Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 14 Jul 2008 18:26:58 -0400 anon wrote:
>
>>> I'm not a personal fan of Larry's particularly, but his points
>>> about iPhone's deficits are generally accurate
>>
>> Larry is a troll and self admitted criminal. He has been proven to be
>> about 90% incorrect.
>
>
> While some of his opinions, and the conclusions he draws, are
> questionable (though often humorous), most of his FACTS are correct.
>
> But I'm not at all surprised by your statement- there seems to be
> problem with several posters here distinguishing between opinion and
> fact.
>
> Sure, Larry was wrong about the GPS chip in the iPhone Jr., (based on
> the early teardowns referenced here) but he admitted his error when
> more accurate info surfaced.
>
> Even in today's "visit to the AT&T store" post, for example, he never
> said the iPhone's WiFi _couldn't_ be shut off- just that neither he
> nor the salesperson couldn't find the menu to do it, (then he
> launched into a typical, and ridiculous, Larry conspiracy theory as
> to why AT&T wouldn't want you to shut it off.) So, incorrect
> conclusions and ridiculous opinions? Yes. Incorrect facts? No.
>
>
>>> seeking "reliable info" and should be taken into account in seeking
>>> a viewpoint which is balanced against the over-exuberance of, say,
>>> an Oxford or 4phun. Taken TOGETHER, one may gain a balanced
>>> picture.
>>
>> This is the Fox News "fair and balanced" argument and it makes no
>> sense. The truth is NOT balanced, it is the truth.
>
> Agreed, if we're talking about "facts," yes. Again, however, the
> difficulty here seems to be identifying the difference between facts
> and opinion (just like on Fox News, ironically!)
>
> The balance of OPINION from multiple viewpoints, however, can be very
> valuable, much like movie reviews- if Roger Ebert likes most of the
> same movies as I did, and for the same reasons I did, I can likely
> trust his opinions of movies I haven't seen yet. Virtually every
> reliable (professional journalist) critique of the iPhone agrees it's
> an excellent device with a few serious flaws. Has Oxford ever
> acknowledged a flaw? No, he dismisses them either as advantages
> ("Flash eats batteries,")
> unnecessary (voice dialing isn't needed since you shouldn't operate a
> cellphone in a car) or inconsequential in some Apple's/Jobs'
> Masterplanned Future Reality (3G is obsolete/unnecessary because mass
> adoption of the iPhone will drive the development of ubiquitous free
> nationwide WiFi. Yes, Oxford actually said that after the iPhone 1.0
> release. I couldn't make this stuff up!)
>
>> For the most part,Oxford and 4Phun post facts.
>
> Only By coincidence- they _mostly_ simply repost iPhone-favorable blog
> entries or news articles, often without any attribution, and often
> without regard to the reliabilty of the original source. (CNet, for
> example, might generally be considered more reliable than some
> generic consumer blogger. Without attributions, we can't gauge
> reliability.) Oxford, in particular, generally editorializes after
> the quoted blog/news item, usually without
> any clear indication (other than the natural change in tone from
> journalistic to lunatic) of what was a quote, and what were his
> additional coments. (Of course, why should we expect the use of
> quotation marks from
> a guy who hasn't mastered capitalization yet.) This of course, gives
> him the perfect alibi when he posts absolute stupidity ("don't blame
> me, blame the author") that anyone with his claimed knowledge or
> credentials should have seen was incorrect from the get go.
>
>
>> They should NOT be taken
>> together with Larry's opinions and falsehoods.
>
>
> Really? Tell us some of Larry's "falsehoods" (as opposed to his crazy
> opinions.)
>
> Let's review, OTOH, some of Oxford's recent "facts" off the top of my
> head:
>
> He answered "yes" to a question about Skype (via Fring) and
> cut-and-paste being available on the iPhone (without qualifying that
> only jailbroken phones can run those apps- an important caviat,
> wouldn't you agree?) then explained (in a different post) how the new
> app store makes jailbreaking iPhone 3Gs unnecessary (huh?). He was
> also corrected by TWO different developers today about his "facts"
> pertaining to the SDK ans app development. And, of course, there's
> nothing wrong with being wrong- one normally apologizes for the
> error, or thanks the replier for the correction, and everyone moves
> on. But not Oxford- he ignores any corrections and/or belittles the
> poster with a quip like "I only post facts" or "you don't understand
> how Apple products/modern technology works..." That damages
> credibility.
>
> Oxford's, and to a lesser extent, 4phun's "opinions" are frankly no
> crazier than Larry's- VoIP on iPhones will be the end of cellular,
> Apple will have 60% cellular marketshare in 5 years, Nokia and/or
> Verizon will be out of business in a couple of years, or that GPS
> built into the iPhone will put Garmin, etc. out of business.
> Compared to that, Larry's crap about Mossad evesdropping on our phone
> calls, and the Moon landings being faked, seem almost plausible...
>
> The REAL difference, however, is we know, from prior posts and
> context, EXACTLY who Larry is- a good ol' boy 60+ year-old
> curmudgeon, and a ham radio operator who plays with computers and
> electronics as a hobby and also to help with his organ repair biz.
>
> Who, though, is Oxford? We know that he claims to be an Apple
> "expert/insider" with hundreds of "clients," many of whom he's
> "advised" to buy iPhones. He lives in a "technologically advanced"
> city of 210,000, yet posts from Qwest's Minneapolis region- (frankly,
> if you live in a Qwest area, how "technologically advanced" can it
> be? Qwest only operates in 14 midwestern/mountain states. I'm on
> Qwest in Denver- it's not exactly Silicon Valley here!) His
> last/only "wireless phone" before the iPhone was a Macbook running
> VoIP! He has "met with/talked to Steve Jobs" but he
> never gives any specific credentials, (or denies the fake credentials
> we've invented for him: stockboy/salesperson in a Twin Cities Apple
> Store, which could actually fit ALL of his claims if you think about
> it!) ;-)
>
> Larry doesn't pretend to have any more expertise than that of a ham
> and a consumer, while Ox tells us he's "smarter than 90% of people,"
> an "expert" in the computer industry and laments that the rest of us
> can't "understand how things work" like he does.
>
> Take Larry's posts for what they're worth, but Oxford has clearly
> demonstrated that he has zero credibility on matters pertaining to
> wireless- he's failed to grasp basic concepts of cellular, and is
> VERY ignorant of non-Apple devices. He knows the features of the
> iPhone very well- I'll
> give him that, but without the context of knowing what the competition
> offers, he doesn't know in what areas the iPhone lags, and instead
> just spouts rhetoric like "it's the most technologically advanced
> phone ever built" or "other phones will all work like this in 17
> years..."
>
> He's a trolling clown, and his buffoonery makes all of his posts
> suspect, which is unfortunate because he could've been a useful
> resource about the iPhone here if he'd proven himself to be reliable.
> Sadly, finding facts in his rants is a needle/haystack situation,
> made all the more regretful since some of his needles are actually
> worth finding.
>
Amen. One of the most complete and intelligent posts I've seen on this (or
any other) n.g. in a long time. You've hit a lot of nails on the head. I'm
sure there will be those who try to retort, but they would be foolish to
try. IMHO there's not an error in your post to refute. Thanks.