New iPhones to use 3G network

Tim Smith wrote:
> On 2007-12-02, SMS 斯蒂文• � <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> The iPhone does not use a Li-Ion battery.
>
> Apple seems to think it does. It says:
>
> "Built-in rechargeable lithium ion battery"
>
> right on the tech specs page at apple.com.
>

Technically it should be called a Lithium-Polymer or LiPo battery.

Snit wrote:
> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
>>
>> No- product not for sale. Vaporware.
>
> As I noted: I showed you products in people's hands. Did you think
> they were given those products and not sold them?
>
Well then show him where to actually GET one for heavens sake instead of
going back and forth endlessly with your childish "Am. Am not". Here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/CECT-P168-Unlock...QQcmdZViewItem.

CozmicDebris, all you had to do was go to eBay (the site of which is noted
on the youtube video, and search for "iphone clone". How can you guys spend
endless hours arguing over verifiable stuff and not take the second to do a
simple google or ebay search?

-hh wrote:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>>
>> Provide me with a link to a phone I can purchase that is a copycat
>> of he iPhone.
>
> The LG VX10000 probably qualifies as a 'copycat' for most reasonable
> people, and back in late September, it was leaked that Verizon was
> going to roll it out:
>
Sorry, but I actually had the opportunity to check out a working model of
each of the iPhone and the Voyager yesterday when I was in Manhattan. I
didn't feel you could reasonably call the Voyager (LG VX10000) a "clone" of
an iPhone. They are substantially different. All you can say is that 1. they
are both phones, 2. they both have internet access, and 3. they both use a
touch screen to some extent.

The differences are well documented in other posts. They are significant.

"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> stated in post
aDg5j.2231$BI5.835@newsfe09.lga on 12/4/07 11:02 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
>>>
>>> No- product not for sale. Vaporware.
>>
>> As I noted: I showed you products in people's hands. Did you think
>> they were given those products and not sold them?
>>
> Well then show him where to actually GET one for heavens sake instead of
> going back and forth endlessly with your childish "Am. Am not". Here:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/CECT-P168-Unlock...W0QQitemZ22017
> 9709929QQihZ012QQcategoryZ41355QQssPageNameZWDVWQQ rdZ1QQcmdZViewItem.
>
> CozmicDebris, all you had to do was go to eBay (the site of which is noted
> on the youtube video, and search for "iphone clone". How can you guys spend
> endless hours arguing over verifiable stuff and not take the second to do a
> simple google or ebay search?

Frankly it is not my responsibility to do endless research for CozmicDebris.
I showed him solid evidence that the products in question were available - I
did not have to show him where to get them... though I thank you for doing
that work for him. I am sure there are other places as well... an exercise
left to the curious reader. :)


--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Edmund Burke

Carl wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
>>>
>>> No- product not for sale. Vaporware.
>>
>> As I noted: I showed you products in people's hands. Did you think
>> they were given those products and not sold them?
>>
> Well then show him where to actually GET one for heavens sake instead
> of going back and forth endlessly with your childish "Am. Am not".
> Here:

You must have been reading a different thread. I only saw one party with
that attitude.

Moreover it really doesn't matter what kind of proof you provide; a closed
mind won't recognize it.


--
Mike

"Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
> >> Provide me with a link to a phone I can purchase that is a copycat
> >> of he iPhone.
>
> > The LG VX10000 probably qualifies as a 'copycat' for most reasonable
> > people, ...
>
> Sorry, but I actually had the opportunity to check out a working model of
> each of the iPhone and the Voyager yesterday when I was in Manhattan.
> I didn't feel you could reasonably call the Voyager (LG VX10000) a "clone"
> of an iPhone. They are substantially different.

Understood & agreed.

FWIW, I think we're getting tripped up a little on where we set the
bar for product equivalancy when we use terms like "copycat".

In this instance, I set the bar quite low
(like an order of magnitude below "clone").


To my eye, when examining this from the perspective of the
superficial, "first glance" of the uninformed consumer, the products
have striking similarities:

Both appear in advertising images as being sleek, black, with nearly
the entire face covered by a large LCD that displays a couple of rows
of pretty icons and has no obvious keys on its face.

YMMV if you want to believe that the striking similarities are purely
all coincidental, but that's besides the point. My observation and
point was merely that their general appearances are sufficiently
similar such that the one could easily be confused for the other by
the casual observer*, particularly if its only a quick glance of the
device from across a room.


