in the world. It's easy to see why Neil Aspinall would want to sue Apple Inc. for some easy money since the company he runs is such an incredible failure despite having the most famous musical groups of all time backing it.

It's just a little hypocritical for Apple Corp. to give anyone crap about stealing logos when their logo is almost a direct copy of one in a very famous painting.

I'm sorry that you refuse to own anything Apple makes manu, you are missing out on some wonderful products. Obviously Apple wasn't copying Apple Corp. originally, it had to do with Isaac Newton and gravity. They have gone on to release groundbreaking ideas such as the Newton that although was a commercial loser has proven to be a couple of decades ahead of it's time(palm pilot). The Macintosh is obviously another reference to an apple.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 12, 2007)

Cisco already has an iPhone:


http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...455701&pagename=Linksys/Common/VisitorWrapper


----------



## sitarro (Jan 12, 2007)

theHawk said:


> Cisco already has an iPhone:
> 
> 
> http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Sate...455701&pagename=Linksys/Common/VisitorWrapper



That is exactly what I mean, why would Apple want to denigrate their beautiful creation by using the same name as that telephony thing by cisco? Cisco even calls it's own last century crap a phony. That is a telephone, what Apple has created is much more and deserves another name.

What is funny is Apple is the one that made i a prefix that means something. All of the less creative imitators and "money for nothing" rip offs(those that register names in an attempt to squeeze money out of people that actually produce something) have jumped on the use of it. That is how Cisco aquired the use of that name and they are pussies for using it in order to ride on Apples coat tails. They know full well that if it has an i in front of it, it is thought to be an Apple product(with that it gets credit for being a well built, creatively designed product which cisco obviously isn't capable of) by most of the buying public.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 12, 2007)

Cisco is not the type of company that is out to hype up some product to the mass market morons that buy whatever crap looks and sounds cool.  The name iphone was originally trademarked in 1993 by a small company(bought out later by Cisco).  Whether or not its "creative" by Cisco is irrelevant, I'm simply saying they have a pretty good case when it goes to court.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 12, 2007)

theHawk said:


> Cisco is not the type of company that is out to hype up some product to the mass market morons that buy whatever crap looks and sounds cool.



You mean like PS3, Microsoft's zzzZune and Vista, Harry Potter?




theHawk said:


> The name iphone was originally trademarked in 1993 by a small company(bought out later by Cisco).



I knew about that, this is what Cisco is saying....

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/07/01/11/1745216.shtml

  "The day after Apple announced its iPhone, Cisco sued over the name. Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, has posted an explanation of the suit on his blog: 'For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark. ...I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of "we're too busy."' What did Cisco want? '[We] wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future.'"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



theHawk said:


> Whether or not its "creative" by Cisco is irrelevant, I'm simply saying they have a pretty good case when it goes to court.



If it goes to court, this is just more press for a product that isn't even expected on the market till June. By the time the case is ready for court wouldn't it be a big new story to announce the real name with all of the extra features that are actually available for a lower price than was expected?


----------



## sitarro (Jan 12, 2007)

How interesting, it would seem that Cisco could have nothing but bullshit going for them and Jobs knew it before Tuesday, should be interesting and the court case will just keep it in the press for free...... these guys aren't beginners in marketing strategies.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

Ed Burnette

Software, gadgets and games

January 12th, 2007
Cisco lost rights to iPhone trademark last year, experts say
Posted by Ed Burnette @ 12:35 pmCategories: General


An investigation into the ongoing trademark dispute between Cisco and Apple over the name "iPhone" appears to show that Cisco does not own the mark as claimed in their recent lawsuit. This is based on publicly available information from the US Patent and Trademark office, as well as public reviews of Cisco products over the past year. The trademark was apparently abandoned in late 2005/early 2006 because Cisco was not using it.

According to Jay Behmke, a partner at CMPR who specializes in trademark law,

The Cisco iPhone trademark was registered 11/16/1999 (Reg. No. 2293011). In order to keep a trademark registration active, you have to file a Declaration of Use on or before the sixth anniversary of the registration date, in which you state, under penalty of perjury, that you have been using the trademark continuously during that period. The sixth anniversary would have been 11/16/2005.

Cisco did not file the Declaration of Use by 11/16/2005, which if they had been using the trademark would seemingly have been easy to do. However, the USPTO gives you an extra six months grace period, if you pay an extra fee. This grace period would have expired 5/16/2006. Cisco filed a Declaration of Use on 5/4/2006 which kept their registration active. Had they not filed, their registration would have been canceled.

With the Declaration, you are required to file a copy of a label or other packaging showing the trademark in use. Cisco filed a picture of the box for the Linksys iPhone.



A cropped version of the picture filed by Cisco is shown above. You can find the full image on the USPTO web site. The picture shows a box for the Linksys CIT200 Cordless Internet Telephony Kit, with a sticker showing the word "iPhone" affixed to the back, outside the shrink wrap. The front of the box is not shown, but it doesn't appear that the word iPhone appears anywhere else on the box.

A search of product reviews of the CIT200 shows no mention of the word iPhone [1]. The first mention appeared in December 2006 when Cisco unveiled a series of new products bearing the iPhone name. It was not until then that the CIT200 was rebranded under the iPhone moniker [2].

Tom Keeting, CTO of TMC Labs writes:

In fact, this seems to be true since the Linksys CIT200 and the Linksys CIT310, (both of which I reviewed) are now called the iPhone and were only recently renamed on December 18th. Specifically, each Linksys/Cisco product is called the Cordless Internet Telephony Kit or iPhone for short. The PDF manuals still reference the old name, such as this manual for the CIT200 and I couldn't find a single reference to the word "iPhone" in the manual even though I see "iPhone®" with the registered trademark throughout their website. I guess they missed that. Time to re-print/convert those PDFs!

This information indicates that Cisco did not actively offer a product named "iPhone" between 1999 and December 2006. But they knew Apple was interested in the name because Apple had approached them and negotiations were ongoing. Jay Behmke writes:

If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark.

It is possible that the Declaration of Use is defective, as there was no continuous use, and the sample that Cisco submitted was for a product not released until 7 months later. The fact that the Declaration of Use was submitted only days before the deadline expires gives me the impression that they were scrambling to get a product to market, and had to file the Declaration before the product was ready.

If Apple can prove in federal court that the Declaration of Use contained misstatements of fact, i.e. that there was no continuous use, then Cisco's registration can be canceled. This could clear the way for the next company in line for the iPhone trademark, Ocean Telecom Services LLC (widely regarded as a front company for Apple). It could also explain why Apple decided not to sign the agreement Cisco proposed. Behmke:

Without the registration, Cisco and Apple would still have a trademark dispute to resolve, but Cisco will have a harder time proving that it has valid trademark rights.

Cisco acquired the trademark when it purchased Infogear in 2000. Ironically, Infogear was granted the trademark after it was abandoned by its previous owner, a company called "Cidco".

Notes:

[1] Reviews of the CIT200, which do not mention "iPhone":

Linksys CIT200 Skype phone review (October 10, 2005)
Linksys debuts cordless Skype VoIP handset (October 11, 2005)
Linksys CIT200 Internet Telephony Kit review (January 11, 2006)
Linksys CIT200 cordless Skype handset (April 11, 2006)
Amazon listing for CIT200 (January 12, 2007)
[2] The Cisco/Linksys iPhone launch in December 2006:

Introducing the iPhoneBut Not from Apple (December 18, 2006)
iPhone launched but not by Apple (December 18, 2006)
Related articles:

Apple vs. Cisco over iPhone
Cisco on brink of losing iPhone name in Europe


----------



## liberalogic (Jan 14, 2007)

shepherdboy said:


> I just watch the full (1 hour plus) presentation of the soon to be release (June 2007) Apple i Phone. What a technological marvel. It does it all. Music,Pictures,Internet, and of course mobil phone. The spec's on this thing looks like borrowed alien technology. There is nothing on the market currently or fourth coming that can even come close to this new device. I hear the patented technology is well protected from copy cats and people who would seize the new multi touch format and re engineer it. I know PC's rule the planet in numbers, but for highly skilled computing, the newer iMac are light years ahead in everything from multi media to just being better at user friendly. If you currently own or have seen an Apple iPod this is the next step in evolution for the Internet, multi media, mobil phone and so on. I give it a perfect 10!   Just my 2 cents



Great, another thing to make me feel socially, economically, and technologically inferior.  Can't we just be happy with what we have?


