Updated iPhone specs

[braj]

what is it that you like so much about the Apple Mac Pros? i assume you are referencing their PC's. if so, is it simply the design/aesthetics? or is it the product build architecture?

It is partially the case design, partially the OS. Only thing I don't like is the price. I mostly have used G5s and earlier and haven't dealt with the new Intels except for laptops. Just if you try picking up one of these guys you know if will last forever. Compare it to your typical Dell or HP and it feels like a tank. To me that's a good thing.

 

[oalvarez]

well, it's not so much the weight of the case that might allow it to "last forever" as you say but i think i understand the point you're trying to make.

thanks for the reply!

 

[Kupe#WP]

Come on....pretty?! It's gorgeous. Don't be so frugal with compliments...

You mean like the Glamour Shots of the personal computing world?

 

[llarson]

No what I don't believe is Apple Sells medicore products

You think Apple is a software company?

Apple sells cutting edge well designed products with more features then most computer manufactures do.

Surur was showing his Apple - Hater face when he made his comment.

Apple sells great hardware, most of the time, and has developed fantastic software too!

 

[surur]

Iphone is another example.

Surur

 

[mikec#IM]

All silent on the Archie front

Amazing how quiet Archie got when he got debunked.

He moves onto the price plans...another area where I correctly predicted/guessed what they would be.

Bottom line - iPhone and plan prices = spicy meatball

 

[archie]

Sorry! I can't keep up with all the crap you people post here.

Please read my responses.

Archie,

You shouldn't lie/misrepresent - I will respond with fact and honesty.

1.) Apple is a hardware company, no matter what Steve says (he says that for Wall Street).

That doesn't make sense, Wall street is happier in dealing with concrete numbers and products. That is why the SEC filings are broken down as they are to make Wall Street think Apple is more about hardware than software. What you are saying doesn't make sense.

He is definetly not saying that for Wall Street. Wall Street doesn't care about how the user feels with the product. They just care about the number of products.

2.) Re: Wi-fi on the 650, you said in 10/2004:

(begin Archie quote)

"Here is why I believe that the 650 will not support the PalmOne WiFi Board.

The Treo 650 comes with Garnet (5.4). That is why the Treo will not have Wi-Fi capability.

Let me explain.
Palm only licensed Bluetooth for Cobalt. Garnet is using the 4 year old Bluetooth technology that Palm licensed a couple years ago. This means the phone will not have Bluetooth technology that is capable of working with Wi-Fi; hence, no wi-fi on the Treo 650.

(end Archie quote)

First, this is patently false. In fact, you show how little you understand technology, as you believe that BT 1.2 was required to have Wi-Fi also work on a device. Garnet 5.4 did not exclude BT 1.1 and Wi-Fi. It actually worked and was released as a product.

Need some proof? I guess the Palm KB on the LifeDrive will do:

http://kb.palmone.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/...SupportKB,ts=Palm_External2001,case=obj(39318)

And by the way, people did hack the 650 and get it to work with Wi-Fi cards.

You're ignoring the fact that they had different wireless chipsets. My information and reasoning is correct.

The Life Drive came out later and used an updated chipset that would allow the 2 wireless techs to be used at the same time.

Oh, and that link you provided doesn't go anywhere.

And yes, I remember the 650 being hacked so that you could use the wi-fi card. But what you are conveniently forgetting is the fact that it rendered everything else useless while using it. WHICH, by the way, verifies my reasoning as you so quoted above.

3.) Re: Ipod household name, I will say that today, it is. I am surprised how poorly the rest of the market responded to Apple, and give Apple kudos for their iPod development.

Finally!

I also said in 9/2004: "Apple - laugh, but they could build the next cool converged device." So I predicted the iPhone in even way back then, but I saw no affirmation from you.

