On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
oh well, might as well continue this little thread... i hope everyone realizes that michael and i don't really disagree as much as all this rhetoric seems.
***
michael said:
However, if you buy one like that AFTER doing homework, that's between you and your psychiatrist.
i never bought one of the steaming pile of crap phones... not to do web-browsing, anyway. i just went without web.
Then don't complain as if you had one and it was terrible. Test resonsibly, buy responsibly, and then report responsibly. Are you talking about phones you don't really have access to?
Don't forget I said don't get one without wifi.
how could i forget it when you repeat it so frequently? :+)
Then don't bring up the high bills as if it were a very necessary factor. . .I have yet to see a phone in which the wifi adds to your charges, so what is your point???
but, as i said, i just went without the web on my phone. and so did tens of millions of other people. my point...
No, you haven't really made any points HERE that take a previous recommendation into account. Please, respond as if you have actually READ the notes.
The phone in question here has an unlimited data plan for some $35 a month, seems reasonable to me. Then again, I'm not sure that plan is still available, other than grandfathered in.
well, your ability to sniff out bargains is well-documented.
Actually, this was one of our other Geek Lunchers. . .not I.
but others of us are not blessed with that particular gift... (i was kissed by the queen angel of parking spaces myself.)
Then just do a little more homework, and/or share homeworks with others, and then millions can take equal advantage.
Only the millions you left out of your research samples.
i granted you _one_ million, and even that was stretching it.
You seem to be missing that the numbers of cellphones sold per year are really on the order of BILLION not of a million. 4.5 BILLION cellphone out there. How many iPhones? 1% would be 45 million. . .but that's not what anyone claims. There just aren't that many iPhones out there. . . . Percentagewise.
Don't you ever listen??? I've said for ages, "Don't buy a cellphone without wifi!"
even if i only listened 10% of the time (and i listen a lot more), i would have heard you say that, since you've said it for ages...
Then please act like it and stop complaining about Internet bills on cellphones when there are plenty of alternatives.
Still, even as a phone, if you use wifi for data, no charges.
the experience wasn't worth it! even if the bandwidth was free!
That's NOT what you said, you complained of the high billing!!!
Wake up!!!
i'm as awake as i'm gonna be at this time of night... :+)
Listen, if you are going to engage me in conversation, at least hold up your end, eh?
Sites? Were we talking about sites? I thot we were talking about phones!
oh, ok, i see where we had our disconnect.
i was talking about "cell-phone optimized websites", yes, since for many phones, that was the only way they could adequately access the web, via sites that had been dumbed down to the point where they were simple text-menus only.
I trust you are not actually working with many m.domain.dom kinds of sites. Should I presume you haven't tried any of the m.google.com sites or their competitions or imitators in site styles???
those dumbed-down sites were light on bandwidth and didn't need any processing power. of course, they weren't the "real" web, but they were the best those phones could do.
Sorry, I haven't actually TRIED a browser that wouldn't do the "real" web, even though some did it SOOO poorly that I would have to complain AT LEAST AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE. . . . However, that wasn't a phone I actually bought, of course, or that is for sale anywhere today.
let me ask a question. for your current phone, the one you are talking about with the $35/month unlimited data plan, and wifi, can you access the front page of the n.y. times site? do you see all of the pictures? can you click on all the links? and if you can, how long does it take that front page to load?
The Geek Luncher with that phone is out of state right now, but I will forward your question, though I would understand if he didn't want to sub to the NYT. However, believe not, _I_ have actually subbed, and will offer him my password.
can you get wikipedia? or are you shunted to an "alternative" version which has been dumbed-down for cell-phone access?