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 14, 2007)

theHawk said:


> Umm, Cisco is a way bigger company than Apple.  80-90% of internet equipment is Cisco.  Trust me you're using Cisco if your reading this.



apple is on my shit list not cisco


----------



## Annie (Jan 14, 2007)

manu1959 said:


> apple is on my shit list not cisco



We disagree on something! The sky still there? I love my G5!


----------



## 90K (Jan 16, 2007)

shepherdboy said:


> Yea I can agree with part of your statement, but the work place has really accelerated its communication needs and the flow of information in the business world demands a cell phone for continuing and changing information to meet the customers needs. What ever happen to my two cans and the wire between them that was my tree house phone.



No that is true but until I'm either required to get a phone or my company breaks down and pays for it I can wait.  I'm personally not in a position to be required to have a phone.  I would be convenient but again in time I'd be like the rest of yous and be tied to these things that won't leave me a lone. That ain't anyway to live but hey Im obviously out numbered here.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 16, 2007)

90K said:


> No that is true but until I'm either required to get a phone or my company breaks down and pays for it I can wait.  I'm personally not in a position to be required to have a phone.  I would be convenient but again in time I'd be like the rest of yous and be tied to these things that won't leave me a lone. That ain't anyway to live but hey Im obviously out numbered here.



I have a cell phone and don't answer it most of the time, that is what voice mail is for. I find that the whole phone thing is as much of an addiction as a drug. 

I find Apple's new phone more interesting for the technology I see that will no doubt be used in a great new computer than for the phone itself. I already have a phone, an ipod, a computer and a camera.....although I find it intriging to see great design that puts all those together in an impossibly small package, that is what I have learned to expect from Apple. I especially enjoy seeing their stock rise again after the experts were sure years ago that they would be long gone by now, it is nice to see great design work beating out the mediocre crap that has become the norm in our country. I doubt that I will own one, I'm not the target consumer.


----------



## Roopull (Jan 27, 2007)

sitarro said:


> The innovations in this latest creation do not come easily or cheap, this thing took years and hundreds of exceptional minds to design and produce. The miniturization, the touch screen controls, the vivid colors and sharpness of the big screen, the ambient light sensors that set the power used to preserve battery life, the 2 gig camera, extraordinary phone features, the scrolling feature for the ipod and the internet searching, the google maps, widgets, ridiculously thin, full internet abilities, able to pick specific voice mails, syncs with computer to download your address book........the list is unbelievable even for Apple.


Not to poo poo your excitement, but there are already plenty of other "smartphones" out there that do all of that & more.  The most practical have a small keyboard of some sort.  Can you imagine trying to do anything on the internet via a touch-screen keyboard?  What a pain in the butt.

The Smartphone I have does just about everything you just mentioned & much much more...  and mine hit the market over a year ago!!!


If you think the Apple Iphone is so amazing, maybe you should check out what Blackberry, Palm, and the numerous "Pocket PC" makers have to offer.

Just like the Ipod vs other MP3 players, the Iphone offers fewer features for more money.  I'm sure, as you have made clear, they'll sell plenty of them, though.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 27, 2007)

Roopull said:


> Not to poo poo your excitement, but there are already plenty of other "smartphones" out there that do all of that & more.  The most practical have a small keyboard of some sort.  Can you imagine trying to do anything on the internet via a touch-screen keyboard?  What a pain in the butt.
> 
> The Smartphone I have does just about everything you just mentioned & much much more...  and mine hit the market over a year ago!!!



This reporter for the Chicago Sun Times disagrees with you.......but then again Steve Jobs probably paid him very well for this article...right?

January 18, 2007
BY ANDY IHNATKO
I have used the Apple iPhone. I had a private briefing the day after Steve Jobs' keynote and spent about 45 minutes noodling around with the device.
You may touch the hem of my robe if you wish.

In response to a Beatlemania-scale pile of e-mails, here's what I can tell you so far, based on my hands-on impressions, my talks with Apple and general first-hand sniffing around:


1. The touch-interface works flawlessly, in terms of both technical function and user interface design. Whatever you want to do -- select an album to play, make or take a call, compose and send an e-mail -- your first impulse is almost always the correct one.

This is the simplest phone ever.

And there are no lags, no pauses, no waiting for the slickly animated UI to catch up with you, even when you're scrolling through a stack of album art that's flopping past your finger in 3D: It's liquid.

