1. mikec#IM's Avatar
    mikec is an *** and everyone knows it
    Now you're making me blush....
    07-27-2007 10:28 AM
  2. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Nope, surfer is in there.
    Ineeed it was; my bad.
    07-27-2007 10:29 AM
  3. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Ya think, Hodad?
    You don't know what you are goofing on, but this is still kinda funny.
    07-27-2007 10:31 AM
  4. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Um, I hate to say this, but if you look at your post that I quoted you were the one that mentioned right after AT&T posted their activations, it was far less than the 500,000 to 1 million estimated. Obviously you were therefore implying that people estimated Apple would sell upwards of 1 million units in the first 30 hours (the length of time the iPhone was for sale in AT&Ts quarter). I have never seen these estimations on the first 30 hours, but clearly you must have. Please post your source for us all to share. Still so very hard to admit that you were wrong. Keep firing away Gordon Gekko, you market analysis is fascinating.
    I implied no such thing; again, you are trying (endlessly) to twist and twist.

    I posted the source of iPhone estimate several times; the fact you ignore them is unfortunate for you.

    Since I never made any predictions, I can't see how I was wrong in stating that initial activations were less than WS analyst forecasts.
    07-27-2007 10:35 AM
  5. mobileman's Avatar
    I implied no such thing; again, you are trying (endlessly) to twist and twist.

    I posted the source of iPhone estimate several times; the fact you ignore them is unfortunate for you.

    Since I never made any predictions, I can't see how I was wrong in stating that initial activations were less than WS analyst forecasts.
    Lets connect the dots for Gordon Gekko here.

    1. AT&T releases initial Activation numbers for first 30 hours.
    2. Gordon claims Apple missed the mark of 500,000 to 1 million sold for first weekend.
    3. Gordon claims "Reality sucks for fanboys."
    4. Gordon claims iPhone sales are slowing due to his own field research at mall.
    07-27-2007 10:40 AM
  6. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Obviously you fail at reasoning.

    1. Since the early 90s. Try reading that a few times. How many years have there been since the early 90s?

    2. When you said, "um, apparently not," you were wrong. When you said, "Obviously, this is not true," you were wrong. None of your links contradict my statement that she was right more than she was wrong since the early 90s.

    3. I wouldn't mind educating you if your self-confidence weren't so out of line with your actual knowledge.

    You're a tiresome person.
    If you disagree with my reasoning, feel free to educate me. I am open to such information, despite your condescending tone.

    You made an opinion, and presented it as fact. In the absence of info, I presented a contrarian view. Feel free to post evidence to support your view.


    1.) Please define the early 90s. 91? 92? 93? Instead of me reading your mind, why don't you be specific? You said "since", so let's just say 1992-2007 - 15 years. I posted a link that shows 8 of those years, she was off the mark. Over 50% of the time. Please present your case.

    2.) Yes, they do contradict your point. Present your case.

    3.) Please go ahead, no excuses needed.

    Re: calling me names, I will refrain from name calling, as I am giving you a chance to repsond.
    07-27-2007 10:46 AM
  7. mikec#IM's Avatar
    but somehow you will still be wrong, like i was. we're all wrong (the analysts included), they're not.

    funny how it works.
    Martyr suits must be on sale at Wal-Mart.
    07-27-2007 10:47 AM
  8. mikec#IM's Avatar
    How true.
    You seem very engaged.
    07-27-2007 10:48 AM
  9. mikec#IM's Avatar
    I do not think that it is a protocol problem. More likely an implementation problem. If it were a protocol problem, it would be necessary to account for the many very good implementations.

    My Plantronics stereo phones work very well. They work well with my Treo and my iPod. (When the little thingy finally ships, I expect them to work well with my iPhone. ) They work well for stereo music, switch to the phone when it rings, and automatically go back to music when the call ends. I can walk away from the Treo while wearing it.

    Over the last w/e I rode one hundred miles in what one can only describe as a BT BMW. Great implementation.

    I think that the problems that we have with BT headsets for phones is a design problem that centers around power management. Designing for light weight, RF power, long life, and quick recharge is difficult. I have a Motorola that uses a AAA battery. If one can stand the weight (I cannot), it has good performance and very long life. I think that one reason the performance of my Plantronics stereo headset it so good that has a big battery at both ends of the BT.
    Agreed. Implementations are horrible, but I still think there are issues with the protocol. (maybe an 80/20, 90/10 sort of thing.)
    07-27-2007 10:52 AM
  10. mobileman's Avatar
    You seem very engaged.
    Nope, just agree with him.
    07-27-2007 10:56 AM
  11. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Nope, just agree with him.
    So I am tiresome, and you are still engaged. Hmmm....
    07-27-2007 10:57 AM
  12. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Lets connect the dots for Gordon Gekko here.

    1. AT&T releases initial Activation numbers for first 30 hours.
    2. Gordon claims Apple missed the mark of 500,000 to 1 million sold for first weekend.
    3. Gordon claims "Reality sucks for fanboys."
    4. Gordon claims iPhone sales are slowing due to his own field research at mall.
    Connecting dots is for 4 year olds, which may be the extent of your reasoning skills. The above dellusion seems to be growing.

