New iPhones to use 3G network

ZnU wrote:
> Where you've erred is in assuming that the iPhone targets the same
> market as your current device. (The market you're apparently in.)

He's also erred in assuming other manufactures' development and
cellphone companies are static in their products.

At 02 Dec 2007 13:55:00 +1300 Anybody wrote:

> Anyone actually doing word processing on a mobile phone is an idiot -
> the screens are simply too small and the "keyboards" too fiddly, Get a
> lsptop / notebook computer instead.

But that's the point for some of us. I use my phone (a Windows Mobile HTC
Wizard) to _replace_ a laptop when I travel. I'm not using it to write the
Great American Novel, But I can read and or edit Word and Excel documents
offline.

> Having said that, I can see a point
> for being able to READ files and perhaps do very minor updates, and the
> iPhone has a full Safari web browser so can use any of the gorwing
> number of "Office" web applications.

Which are slow and clunky compared to a local app and locally stored
documents.


> I don't know anything about GPS on or off the iPhone.


There's not much to know- the iPhone lacks an internal GPS (which is fairly
standard even today) but it strangely lacks the ability to connect to an
external BT GPS module, which is odd, considering it has all the necessary
hardware to. This renders the included Google Maps app oddly crippled
compared to the versions that run on other phones, including most
"dumbphones." That's an incredibly odd design decision, since it renders
th iPhone incapable of what today is a pretty basic feature, and one that
would cost essentially nothing to implement.

In article <fisbgf$gb2$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:

> It won't be bulky and the power consumption will be lower. That's the
> reason they didn't implement it yet.

I think there was also a story about not contracting with the company
that was to provide the control chips because they were entering a
major lawsuit at the time.

In article
<a05de97c-e98a-458b-91f1-51cf213bc5e4@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> because it doesn't matter if the battery is
> user-replaceable or not if the current 3G chips suck through the
> available power too quickly.

The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly
for any other 3G unit, asshole.

That's the whole point.

No moving of goalposts here.

In article
<772f7592-41f6-48e3-bb5d-71cbc3c80920@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly
> > for any other 3G unit, asshole.
>
> In other words, *all* of the 3G chips have poor efficiency, which
> means no differentiation in technology alternatives *within* 3G.
>
>
> > That's the whole point.
>
> Wrong, because the issue of power consumption of 3G was relative to
> 2G.
>
> And 2G does have substantially different power consumption, but also
> lower bandwidth. As such, the trade-off is a classical one of
> capability versus capacity.

So, asshat, tell us how every other manufacturer manages to make a good
3G handset without excuses like "oh, but it takes too much POWER!
<whine>"?

It's a simple question. You can dance around it for everyone's
enjoyment, or you can answer it for everyone's benefit.

I can only guess which choice you'll make.

On Dec 1, 10:37 pm, Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> > Another Oxford sock puppet.
>
> I am? the things I learn on usenet.


Hey - I was supposed to be Oxford's sockpuppet for all of yesterday!
Stop crowding :-)



Apparently, this is the biggest insult that this anonymous coward
troll can think of.



-hh

In article
<a05de97c-e98a-458b-91f1-51cf213bc5e4@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > Sure it is, Oxford. (Yeah, we know it's you.)
>
>
> Wrong, again.

If anyone is Oxford it is Elmo P. Shagnasty!!! Both handles post like
trolls. I think Oxford and Elmo are some ones idea of a joke. The joke
being to see how stupid the iPhone haters will get. While someone could
possibly be as dumb as Elmo, it is not credible that Oxford could be
for real.

--
Charles

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-0AFA10.01433302122007
@news.individual.net:

> In article <Xns99F9CF2DE65F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142>,
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> Anybody <anybody@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in
>> news:021220071612358921%anybody@anywhere-anytime.com:
>
>> > OK, whatever. I can see I'm wasting my time with this already. :-\
>>
>>
>> No, please- go on. Tell me how I have erred by having a portable
>> device, that while not the ideal, presents me with a way of doing
>> business seamlessly without having to bog myself down with a larger and
>> clumsier alternative.
>
> Where you've erred is in assuming that the iPhone targets the same
> market as your current device. (The market you're apparently in.)
>

I didn't err anywhere- if you read this part of the thread again, you'll
see that I am simply stating the functionality I use on my phone. Others
are jumping in to tell me that I can do all of that with a laptop, implying
that the need for it on a phone is absurd.

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:x0u4j.74792$YL5.18873
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> ZnU wrote:
>> Where you've erred is in assuming that the iPhone targets the same
>> market as your current device. (The market you're apparently in.)
>
> He's also erred in assuming other manufactures' development and
> cellphone companies are static in their products.
>

I made no such error.

CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
> >> Anybody <anyb...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
> >> > Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> >> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated:
>
> >> >> > My 3G phone is far from bulky and has very good battery life.
> >> >> > Wanna try again?
>
> >> >> What phone? How big is its screen?
>
> >> > And, does it run full screen video, proper web browser and a fully
> >> > touch-screen interface?? Nope, didn't think so. :-)
>
> >> I decided I needed functionality, not child's toyys. It has 3G, GPS, a
> >> word processor, and seamlessly syncs to my business email.
>
> > And yet this device lacks a manufacturer's name or model number.
>
> > Amazing.
>
> > -hh
>
> It could one of dozens, couldn't it? Why is it so important to know which
> one?

Because baseless claims are unfortunately all too common online, which
leads to far too many non-credible posters. Simply providing the make/
model shouldn't be a big deal, but avoiding being accountable leads to
lower credibility. This is your chance to blow it completely.


FWIW, I generally also don't give a shit about the fancy features, but
I am looking for superior battery life. If you've found a suitable
product, I am currently in the market for a new phone. My main
criteria is that I'm going to be dumping Verizon because I need GSM
for Europe and I prefer to carry only one phone instead of two.


-hh