Apple announces iPhone

[PopCulturePooka]

http://www.apple.com/iphone/

[Trinadad]

Oh, a friend was showing me this yesterday.



Touch sensitivity. Oh my.

[悲しいパンダ]

Apple have been telling the media that it was a lie when it was only a rumor that they were working on a phone. But I guess they really are going to finally make one. Now there will finally be a good mp3 phone.

[D-pad]

Apple cannot make a good MP3 player... A phone is a big step...

[tweek.3867]

Apple cannot make a good MP3 player... A phone is a big step...
That's a pretty hefty blanket statement there. I doubt I'm the only one who would strongly disagree:watson:

[NERD]

The price is rumored to be around $600, which I thought was ridiculous- until I realized that a lot of smartphones like Treo/Blackberry is in the neighborhood.

I do expect the Apple brand will sell much more than Blackberry/Palm brand.

[tweek.3867]

The phone will be offered exclusively through Cingular in the US in June, and will come to Europe in Q4 2007, and Asia in 2008. A 4 GB model will be offered for $499 with a 2 year contract, and an 8 GB model will fetch $599 with similar contract provisions. The phone can be purchased through Cingular's website or via the Apple Store.
http://www.macrumors.com/

It's about 2/3 of the way down the page.

The cheaper one is right on target, pricewise, with the Treo, etc. The only major difference is that the iPhone looks a lot cooler, can do more stuff, and has a lot more space to store music on. :p

So yea I've to agree with NERD that Apple will sell out a lot more of these than other companies' Blackberry's and other phones of the nature.

[悲しいパンダ]

IMO, Apple can release anything with i______ and at a ridiculess price and it will still sell. iCar anyone?

[Mastiker]

IMO, Apple can release anything with i______ and at a ridiculess price and it will still sell. iCar anyone?

iRobot?

edit: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I wet myself.

edit2: after I said it, I had to:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a240/Mastiker/irobot.jpg

[Firefly]

I just got a Blackberry Pearl for free, and I love it. "Smart phones" are really fun. I try to stay away from i___ anything, and so far I've saved money and been satisfied with everything I've bought. Other people really like i-stuff, though, so, different strokes I guess.

[PopCulturePooka]

Apple cannot make a good MP3 player... A phone is a big step...
Weird, I have a really good MP3 player right here made by apple.

[Mastiker]

Personally, I'm not excited.

I'm not really a fan of cell phones or iPods, so combining the two doesn't really make me excited DX

[Angelyne]

Touch screen? Yuck. It will only take a few hours for the screen to become gummed up and icky from fingerprints.

[Soli]

Haha, an iPhone? I don't even have a regular cell phone! XD Looks fancy.

I remember from a House M.D. episode, the man who was in a coma for 10 year woke up. He saw Wilson's iPod and said "What an ip- od?" :rofl:

[Trinadad]

I remember from a House M.D. episode, the man who was in a coma for 10 year woke up. He saw Wilson's iPod and said "What an ip- od?" :rofl: Haha, yeah, i remember that. That definetly made me giggle.


But anyways. I don't know - it looks cool, but not something that I would get. Until both my phone and my mp3 player, which isn't apple, die, I wouldn't get the two together.

[Trump]

ipods are far overhyped. So is this phone. *meh

[Mastiker]

ipods are far overhyped. So is this phone. *meh

QFT

I'd much rather get a $30 cd player.

This next thing I'm gonna say is most important:

iPods, Zunes, iRivers, anything mp3 player related, cd players, tape recorders, and record players = THE SAME GOD DAMN THING.

You know why?

THEY ALL PLAY MUSIC.

who cares if the iPod has the most accesories? That makes an iPod less of a music player and more of a fashion statement; and whoever buys a 200 dollar music machine because it's fashionable is a git.

So WHAT if it's better quality? is that really going to make a difference to the song? really? i mean, is the song going to be SOOOOOOOO much worse if it's skipping? oh, heaven forbid you have a scratched cd.

and cell phones? WORST INVENTION EVER.

I lie.

Cell phones are one of the most useful inventions of the turn of the century, and they've really revolutionized the way we communicate.

however...

PEOPLE WITH CELL PHONES NEED TO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I'm sorry but, you're not alone when you're in public. Other people can hear your conversations. You look and sound like a dolt. Texting? Useless! In the five minutes it takes for me to type "hi how r u?" I could have dialed your number and asked you myself!

a cell phone is a practical invention, when used in a practical manner. i've only seen a few people ever solely use their phones as just that - a phone. you want to take pictures? buy a digital camera. you want to text people? go on the internet. you want to download ringtones? shoot yourself in the face.

guess what? *ring* means you gota phone call. it doesn't need to be a five second clip of the hot song of the week. do you know how annoying it is to be shopping and then hear: "i'm bringin sexy back, yeah - i'm bringing sexy back, yeah - i'm bringing sexy back, yeah"?!

*pause*

and blue tooth people. god. i don't even want to get into that one.

...

:innocent: I'm done.

[LJustus]

I am going to get one of these when they come out. Luckily, I have cingular as my cell provider.

And Mastiker, I am going to buy one because it's portable, clear music that I can take on my travels with me. When you fly long distances, an mp3 player of some sort is a god send. It means you don't have to have some forced conversation with the nut next to you or hear the screaming kid across the aisle.

I usually text my friends who have day jobs because I can't call them at work. See how convenient that is? Just because it takes YOU a long time to do something, that doesn't mean it takes everyone a long time to perform the same action.

Regarding the music clips. . . I personally prefer a regular ring, but that's just what it is. . . a personal preference. If someone wants to spend a buck to personalize their phone, who are you to say they shouldn't?

Blue tooth is much safer in the car than holding the phone in your hand. Personally, I use the corded earphones in the car, but I guess I'm just not trendy enough.

In short. . . Don't hate. :D

[Jetsetlemming]

I got my cell phone for free. :D Hand-me-down.

[Mastiker]

And Mastiker, I am going to buy one because it's portable, clear music that I can take on my travels with me. When you fly long distances, an mp3 player of some sort is a god send. It means you don't have to have some forced conversation with the nut next to you or hear the screaming kid across the aisle.

I usually text my friends who have day jobs because I can't call them at work. See how convenient that is? Just because it takes YOU a long time to do something, that doesn't mean it takes everyone a long time to perform the same action.

Regarding the music clips. . . I personally prefer a regular ring, but that's just what it is. . . a personal preference. If someone wants to spend a buck to personalize their phone, who are you to say they shouldn't?

Blue tooth is much safer in the car than holding the phone in your hand. Personally, I use the corded earphones in the car, but I guess I'm just not trendy enough.

In short. . . Don't hate. :D

But... CD Players are portable XD And, so long as you don't drop them, they work.

Forced conversation is easily gotten out of; either say something so horrible that they shut up, or just tell them to shut up. As for the screaming kid, scream louder. You'll get more attention, and make the parent realize how much of an idiot they are. If you're lucky, you'll get a two-fer, and the chatty guy next to you will shut up on account of how psycho you are. (Totally not condoning this, but would not mind seeing it :D)

I was over-simplfying the point about me not being able to type it fast, but even then, it's much faster to call a person up and say "hey, how are you!" no matter who you are... unless you're quick draw mcgraw or something, those things take a little more effort.

and thanks for bringing up another point; work is for work. you shouldn't be talking to your friends when they're working. if you have plans to figure out, figure them out on your own time. your boss, and their boss, are not paying you to talk to your friends.

yeah, that ring tone thing is more of a pet peeve than anything. i just don't like those songs, and hearing them in five second blurbs is just annoying.... even more so when the person hears it, recognizes it, and takes ten minutes to answer their phone. "hey jackass, i think it's for you."

blue tooth is much safer in the car, but i've never seen people use blue tooth in the car. i've seen lazy assholes who can't hold the phone to their face long enough to ask someone if miffy likes red shoes or white shoes. they look like huge dolts.

and yet another point; you're driving. you should be driving. the distraction of noise is one thing (like the radio, or music) but add into that the factor of conversation and you have an accident waiting to happen, regardless of whether or not you're using blue tooth. it's illegal to wear headphones in a car, why not blue tooth?

i don't hate... i frustrate XD

[Plekto]

That $600 price is for the top-end model by itself(unbranded/good for Europe and Japan/etc). The U.S. version through Cingular will be priced in the $200 or so range with a service plan. Quite nice, actually.

Oh - and it also runs Macintosh Apps.

P.S. in Job's speech, he commented that ITunes was doing just fine at 5 million songs a day worldwide(!!!). Yeah.. Apple's as close to printing money as a company can get these days.

[tweek.3867]

But... CD Players are portable XD And, so long as you don't drop them, they work. Portable if you only have one CD. Kind of. I don't know about you, but my pockets arent that big.

mp3 players have the benefit of having a lot of portable music as opposed to as many CDs as you can carry around with you.

and yet another point; you're driving. you should be driving. the distraction of noise is one thing (like the radio, or music) but add into that the factor of conversation and you have an accident waiting to happen, regardless of whether or not you're using blue tooth. it's illegal to wear headphones in a car, why not blue tooth?
So there is a difference between having a conversation with someone over your bluetooth headset, hands free, and having a conversation with someone sitting in the passenger seat of your car? I doubt you have an issue with the latter.

Plekto: where did you hear that about the $200 thing? That's pretty damn nice, pricewise, if true.