The bad news: It works only with direct, skin contact. You can't wear gloves, and I don't know if you can even put a screen protector on it. On the plus side, the screen is supposed to be more scratch-resistant than an iPod.

"So long as you don't have a pocket full of broken glass, it'll be OK in there," I was told.


2. I think the iPhone's virtual keyboard is a huge improvement over the mechanical thumbpads found on the Treo and any other smart phones of its size.

The buttons are significantly larger, you don't have to hit them dead-center, you lightly tap them instead of punching them down, and the software is smart enough to know that you meant to type "Tuesday" instead of "Tudsday."

After 30 seconds, I was already typing faster with the iPhone than I ever have with any other phone. I suspect that true e-mail demons will need to adapt to the lack of tactile feedback, though.


3. It's the most beautiful freakin' display I've ever seen on a phone or PDA, both in range of color and level of detail. Even microscopic browser text is credibly readable.


4. The apps that were functional at the time of the demo give the satisfying, protein-rich experience of "real" software. The mail client and browser make you feel like you're using a powerful desktop app, not a cell phone that can kind of send e-mail and browse the Web (depending on how you define "e-mail" and "the Web").


5. Apple will keep a very tight rein on software development.

I asked point-blank if third parties would be able to write and distribute iPhone apps and was told, point-blank, no.

However, it appears that there'll be some third-party opportunities. I'm going to take a guess that iPhone software will be distributed the same way as iPod games: no "unsigned" apps will install, but apps will start appearing on the iTunes Store after successfully passing through a mysterious process of Apple certification -- one that ensures that they meet a certain standard of quality and won't, you know, secretly send your credit-card info to Nigeria.

The lockdown on software is an area of ongoing suspicious interest. I noticed that the iPhone's pre-release browser was missing some plug-ins. I asked if Real and Macromedia et al. would be writing media plug-ins for the iPhone's Web browser, and was told that no, the browser would ship with plug-ins, but Apple would be writing them all in-house. Odd, that.


6. The iPhone runs the same OS as the Macintosh. And not in the way that Windows Mobile is, I suppose, technically, if you want to split hairs about it, classified somewhere in the Microsoft Windows phylum.

Nope, everything I've learned (both in official briefings and "you and I never spoke, all right?" sort of discussions) says that it truly does run Leopard, the upcoming 10.5 OS that will be released for the Macintosh late in the spring.

Those spiffy UI animations, for instance, come courtesy of Leopard's Core Animation suite.

So will it run Mac software? Nope. The iPhone runs OS X, but it's an iPhone, not a Macintosh. And it stands to reason that the OS on the iPhone doesn't include any bits that it doesn't need.

And no, the iPhone's Widgets aren't the same as the Mac's Dashboard widgets. But they do use DashCode and other desktop widget tech, so who knows? I'm really hoping that widgets will be more open to third-party developers than apps.


7. The iPhone is still under development and isn't feature-complete. I opened the "Notes" application and found myself tapping impotently at a JPEG of what the app is supposed to look like. And the camera app only had one button.

Any complaints about what the iPhone can't do are premature. Remember, it won't ship for six months.

I really, really like what I've seen so far. But true judgment won't come until June.


Andy Ihnatko writes on technical and computer issues for the Sun-Times.






Roopull said:


> If you think the Apple Iphone is so amazing, maybe you should check out what Blackberry, Palm, and the numerous "Pocket PC" makers have to offer.



Have you looked at the iphone? Have you seen the screen? have you seen the touch screen technology used in it? I know, touch screens are nothing new but touch screens that work this well, look that well and are that small are special. Like I said before, I probably will not own one of these phones. I don't really care about spending time typing messages on a phone and I actually enjoy writing notes with a pen and paper, I like the feel and the personal touch that isn't possible over the internet or on the phone.





Roopull said:


> Just like the Ipod vs other MP3 players, the Iphone offers fewer features for more money.  I'm sure, as you have made clear, they'll sell plenty of them, though.




You might want to share these startling observations with the many experts coming out of the woodwork to say how incredible the iphone is. Then you can let the 73 million of people who not only were happy to buy an ipod but love the decision everyday when they enjoy the use of it, just how stupid they are. Yea, I know, someone, somewhere had a problem with the battery or the hard drive or itunes not working on their PC but for the most part there is a reason why Apple is dominating the music player and download industry(just hit the 2 billion mark, that's billion with a B). 

I suggest you buy whatever makes you feel good about how much smarter you are. I will continue to support Apple because I believe in the work that they do....plenty of people will never see it, just as many people will look at Michelangelo's Pieta and say big deal, it's just a statue, or look at a 59 Porsche Speedster and say it looks like a smashed Volkswagen. I'm one of the ones that gets tears in my eyes when I see "The Pieta" because it is easily the finest work of art ever produced by human(?) hands. No I'm not comparing Apple with Michelangelo....the point is that some are perfectly happy to drive a Hundai, working on a compaq with Windows and live in a mobile home and think the starving artist sale paintings are great art...I don't so shoot me.

I don't pretend that there aren't other products that have more features for less money.... I don't care. I have stock in Apple because I like their innovation that tends to be copied by everyone else and usually poorly(Microsoft's Zune player...what an obvious ripoff). Their beauty of design that also just happens to work.


----------



## Greg Bernhardt (Jan 27, 2007)

Japan has had better phones for several years now.  The US is BEHIND


----------



## sitarro (Jan 28, 2007)

Greg Bernhardt said:


> Japan has had better phones for several years now.  The US is BEHIND



Really, check this four and a half minute video out and tell me that anyone has anything close to the ease of use and functionality enclosed in something so small and beautiful.

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk&mode=related&search=[/ame]


----------



## Greg Bernhardt (Jan 28, 2007)

sitarro said:


> Really, check this four and a half minute video out and tell me that anyone has anything close to the ease of use and functionality enclosed in something so small and beautiful.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk&mode=related&search=



Bluntly put it's not even 3G.  Cingular has an outdated network.  Japan doesn't even use credit cards anymore.  They can all pay with their phones, even buy train tickets buy scanning their phone.  They can video conference with their phones that is crystal clear and fast.  And they've been doing it for years.

Sure the iphone has a nice screen, but who wants to wipes the grease off the screen every five seconds.  And actually the amount of GUI and animation will slow down functionality.  Mechanical buttons are faster and fool proof.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 28, 2007)

Greg Bernhardt said:


> Bluntly put it's not even 3G.  Cingular has an outdated network.  Japan doesn't even use credit cards anymore.  They can all pay with their phones, even buy train tickets buy scanning their phone.  They can video conference with their phones that is crystal clear and fast.  And they've been doing it for years.
> 
> Sure the iphone has a nice screen, but who wants to wipes the grease off the screen every five seconds.  And actually the amount of GUI and animation will slow down functionality.  Mechanical buttons are faster and fool proof.





I give up, enjoy your Vista worlds kids(mediocre weak ass copies).... I'll just keep working with an OS (leopard will come out after Vista so Microsoft will have less to steal)that always works and never, ever gets a virus, blue screen or whatever....it just works perfectly.


----------



## Roopull (Jan 28, 2007)

sitarro said:


> You might want to share these startling observations with the many experts coming out of the woodwork to say how incredible the iphone is. Then you can let the 73 million of people who not only were happy to buy an ipod but love the decision everyday when they enjoy the use of it, just how stupid they are. Yea, I know, someone, somewhere had a problem with the battery or the hard drive or itunes not working on their PC but for the most part there is a reason why Apple is dominating the music player and download industry(just hit the 2 billion mark, that's billion with a B).


Have you ever actually looked at the competition to the Ipod?  FM tuners, user serviceable batteries, voice recorders, wi-fi connectivity with web browsing, displays with literally 4 times the resolution...  I could go on.  Feature for feature, the Ipod is inferior & costs more.  Look, I won't go into why I know what I know, you probably wouldn't listen, anyway.  The state of the art Ipod is only now doing what MP3 players were doing three or four years ago...  and they're still not doing it as well or reliably.  

The key difference is that Ipod & Apple get plenty of free publicity so the sheeple usually don't know any better...  they're cool, groovy, hip & all that nonsense.  If you want to have a media player that's as cool as your sneakers, get an Ipod.  If you want something that's going to do what you want it to do & then some, well...  shop around.



> I suggest you buy whatever makes you feel good about how much smarter you are.