* - this "casual observer" criteria pretty much excludes all readers
here. I'm talking about Grandma or Uncle Bob who is having a good day
if they can differentiate a cellphone from an MP3 player. Well, maybe
not quite that bad, but you get my drift.


-hh

-hh wrote:
> "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but I actually had the opportunity to check out a working
>> model of each of the iPhone and the Voyager yesterday when I was in
>> Manhattan.
>> I didn't feel you could reasonably call the Voyager (LG VX10000) a
>> "clone" of an iPhone. They are substantially different.
>
> Understood & agreed.
>
> FWIW, I think we're getting tripped up a little on where we set the
> bar for product equivalancy when we use terms like "copycat".
>

At least some of the people selling them have no problem saying the Voyager
is like the iPhone (or, "like the iPhone, but better"). A friend with six
phones under contract with Verizon just bought one hoping it was true. I let
him play around with my iPhone while I checked out the Voyager.

I was about as unimpressed with the Voyager as he was impressed with the
iPhone. The Voyager, BTW, is going back.

There is also little doubt that the shortcut menu screen is meant to look
like an iPhone:
"http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/lg-voyager-review/lg-voyager-from-verizon-wireless-reviewed-verdict-ambitious-but-flawed-323847.php"

So while the Voyager is of course not an iPhone "clone" I don't think that
is the point here: it was most definitely influenced by the iPhone .


--
Mike

Carl wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>>> Provide me with a link to a phone I can purchase that is a copycat
>>> of he iPhone.
>> The LG VX10000 probably qualifies as a 'copycat' for most reasonable
>> people, and back in late September, it was leaked that Verizon was
>> going to roll it out:
>>
> Sorry, but I actually had the opportunity to check out a working model of
> each of the iPhone and the Voyager yesterday when I was in Manhattan. I
> didn't feel you could reasonably call the Voyager (LG VX10000) a "clone" of
> an iPhone. They are substantially different. All you can say is that 1. they
> are both phones, 2. they both have internet access, and 3. they both use a
> touch screen to some extent.
>
> The differences are well documented in other posts. They are significant.

See "http://tinyurl.com/29vcwv" for the Phonescoop comparison.

Most significantly, the VX10000 has no WiFi, but has 3G, while the
iPhone has WiFi but no 3G. Personally, I'll take the WiFi!

The iPhone lacks some important features for use as a phone, especially
in places where hands-free is required when using your phone while
driving. Amazingly it has no voice-dialing, which is very bizarre, as
it's almost unheard of for a current model phone to lack this basic
feature which is widely used when driving.

While some people criticize the lack of flash card slot on the iPhone,
the reality is that with 8GB of memory the iPhone has a lot less of a
need for one than the competing phones that include a paltry amount of
memory.

The recent release of so many competing devices have had the result of
forcing Apple to pre-announce the 3G version of the iPhone, which
presumably will also add some of the other key missing features. For
their first cell phone, Apple really did put out an outstanding product
with only a couple of key features that they missed.

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> stated in post 5rllteF14281nU1@mid.individual.net on
12/4/07 11:51 AM:

> Carl wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
>>>>
>>>> No- product not for sale. Vaporware.
>>>
>>> As I noted: I showed you products in people's hands. Did you think
>>> they were given those products and not sold them?
>>>
>> Well then show him where to actually GET one for heavens sake instead
>> of going back and forth endlessly with your childish "Am. Am not".
>> Here:
>
> You must have been reading a different thread. I only saw one party with
> that attitude.
>
> Moreover it really doesn't matter what kind of proof you provide; a closed
> mind won't recognize it.
>
Though, I admit, it is fun to post more and more proof against such closed
minds just to see how desperate they will become. :)


--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

In article <4755893f$0$84182$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS Žz溱•顶 ‰� <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Tim Smith wrote:
> > On 2007-12-02, SMS 拘��这拘�‰邰 Œ¤� <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> The iPhone does not use a Li-Ion battery.
> >
> > Apple seems to think it does. It says:
> >
> > "Built-in rechargeable lithium ion battery"
> >
> > right on the tech specs page at apple.com.
> >
>
> Technically it should be called a Lithium-Polymer or LiPo battery.

And the resulting battery drain should be called LiPo-suction.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"