[Mastiker]

Portable if you only have one CD. Kind of. I don't know about you, but my pockets arent that big.

mp3 players have the benefit of having a lot of portable music as opposed to as many CDs as you can carry around with you.


There are alternatives. Lots of alternatives; one being cd players that play mp3 discs... or, you just don't care that you have to carry cd's around and listen to them. It really is personal preference, I just ranted earlier. I really wouldn't mind an mp3 player, but I'm perfectly content using my cheap ass equipment. My major problem with mp3 players have nothing to do with the players, it's more so to do with the people who own them and wield them as if they are some icon of power or something.

So there is a difference between having a conversation with someone over your bluetooth headset, hands free, and having a conversation with someone sitting in the passenger seat of your car? I doubt you have an issue with the latter.

My point isn't conversation between two people; my point is misdirected attention. You aren't supposed to wear headphones because they don't work well to let noise in so much if they're covered up by noise. The same goes for bluetooth- it's right in your ear. The difference with that and headphones, however, is that with blue tooth you're generally having a conversation with a person which takes attention away from you- on top of being able to only have one ear function the way it's supposed to. I still don't like conversation between the driver and passenger's however. I don't even speak to my parents when they're driving if I can help it, and they've been driving for God knows how long. The less amount of distractions a driver has, the better.

Again; huge difference between conversation, and conversation directly in your ear.

[Plekto]

Well, we'll see. The Palm and others are in the 200-300 range after activation and rebates, so I don't see why Apple would be any different.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I have a feeling that most iPod haters are young folks who think that simple is bad.

The older I get (and I'm still young as Hell) the more I appreciate functional simplicity. The iPod is a perfect example of simplicity that works effectively. I don't like Linux. I don't even like Windows. I like the beautiful simplicity of Mac OSX, because 999 times out of 1000 that I use my computer, I don't have to do anything time-consuming or annoying in regards to its maintenance.

I don't need to be able to run a stable webserver, or do my own coding, or enjoy a free OS. I don't care if I can't play the latest game or swap components in and out of my computer on a whim. I just want a computer that I can turn on, boots up, and works. That's all. It's really simple.

All I need from my music player is for it to be convenient to use, hold enough music, and be able to fit in my pocket. The iPod fits the bill wonderfully, and is incredibly intuitive to boot.

The smaller the learning curve, the happier I am.

The 21st century is going to see a lot more stuff like this as technology gets disseminated to grannies and folks who have never used a computer. Up until the DS and Wii, a new console/handheld simply meant more buttons and more complexity. Now Nintendo is targetting all those people who don't appreciate 20 buttons and insanely complex controlling schemes. They are making their games intuitive, and making a killing off of it.

Apple is managing to do the same with other consumer electronics.

Simple is good. Intuitive is good. Nice packaging is an added bonus.

[PopCulturePooka]

When reading Mastikers posts in this thread all I really hear is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/images/300/baby_crying_closeup.jpg

[Mastiker]

I have a feeling that most iPod haters are young folks who think that simple is bad.

I don't think simple is bad; but I don't see a lot of people buying iPods because they're "simple and efficient"

and... I'm pretty sure I don't hate iPods anymore. What I hate are people that tote around their iPods like it's the greatest damn invention since sliced Jesus, or like it's some super designer accessory that happens to be a music player.

And... CD players aren't that complex DX "Insert CD, press play, enjoy." My sister's iPod took two weeks before we could put one song on it. That isn't simple. Not one bit. She still has questions like "am I doing this right?" "should it be doing that?" and "what do I do now?"

I've never once looked at a CD player and thought i might need to do research to use it.

There are much more simpler mp3 players other than iPods... not that iPods aren't simply once you know what you're doing. But to any techno-tard, getting used to an iPod could take... just about two weeks. For you, who I'm sure knows a bit about technology, should easily be able to use an iPod.

When reading Mastikers posts in this thread all I really see is:
http://www.brazil-sexy.com/images/1019c.jpg Fixed.

[ZylitoL]

I don't know about the success of the iPhone, it's still kinda up in the air I think. It does have many functions considering that it's an Apple product though...but if you really break it down...

-3.5 inch widescreen (though it's not 16:9, it's rather 3:2). It's pretty damn big, but nothing extraordinary. Double edged sword if you will though...I personally think it's excessively big for a phone. Decent resolution @ 320x480.
-Standard 2MP camera...don't know who's giving Apple the lenses but camera phones suck regardless.
-iTunes integration. This can only be a good thing as it will give access to legit, quality media. I like it.
-WiFi. Pretty much standardized in PDA phones. I don't know about US but Canadian networks are in no shape to actually give decent internet access over WiFi on a phone...seeing as your ISPs can't do it properly on LAN for PC, I don't expect them to give reasonable speed and coverage over WiFi!
-QWERTY. I never complain about it.
-Touch screen. Nothing new, and nothing good IMO. I don't like touch screens really, and considering how fragile an iPod is (and assuming the iPhone won't be any sturdier), the touch screen is just making it even more breakable. The huge 3.5 inch screen doesn't help either.
-OS X. Another potential selling point, for those who love OS X.
-BlueTooth and EDGE. Standard for phones nowadays.
-Sensors. Um...they sound nice.
-Size. It's rather thin, but you can't hide the screen, so they width and length are pretty big. @ 135g it's light for its class, I think.
-Battery life. Not gonna lie, it's a tad bit below average.
-Memory! 4g or 8g! HUUGE!