I never said I was smarter... I might not be as ignorant as some, however...  at least on some subjects.  Are you sensitive about your intelligence?  Why bring it up?



> the point is that some are perfectly happy to drive a Hundai, working on a compaq with Windows and live in a mobile home and think the starving artist sale paintings are great art...I don't so shoot me.


Ever think you might be the one driving a Hyundai while thinking you're driving a Lexus simply because some slick marketing & media hype told you so?



> I don't pretend that there aren't other products that have more features for less money.... I don't care. I have stock in Apple


Ahh...  now I understand why you're so excited about the Iphone.


My opinions are based on a few years of experience in the product reclamation department of a computer parts supply distributorship.  I know what breaks, what sells, & how they work.  


Look, I'm not saying the Iphone is a piece of crap.  It's just nothing to get all excited about & the fact that news hounds are editorializing about the thing like it's the second coming is hilarious to me.  Laughable, even.  HA.  See, I laughed.

The best part is that the ONE thing the Iphone really has in spades over what's already on the market has only been mentioned in passing.



> Bluntly put it's not even 3G.


Those zippy graphics will look great at 14.4 Kbps.


----------



## sitarro (Feb 2, 2007)

Roopull said:


> Have you ever actually looked at the competition to the Ipod?  FM tuners, user serviceable batteries, voice recorders, wi-fi connectivity with web browsing, displays with literally 4 times the resolution...  I could go on.  Feature for feature, the Ipod is inferior & costs more.  Look, I won't go into why I know what I know, you probably wouldn't listen, anyway.  The state of the art Ipod is only now doing what MP3 players were doing three or four years ago...  and they're still not doing it as well or reliably.



Examples?



Roopull said:


> The key difference is that Ipod & Apple get plenty of free publicity so the sheeple usually don't know any better...  they're cool, groovy, hip & all that nonsense.  If you want to have a media player that's as cool as your sneakers, get an Ipod.  If you want something that's going to do what you want it to do & then some, well...  shop around.



Really? That explains why 73 million have been sold, they are all sheeple. Is that why when you see people in the music business listening to a portable music player they almost always have white earbuds in their ears?



Roopull said:


> I never said I was smarter... I might not be as ignorant as some, however...  at least on some subjects.  Are you sensitive about your intelligence?  Why bring it up?



No I'm not sensitive about much of anything, you can call me a honky, crakker or white boy and I still won't feel a need to jump up and down and call you a racist.....I don't give a shit.




Roopull said:


> Ever think you might be the one driving a Hyundai while thinking you're driving a Lexus simply because some slick marketing & media hype told you so?




No, not at all. You must be talking about the ridiculous hype put out with the release, finally, of Microsoft's Vista, a 5 year project that was obsolete before it came out.




Roopull said:


> Ahh...  now I understand why you're so excited about the Iphone.




Actually I am excited at the touch screen technology I see used with the phone that will no doubt be available on a portable computer soon.




Roopull said:


> My opinions are based on a few years of experience in the product reclamation department of a computer parts supply distributorship.  I know what breaks, what sells, & how they work.




Why aren't you enlightening us with your real world knowledge of whose products are superior?




Roopull said:


> Look, I'm not saying the Iphone is a piece of crap.  It's just nothing to get all excited about & the fact that news hounds are editorializing about the thing like it's the second coming is hilarious to me.  Laughable, even.  HA.  See, I laughed.



Again, any examples? Greg's Japanese phones aren't available here, whose phone is superior and is actually available in this country?



Roopull said:


> The best part is that the ONE thing the Iphone really has in spades over what's already on the market has only been mentioned in passing.



Is it a secret?


Those zippy graphics will look great at 14.4 Kbps.[/QUOTE]

So I guess that the examples used in the video were actually a hoax because it appeared that the graphics were keeping up just fine.


----------



## Roopull (Feb 4, 2007)

sitarro said:


> Examples?


If you're really curious...  for smartphones (that's what the Iphone would be classified as - basically a PDA with phone functionality,) check out UT Starcom's PocketPCs (I have one of these,) Palm Treos, or Blackberries.  I don't think there's a single function the Iphone does that these can't do.  For playing music, I think some models require downloading free software, but whatever... they're not marketed to Ipod users.  Playing music files is secondary to the business functions like reading & editing Word, Excel, & PDA files.




> Really? That explains why 73 million have been sold, they are all sheeple. Is that why when you see people in the music business listening to a portable music player they almost always have white earbuds in their ears?


I use white earbuds for my Pocket PC, but I understand your point.  Yeah, in a sense, many of them are sheeple.  But, that doesn't fully explain the Ipod boom.  Digital music players are a lot like sneakers, clothes or cars.  They serve a utilitarian purpose (playing music,) but also are an expression of who you are.  Take cars for example.  If people only bought cars because of their functionality, we'd probably all be driving Priuses, Accords or Cobalts...  A to B type of machines that simply fulfill that utilitarian purpose (no offense to any owners of those cars... I have an Accord, myself.)  The point is that a car is an expression of who you are... so macho guys might buy a Charger & treehuggers might buy a hybrid Camry.  

Ipod has been supported by some amazing marketing...  in a word, they're _cool._  Creative Labs... well, I'm not even sure they advertise at all.  What kind of image could that project?




> No, not at all. You must be talking about the ridiculous hype put out with the release, finally, of Microsoft's Vista, a 5 year project that was obsolete before it came out.


Check one of your threads for my opinion of Vista, Mac's OS or any of the others... they'll all be pretty obsolete before too long.  We'll all be using Firefox, Opera or some other browser more than we'll be depending on the features of our OS.

Please quit putting words into my mouth.


> Actually I am excited at the touch screen technology I see used with the phone that will no doubt be available on a portable computer soon.


That's one of the things that gets me about Apple fans...  they're (no offense) ignorant of what's already on the market & offered by the competition.  Every one of the examples I previously mentioned has touch screen technology.  And on my Pocket PC, I don't need the stylus, either...  I use my finger the vast majority of the time.  Plus, there are already laptops with touchscreens...  they're called tablets, generally.  They've been on the market - literally - for years.  Just because Apple doesn't have one at twice the price doesn't mean they don't exist.


> Why aren't you enlightening us with your real world knowledge of whose products are superior?


Ask an you shall receive.




> Is it a secret?


Nope.  As I mentioned, Apple fans generally don't have a clue about the competition & therefore don't have a clue what is unique about Apple products.  It's the on-board memory.  It's astounding.

Ipods - the bigger ones, anyway - essentially use a laptop's hard disk drive to store all that music on.  Generally, anything with more than 4 or so gigs of memory uses a hard drive.  Compared with the other type (flash memory) they're more fragile, heavier & use more batterly life, but have the capability of storing hundreds of gigs compared to just a few gigs with flash.  Little Ipods like the Shuffle & Nano use flash memory.  

Anyhoo, for whatever reason, most smartphones only have enough onboard memory to operate the business functions of the phones...  that's usually less than one gig.  As I suggested, the music playing feature is essentially an afterthought.  Most do have expansion slots, but that still only gives you up to two gigs. 

The Iphone will start out with 8 gigs, iirc...  there's no reason later models couldn't have 160.  I know there are other smartphones coming to market with hard drives in them...  not sure that's something I'd want.  When you hear about an Ipod or other MP3 player losing all the music, it's usually because of a damaged hard drive (they're really rather fragile.)  All it takes is one good bump while the hard drive is spinning to permanently destroy the thing.



> > Those zippy graphics will look great at 14.4 Kbps.
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that the examples used in the video were actually a hoax because it appeared that the graphics were keeping up just fine.


What other applications were running during the show?  Can they pull those graphics off ON LINE?  That's the point...  most of the internet is graphics heavy.  For instance, your computer can certainly display the internet's flashy graphics, your OS's flashy graphics AND the graphics of a few applications all at the same time.  That's the load on the processor.  Assuming the processor on the Iphone kicks butt (I'm sure it will,) that doesn't mean squat if it's essentially downloading those internet graphics at 14.4kps...

It's the network, not the phone.  If the phone isn't 3G, that aspect is already outdated...  Easily upgraded, though.


----------



## Vintij (Feb 15, 2007)

I believe the iphones have optional airport wireless cards. Which would make the network really fast and able to download and stream from anywhere on earth, near a signal ofcourse. I also believe the iphones can double as a remote for your computer, TV, stereo, even garage door opener. Not to mention the graphics are going to equal an ipod video which means full web browsing. Apple never dissapoints, and the reason everyone switches is because the hardware, sleek look, and ofcourse the security. basically a safer way to do everything faster while looking cooler.