    Here are the posts, plain and clear. Reading is what adults do. They address whatever issues you had:

    #1618, 1621, 1702.

    Unfortunately, instead of recognizing and addressing the content, you want to jump all over me. I'm sorry mommy took away the breast too soon, or that you got picked on at school or whatever reason you are so angry that you've latched onto me.
    07-27-2007 11:02 AM
  13. whmurray's Avatar
    So I am tiresome, and you are still engaged. Hmmm....
    Let's face it, guys. The noise in this thread is getting kind of high.
    07-27-2007 01:51 PM
  14. treobk214's Avatar
    You don't know what you are goofing on, but this is still kinda funny.
    I dont know what Im goofing on? How can you be so sure what I know and dont know?
    07-27-2007 02:04 PM
  15. Malatesta's Avatar
    Mmmm - even the snazzy UI can not make up for poor voice quality.
    lol
    I can have better conversations on $49.00 phones than this $500-$600 phone. Something is just wrong with that scenario.
    Though I've heard that this is the case with a lot of GSM phones here in the U.S., you'd figured VC would be outstanding on this phone. Oh well.

    Keep up the posts Surur to return this thread to normal...
    07-27-2007 02:14 PM
  16. braj's Avatar
    Let's face it, guys. The noise in this thread is getting kind of high.
    Yep, it isn't exactly civil right now. I posted a 'rocks' thread just for some balance. Head over there to glorify the iPhone if you like The weekend is here and the negativity in this thread from all sides (me included) harshes my mellow. It seems pointless to post more in this thread until it gets back on topic.
    07-27-2007 02:16 PM
  17. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Let's face it, guys. The noise in this thread is getting kind of high.
    Agreed.
    07-27-2007 02:21 PM
  18. mikec#IM's Avatar
    I dont know what Im goofing on? How can you be so sure what I know and dont know?
    You made a surfing reference, but my use of surfer is not related to that, so that indicates you do not know what I was referring to. But I found your repsonse funny (to me).
    07-27-2007 02:23 PM
  19. mikec#IM's Avatar
    Yep, it isn't exactly civil right now. I posted a 'rocks' thread just for some balance. Head over there to glorify the iPhone if you like The weekend is here and the negativity in this thread from all sides (me included) harshes my mellow. It seems pointless to post more in this thread until it gets back on topic.
    "harshes my mellow" - excellent line.
    07-27-2007 02:24 PM
  20. samkim's Avatar
    If you disagree with my reasoning, feel free to educate me. I am open to such information, despite your condescending tone.

    You made an opinion, and presented it as fact. In the absence of info, I presented a contrarian view. Feel free to post evidence to support your view.


    1.) Please define the early 90s. 91? 92? 93? Instead of me reading your mind, why don't you be specific? You said "since", so let's just say 1992-2007 - 15 years. I posted a link that shows 8 of those years, she was off the mark. Over 50% of the time. Please present your case.

    2.) Yes, they do contradict your point. Present your case.

    3.) Please go ahead, no excuses needed.

    Re: calling me names, I will refrain from name calling, as I am giving you a chance to repsond.
    1. Apparently you define opinion as anything you're not familiar with. Or have to google.
    2. Projecting one market index is a very minor part of her job, which involves a more nuanced assessment of broader market conditions. Her directional guidance is much more meaningful to asset allocation decisions than these arbitrary numbers, but people analyze the numbers because they are easy to latch on to.
    3. Your CXO link showed she was off for 2 to 4 years for her S&P projections, not 8 years as you claim. The author of that report ignored the 90s because that data didn't support his argument.
    4. The 10/2002 CNN article on the JWA site describes the same few years. The author also incredulously describes AJC's S&P target of 1150 in 12 to 18 months - a rise of 47%. The S&P hit 1146 in 16 months.
    5. Your iTulip link shows a period of 9 months. Why would you even post this? Do you understand why I said you're tiresome? You post over and over and over again, disputing a very safe statement, which is widely accepted to be true. (Again, none of the writers you cite contradict my point.) As I said, AJC is a "perpetual bull." She didn't see the bear market at the turn of the century, and so she was criticized for a couple of years. You cherry pick articles about those years, and act like you said something I didn't know. She has a 7 figure income because she's got a great deal of credibility among professional investors based on her track record.
    07-27-2007 06:29 PM
  21. mikec#IM's Avatar
    1. Apparently you define opinion as anything you're not familiar with. Or have to google.
    2. Projecting one market index is a very minor part of her job, which involves a more nuanced assessment of broader market conditions. Her directional guidance is much more meaningful to asset allocation decisions than these arbitrary numbers, but people analyze the numbers because they are easy to latch on to.
    3. Your CXO link showed she was off for 2 to 4 years for her S&P projections, not 8 years as you claim. The author of that report ignored the 90s because that data didn't support his argument.
    4. The 10/2002 CNN article on the JWA site describes the same few years. The author also incredulously describes AJC's S&P target of 1150 in 12 to 18 months - a rise of 47%. The S&P hit 1146 in 16 months.
    5. Your iTulip link shows a period of 9 months. Why would you even post this? Do you understand why I said you're tiresome? You post over and over and over again, disputing a very safe statement, which is widely accepted to be true. (Again, none of the writers you cite contradict my point.) As I said, AJC is a "perpetual bull." She didn't see the bear market at the turn of the century, and so she was criticized for a couple of years. You cherry pick articles about those years, and act like you said something I didn't know. She has a 7 figure income because she's got a great deal of credibility among professional investors based on her track record.
    1.) Why so arrogant? I gave you a chance to politely respond, but instead you continue with the name calling.

