oh geez.  i wrote a reply on this thread, but didn't send it,
because i was hoping the thread would just die on its own.

but evidently not...

***

michael said:
>   You seem to be missing the point as well.

well, there seem to be several "points" floating around.

one is that _some_ phones could access the web _before_
the iphone came along.  technically, that's true, if only for
those technically-inclined who opted to subject themselves
to the torture of tremendously inelegant, clumsy interfaces.

then the iphone came along, for the rest of us, and now
literally tens of millions of normal people access the web
by using their iphones without dread, or even any angst,
and they access the same web they get on their computers,
not some hobbled "mobile" version with plain-text menus
reminiscent of the 1970s.


>   iPhones don't account for but a few percent of all cellphones,
>   or even all web cellphones, or even all web/wifi/cellphones.

and yet iphone users account for as much as 80% of the usage
on the at&t network, enough to drive it to its knees some places.

why?

because steve made a web-browsing phone for the masses...
which was _not_ a trivial undertaking.  it's a massive achievement,
one that the old guard in phones were totally incapable of doing.


>   As I said, I have one much older,
>   and I never turned it on as a phone, I just used the wifi. . . .

you're not a typical user, michael.  which is why i love you so...     :+)

***

marcello said:
>   The iPhone is late, technically inferior, overpriced
>   and locked into its vendor.

it figures that marcello would say something so stupid, which is
why he's in my spam folder.  now if only keith stops quoting him.

-bowerbird