----------



## sitarro (Feb 21, 2007)

Cisco, Apple Settle iPhone Lawsuit
By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Technology Writer

1 hour ago
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Cisco Systems Inc. and Apple Inc. said Wednesday they have settled the trademark-infringement lawsuit that threatened to derail Apple's use of the "iPhone" name for its much-hyped new iPod-cellular phone gadget.

The companies said they reached an agreement that will allow Apple to use the name for its sleek new multimedia device in exchange for exploring wide-ranging "interoperability" between the companies' products in the areas of security, consumer and business communications. No other details of the agreement were released.

The companies both said they would dismiss any pending legal actions regarding the trademark.


----------



## jib (Mar 3, 2007)

waste


----------



## AuDioFreaK39 (Oct 29, 2008)

got my iPhone 3G on launch day July 11, 2008.  First in line at South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa, CA


(got there at 2am)


----------



## efice32 (Oct 29, 2008)

Roopull said:


> What other applications were running during the show?  Can they pull those graphics off ON LINE?  That's the point...  most of the internet is graphics heavy.  For instance, your computer can certainly display the internet's flashy graphics, your OS's flashy graphics AND the graphics of a few applications all at the same time.  That's the load on the processor.  Assuming the processor on the Iphone kicks butt (I'm sure it will,) that doesn't mean squat if it's essentially downloading those internet graphics at 14.4kps...
> 
> It's the network, not the phone.  If the phone isn't 3G, that aspect is already outdated...  Easily upgraded, though.


Actually the operating system in the iPhone works in such a way that when you go back to the home screen it actually quits the application you were in previously.  There are no applications running in the background while you are in the web browser, for example.  As you mentioned the 3G aspect is easily upgraded and Apple has done so.

-----

I got my iPhone 3G about 2 weeks ago and I love it.  I was a bit apprehensive about the lack of physical buttons and tactile feedback for typing, but it hasn't been an issue at all.  It only took me about 20 minutes of texting with friends to get used to the touch-screen keyboard and the auto-correct features work extremely well for the occasions in which I do mess up.  What a great device.  Apple hit the ball out of the park with this one.  

Also, Steve Jobs just announced that for the last quarter Apple sold more iPhones than RIM sold Blackberries.  People seem to be seeing the light.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Oct 29, 2008)

Oh My God

How on earth can any of you afford an i phone?

Don't you know you're supposed to be hurting?  These are hard times...hard times for one and all....

We're facing the worst economy since the Great depression and you have the absolute gall to buy an i phone that money should be taken from you if you are going to be so irresponsible and given to someone who needs to buy food for their starving children to eat while they watch their favorite cartoon on Nickelodeon or play games on their Wii.

What's next? I suppose your going to buy some new clothes you un-American greedy people flaunting you wealth in the face of all those families who are losing their homes.

How dare you.***




















sarcasm


----------



## efice32 (Oct 29, 2008)

Roopull said:


> If you're really curious...  for smartphones (that's what the Iphone would be classified as - basically a PDA with phone functionality,) check out UT Starcom's PocketPCs (I have one of these,) Palm Treos, or Blackberries.  I don't think there's a single function the Iphone does that these can't do.  For playing music, I think some models require downloading free software, but whatever... they're not marketed to Ipod users.  Playing music files is secondary to the business functions like reading & editing Word, Excel, & PDA files.
> 
> 
> I use white earbuds for my Pocket PC, but I understand your point.  Yeah, in a sense, many of them are sheeple.  But, that doesn't fully explain the Ipod boom.  Digital music players are a lot like sneakers, clothes or cars.  They serve a utilitarian purpose (playing music,) but also are an expression of who you are.  Take cars for example.  If people only bought cars because of their functionality, we'd probably all be driving Priuses, Accords or Cobalts...  A to B type of machines that simply fulfill that utilitarian purpose (no offense to any owners of those cars... I have an Accord, myself.)  The point is that a car is an expression of who you are... so macho guys might buy a Charger & treehuggers might buy a hybrid Camry.
> ...





Skull Pilot said:


> Oh My God
> 
> How on earth can any of you afford an i phone?
> 
> ...


hahahaha I actually thought this was going to be serious when I started reading it...funny stuff


----------