    Again, you don't define the early 90's. You still did not provide any evidence to back up your claim. You only critique what I posted. Um, that is does not prove your assertion.

    2.) We were talking about analyst and the market, and now you shift to different topics, downplaying her indexing and talking about asset allocation and other stuff...you go off-topic. Extra unrelated sentences do not make your point.

    3.) Please read post #1775 again. I never said she was wrong all 8 years, as you claim. I said MOST. The evidence holds, and you need read more carefully before asserting false statements of what I said.

    4.) You post makes no sense. AJC predicted 1325-1400 for the end of 2002. The actual number was 880. She, and many others, were wrong bigtime.
    http://agorareport.com/weekly_report.htm
    How can you debate that?

    5.) I understand you like no bad info on AJC, and ignore it when faced with it. It you want to pick some of your own data, go right ahead. It seems you get tired when you can't back up claims you make.

    I'm sure AJC makes much more that seven figures, and I am sure she is an asset to GS. That still does not prove your point.
    07-28-2007 12:19 AM
  22. samkim's Avatar
    1.) Why so arrogant? I gave you a chance to politely respond, but instead you continue with the name calling.
    You keep making false statements. I respect people who don't make any false statements.

    Again, you don't define the early 90's. You still did not provide any evidence to back up your claim. You only critique what I posted. Um, that is does not prove your assertion.
    I don't have to prove anything. You're the one who attacked me without evidence.

    2.) We were talking about analyst and the market, and now you shift to different topics, downplaying her indexing and talking about asset allocation and other stuff...you go off-topic. Extra unrelated sentences do not make your point.
    It's the same topic. My point was that you narrowed the focus to a minor part of her job. Even by that measure she did well.

    3.) Please read post #1775 again. I never said she was wrong all 8 years, as you claim. I said MOST. The evidence holds, and you need read more carefully before asserting false statements of what I said.
    Yes you did. Read post #1831.

    4.) You post makes no sense. AJC predicted 1325-1400 for the end of 2002. The actual number was 880. She, and many others, were wrong bigtime.
    http://agorareport.com/weekly_report.htm
    How can you debate that?
    I didn't. As I said, she was wrong for a few years. But then she was right again.

    5.) I understand you like no bad info on AJC, and ignore it when faced with it.
    Again, no. I said she was right more than she was wrong. She's a perpetual bull; she was right through the 90s, wrong in the bear market for a few years, and then right again. This is common knowledge. You're disputing this by pointing at what everyone knows.

    Since we're OT, I'll give you the last word. If you're consistent, you'll make another false claim, but I'll try to let it go. I look forward to more iPhone posts.
    07-28-2007 07:29 AM
  23. surur's Avatar
    You know, this bickering is turning me of my own thread.

    Anyway, here is something a bit more on-topic.

    I'm bored so I'll rant about the Calculator now

    cowboy1964 07-28-2007 07:58

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm bored so I'll rant about the Calculator now

    Amateur stuff to say the least. No delete. No Clear Entry. No square root.

    An enhanced calculator to replace the stock one should be the first "real" app. someone creates. It should be easy enough once the ability to create apps. comes along. Once again, it's disappointing that Apple couldn't do it right to begin with. It makes one wonder how many programmers they actually have. A single newbie intern in a week should have been able to create something better than this.

    FuzzyClam 07-28-2007 12:38

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I guess all the programmers that it took to make the thing work at all wasn't enough for you. The calculator's a real profit generator for Apple so they should spend heavily to make sure it works to your spec.
    http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1211147

    I see the apologists is in full swing, but when was the last time you saw a calculator without a CE button? And no % button either? It sure looks pretty though, doesnt it?


    I guess this is due to Jobs's phobia of buttons. Who will ever need a square root button? Surely less than 5 % of people. I wonder why a user should care about Apple's profit generators however...

    Unfortunately this does not explain why the calculator does not save state properly...

    At least you can load a new calculator apps anytime you want, cant you... cant you...

    Surur
    07-28-2007 07:59 AM
  24. bruckwine's Avatar
    I must say the calculator is lame....but I guess they don't think your average iPhone buyer needs to crunch figures.
    07-28-2007 10:10 AM
  25. oalvarez's Avatar
    And no % button either? It sure looks pretty though, doesnt it?
    Surur
    I must say the calculator is lame....but I guess they don't think your average iPhone buyer needs to crunch figures.
    maybe the average iPhone user knows how to calculate % using division? just a thought, but definitely not an excuse for a % button being omitted. as for number crunching goes, i do all of that at work on the PC.
    07-28-2007 11:22 AM
3,194 ... 7273747576 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD