> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
Bullshit.
>
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
More bullshit. Other than the mp3 market, Apple is a third rate player in
EVERY other market they do businees in.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:56:56 -0700, Oxford
<linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:
>"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
>catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
>trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
>
>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
Like the Walkman? Oh wait, that was Sony. I can't think of an Apple
example.
Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in
news:jr47k31i4v9sru6tlrv46hb5gfbuesqq11@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:56:56 -0700, Oxford
> <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>>
>>catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>>
>>trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
>>
>>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> Like the Walkman? Oh wait, that was Sony. I can't think of an Apple
> example.
>
No- it was the flat screen hi-def market! Oh, wait... that was everybody
BUT Apple.
In news:Xns99EEBBE9BB7B8isheforreal@216.196.97.142,
CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
> @nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>>
>> Always???
>>
>> Lets see....
>>
>> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>
>> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>
>> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>
>> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>
>> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>
>> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>
>> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>
>> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>
>> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
>> $7,499 price been a factor?
>>
>> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>
>> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>
>> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You forgot Apple TV.
Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
the market and killed off the competition?
In article <HZGdnda2GKom_d7anZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
> >
> >
>
> It's the "posturing" that is what garners the responses.
> The arrogant, **I** know it all, everyone else doesn't piss poor attitude.
>
As I read it, it's the desire of the responders to feel good about
themselves by dumping on a readily available target that's the main
driver for the responses.
In article
<linuxlovesosx-A0AC9A.14150920112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:
> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
> > some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
> > not for most.
> >
> > > Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> > > everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
> >
> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
>
> great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
> slightest tip of the product iceberg.
Your original statement, which you didn't quote in the post I'm
responding to, was:
"No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
that's a pure fact."
Are you now agreeing that that that was, not a fact, but nonsense, and
revising your claim to "in the future no cell maker will be able to
compete in the cell market against the new iPhones that will eixst
then?" That's a very different claim.
NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS
Linear Mode