I read most of my NYT via links in my email, so I don't know if I am getting full access, though it seems to be. Will try to compare to the phones. As for wikipedia, I don't like their regular pages, so I might actually like phone pages better. I'll try testing some of these at m.domain.dom
An interesting POV. I'm not sure it's got any factual backing, but interesting. What about AT&T? Or are you counting them?
it's not a "p.o.v.". it's how the history went down, michael.
steve wanted verizon, because they were acknowledged as "best". but verizon turned him down flat, flat as a pancake.
then he tried sprint, but they wouldn't give him a deal either.
so at&t was his only other option. they were so desperate, for any business, that they basically couldn't turn him down.
of course, all of us users have been totally dissatisfied with at&t, because they haven't been able to get their act together, despite the huge influx of business (and respect) from iphone.
Actually, we have AT&T phones here, as well as others, and they seem to compete just fine. As far as Jobs. . .that might all have gone to the dinosaurs, according to the BBC and NPR. . .just wait a bit for release. Not to mention those Belgian iPhones, presuming they exist. ;-)
steve hung with them for quite a while, longer than he should, but the word on the street is that their exclusivity is now gone.
That's what I hear, too, but. . .the question is, did Jobs win/lose? I would say he won. . .you sound as if you think he lost. . . .
Actually, all The Billionaire Boys Club are betting against you. As you may recall, I starting predicting years and years ago, when cellphones first reached 50% saturation levels, that the new wave of cellphones would be more wild new features. . . .
i'm still waiting. but i'm afraid that day is still off in the future.
No, the future is now. We already are well past 50% saturation, you can't have it both ways. And, as you say, even those laggard US cellphones are finally coming around to the European standards from years ago. You can't have it both ways. . .which is it from the Bird's Nest??? I say there will be more and more features every year, even in US!!! However, if there is a mega-merger that leaves no competition, then we could all get screwed again, just as with so many cable locales.
these carrier companies are so used to having captive "customers" that they don't really even _know_ how to engage in competition, and they all understand that as long as their collusion remains impossible to prove directly, they can milk all of their cash cows.
Which is why Europe and The Pacific Rim have such better services, both Net and cell. As above. . .we'll see. Comcast could be the next big reason keeping space a vacuum. . . .
for years and years, they played the "minutes" game with us, and even now, they think it's a big deal to knock $30 off their $99 plan for unlimited _voice_ for a month. but that's still a whopping $69.
As compared to??? I'll have to admit that when I was in Europe the phone rates weren't so much less that I noticed, though the Net was pretty cheap.
So who else is going to be allowed to provide for iPhones???
the rumor-mill says verizon will get the iphone in addition to at&t.
i'm guessing half (or more) of the people who have suffered through the at&t exclusivity period will switch to verizon as soon as they can.
I think we agree on that, but we have to wait for reality to happen.
Didn't I use the plural?
no, you said "million", for that phone you own.
I didn't mean that as a limit. . .just that you left out so many.
Are iPhones up to 5% of cellphones yet? I think not [and vanished in a puff of greasy black smoke!] Actually, I would be surprised if even much over half that!
another big disconnect between us here...
because certainly the percentage of _cellphones_ doesn't matter, not if we're throwing dumb-phones into the mix.
In 10 years they will all be smart phones, other than for persons who actually really WANT the dumbest phones they can get, and I'm in contact with some of those.
i'm sure we'll get the updated figures during apple's press conference wednesday, but i think the iphone has about 40% of the smart-phone market today in the countries where it has been available for a while...
If you are correct, that would mean the few tens of millions of iPhones would be 40% of less than 100 million smart phones. I think you are forgetting all the Blackberrys, Palms, etc. . . . If you are correct, then out of 4.5 billion cellphones only few percent are smart phones. . .I'd say you are wrong here, and there.
even more important, the trend-lines show that it's still surging, while all the other smart-phones are holding steady or dropping.
"it's" still surging??? You mean iPhones??? When iPhones make up 10% of all cellphones, then you have a real point. Up until then it's pretty much on the order of Macs. Yes, Macs are really out there, but very much a minority. Let me know how many smart phones you think there are in the world.
but the really startling statistic is that 80% of smart-phone bandwidth is being generated by iphone users, meaning they use their phones to navigate the web _twice_ as much as owners of other smart-phones...