Oh brother. That is what everybody was predicting back then after the Apple/Motorola collaboration with the iTunes phone. I might also note that you put this on the bottom of a long list that you had and it was like a conciliation

And your quotes from 05/2005:

(begin Archie quote)
"...If the cell phone is to overtake the iPod it will certainly take 5 years... Some may like the idea of listening to music on the phone. But for most, that will have a limited appeal, with batteries lasting only a few hours.
(end Archie quote)

You took out the middle which takes away the context. This is what I said:

Anyway, If the cell phone is to overtake the iPod it will certainly take 5 years. But don't you think Apple is prepared for this? I mean jeez, it seems pretty certain that they have an iTunes Mobile that they will be distributing in the coming months to keep those users coming back to the iTMS and assure the continued use of iPods. Some may like the idea of listening to music on the phone. But for most, that will have a limited appeal, with batteries lasting only a few hours.​

Hmmmm...looks like it will not take 5 years...the iPhone will eclipse the iPod sooner than that. And I guess listening to music on a phone has limited appeal; you were a regular Nostradamus on that...

If you read the full quote, you will see that I said this based on battery life only. So as far as my "batteries lasting very few hours" comment goes I was wrong about that. I of course knew nothing of Apple's use of LLVM in a phone, since it was only developed last year. Thank God Apple can write jaw dropping software like nobody's business.

4.) Grid computing - let's not even go there. Please show me a defintion that says iTunes is grid computing. SETI@Home, sure, but not iTunes.

I'll look for one

5.) Re: Cisco/Apple case, I never said Apple would walk away or anything you quoted above. All I said was Cisco had a case. They settled out of court and got paid, and got to use the iPhone term as well.

Oh really?

This is how it went down according to the NYT and every other paper that I checked.

Wednesday night, in a short, ambiguously worded statement, the companies said they would dismiss all legal action against each other regarding the trademark and that Apple could use the name for its device, which it plans to start selling in June.​

 

[mikec#IM]

Sorry! I can't keep up with all the crap you people post here.

Please read my responses.
That doesn't make sense, Wall street is happier in dealing with concrete numbers and products. That is why the SEC filings are broken down as they are to make Wall Street think Apple is more about hardware than software. What you are saying doesn't make sense.

He is definetly not saying that for Wall Street. Wall Street doesn't care about how the user feels with the product. They just care about the number of products.


You're ignoring the fact that they had different wireless chipsets. My information and reasoning is correct.

The Life Drive came out later and used an updated chipset that would allow the 2 wireless techs to be used at the same time.

Oh, and that link you provided doesn't go anywhere.

And yes, I remember the 650 being hacked so that you could use the wi-fi card. But what you are conveniently forgetting is the fact that it rendered everything else useless while using it. WHICH, by the way, verifies my reasoning as you so quoted above.


Finally!


Oh brother. That is what everybody was predicting back then after the Apple/Motorola collaboration with the iTunes phone. I might also note that you put this on the bottom of a long list that you had and it was like a conciliation


You took out the middle which takes away the context. This is what I said:

Anyway, If the cell phone is to overtake the iPod it will certainly take 5 years. But don't you think Apple is prepared for this? I mean jeez, it seems pretty certain that they have an iTunes Mobile that they will be distributing in the coming months to keep those users coming back to the iTMS and assure the continued use of iPods. Some may like the idea of listening to music on the phone. But for most, that will have a limited appeal, with batteries lasting only a few hours.​

If you read the full quote, you will see that I said this based on battery life only. So as far as my "batteries lasting very few hours" comment goes I was wrong about that. I of course knew nothing of Apple's use of LLVM in a phone, since it was only developed last year. Thank God Apple can write jaw dropping software like nobody's business.


I'll look for one


Oh really?

This is how it went down according to the NYT and every other paper that I checked.

Wednesday night, in a short, ambiguously worded statement, the companies said they would dismiss all legal action against each other regarding the trademark and that Apple could use the name for its device, which it plans to start selling in June.​

Archie,

You really should be working for Apple - you are the RDF that sets the bar.

1.)

Wall Street loves $$$
Apple makes $$$ by selling hardware (and makes software that runs on that hardware)
By anyone with any business acumen or technology understading, Apple is a hardware company.

The fact you can't acknowledge this basic fact is sad.


2.)
As for BT 1.1 and Wi-Fi, again, you were wrong.
Need a better link? Here ya go:

http://www.palm.com/us/products/mobilemanagers/lifedrive/specs.epl

As for chipsets, the Intel chipset in the 650 could support both BT and Wi-Fi...Intel themselves said so! So again, you are completely wrong.


As for the other items, You can dimiss what I said, but the fact is I said it correctly. and before you. Buck up, buttercup.