Or, just possibly, that iPhones are that much less efficient in getting their users what they want. . .or. . .iPhone users just spend twice as much on that sort of activity as other people, like Mac people do other things than the average computer user??? I'm serious here, please think about these questions. I'd be curious to do a real study on what would happen if you took big samples of iPhone and Blackberry users and swapped their phones a month and recorded what usage and changes took place. Isn't it just possible the iPhones are Yuppie phones? Hee hee!
It's cute. . .no one says not.
oh please. spare yourself the indignity of backhanded "compliments". the iphone is a lot more than "cute". it has revolutionized the future.
OK, I'm listening. . . . I have several people who are willing to buy me one. . .convince me!!!
It's just not even 5% of the market, maybe half that. . . .
only if you define "market" in a completely nonsensical way. the iphone isn't competing against giveaway dumb-phones.
OK, how many smartphones??? Why haven't you said THAT??? Are you really saying there are only 100 million smart phones in the entire world out of 4.5 billion??? Even when 2 1/4 billion of them are less than two years old?
Seems to be following the Mac statistics.
maybe you need to brush up on those statistics as well. mac has 90% of the market for machines costing $1000+.
Duh? And you talk about doing oddball statistics??? The average computer sold has been under $500 for years! Only Mac people CAN pay "$1000+". . .eh? You'd have to pile in A LOT OF STUFF to make one of my computers be over $1000. . . . I have high res, ultra black, 17", 1/3 terabyte, etc., all for under $500. . .I use outboard drives, sorry. N class wifi, network, 4 USBs, Firewire, flash ports, and who knows what else that I never use. Dual/layer DVD burner/lightscribe, etc. I will probably buy another one like this, next time. I also have a couple netbooks for half as much.
the only people buying p.c. hardware these days are the people who have very little use for a _real_ computer... they just want to check their e-mail and surf the web, and maybe watch t.v. or a movie... and guess what?
And aren't those the most popular things to do???
that's exactly what apple's itablet is gonna let them do.
And it will be $1000, won't it???
(jobs owns pixar, of course, and is the biggest shareholder in disney, so that's the movie angle. but disney also owns a.b.c., so jobs has a direct interest in the future of t.v. too, and that's why movie/t.v. will be the big thrust of the itablet. in addition to bridging the gap between iphone and mac air.)
Actually, the Geeks just bought a few 28" monitors that included both new and old TV tuners, etc. . . problem solved!!! $350. About 2.5 million pixels.
Now iPods, that a different thing. . .heaven knows why, since there are SO many MP3 players working so well.
"heaven knows why"? you really think it's a big mystery?
it's no mystery at all. but i explained all of that in my _original_reply_ to walter, which i will send tomorrow.
in a nutshell here now, though, what is interesting is how apple cannibalized its own ipod line with the touch, which is essentially the iphone without the phone part (so it boils down to the same form-factor as your phone, michael, with wifi access but with no phone capability.)
Yes, I love that idea, except that they cost too much!!!
that ipod touch -- with its dependence on wifi -- broke free from the tyranny of the 2-year carrier-contract, and basically puts the web in your pocket without access costs.
Still too expensive. . .I'll get a clone. Or used.
now i would've thought this would be a non-starter, since i'm not willing to carry around a touch _and_ a phone, but lots of people apparently _are_ willing to do exactly that, and apple hooked in those people, and that's pretty cool.
No other differences than phone apps???
You just haven't see all the Euro-phones on the streets. . . .
it's not hard for me to imagine a world where _everyone_ is carrying around the web in their pocket all of the time...
Me neither. . .people in Europe were doing email by phone in 1996. Can't remember all the other features.
i've had that idea for about 30 years now, which i concede doesn't match the 50 years that you've got under your belt, but i think it's still a long-enough time to nurture a dream.
Which idea? And mine are more like 40, not 50. . . .
-bowerbird