So, you can probably see that function-wise, it's not going to be winning many people over, aside from OS X fanatics. But as most know, Apple's objective isn't to offer the top of the line high tech. To me, the iPhone just seems like an average PDA phone that can play 8 gigs worth of music and videos. I don't think it's going to be as revolutionary as the iPod though. Its targeted audience is much smaller for sure. At the moment, I remain skeptical of the thing...just cuz it's an Apple with a "i" in front of its name doesn't automatically guarantee success as some many think...for that matter, no product really has...except for the iPod.

Mastiker,

It's just a matter of time before digitalized multimedia becomes so idealized that you have to be living under a rock not to know how to put a song or two on your mp3. I remember it used to be that way about VHS vs DVD, but we've successfully made that change (changing again in a few years...?! HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are out...but I'm not gonna lie that they won't have as big an impact as VHS-DVD transition.)

Also,

CD players are thing of the past. Portability-wise you got mp3 players. Sound quality wise you can resort to FLAC/APE/Apple Lossless/WMA Lossless. A good chunk of the mp3s support lossless, such as the iAUDIO X5.

And,

I cannot in any way or form, relate to your idea about mp3 players being the icon of power.

[Pierrot le Fou]

The iPod is simple.

<< goes back a song
>> goes forward a song
Menu brings up a menu
|> plays

The wheel scrolls up or down pretty damned intuitively, and the button in the center, the only confusing part of the product, selects stuff.

I plugged my iPod into my Mac the first time, and it updated its software automatically, opened iTunes, and immediately prompted me as to how to proceed to the listening phase of my purchase.

I'm sorry, but the other mp3 players I have seen do not have that functionality. First you need to install software. Then you have to import your music library. Then you have to follow the instructions which are generally poorly written.

Have trouble with the iPod? Just open the instruction manual! Ever read an Apple instruction manual? They are bright, use pictures, and don't assume that you know things you may not know.

Honestly, go take a look at the iRiver instructions for their software only:
http://www.iriveramerica.com/images/pdf/iMM_USA_040326.pdf

They don't even have the Mac installation process correct (the iRiver application should be moved to your application folder, as if you open the application from the mounted disk image, the application will be gone the next time you reboot).

Note also the horribly cluttered design and layout, as well as general confusion.

Take a look at the iPod one:
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/iPod_User_Guide_(color_display).pdf

Now I may be biased, but dear God the iPod's instructions are brainlessly simple, and actually accurate.

Simplicity and functionality.

Maybe you can tolerate the size of a CD player. I used an mp3 CD player, but the lack of a display to allow you to choose the song you wanted to listen to, added to the inability to see the song you are listening to, and the bulkiness of it all in general (not to mention the skipping) wasn't cutting it for me.

[4letterwords]

*Pulls out daddy's credit card*

Definitely getting it. I need a new phone and a new Ipod... might as well get some pretension on the side.

Note: I'm really gonna get it. How sad is that?

[Kass]

Did you hear Cisco Systems is suing Apple over the iPhone name? Cisco owns the iPhone trademark and actually marketed their iPhone last month. Cisco bought the rights to the iPhone name when they bought Infogear in 2000 (acquisitions are a daily hobby for the IT industry it seems). Infogear filed the trademark in 1996.

I wonder how much Apple is going to shell out to get the rights to "iPhone." I actually would like to see Apple take it on the chin and lose the "iPhone" name. Every once in a while, the giant needs to take a punch.

[Trump]

I get frustrated by the hype. iPod is just a damn MP3 player. I just cannot justify this tremendous hype over simplicity of use? What, so it is a little bit easier to use. Stop the presses!! MP3 player is easy to use!! This new phone? I bet this touch screen is going to be problematic. If you keep the phone in your pocket I can imagine all of the random phone calls you will make, songs will skip for no reason, and all kinds of crazy things. And really, how much easier to use is it than other current phones that play MP3s. I mean, we aren't talking voice activated or anything. You still have to hit the same buttons. It's just all Apple's marketting ploy and I don't see the benefit vs cost.

[PopCulturePooka]

It will obviously have a keylock/hold button. All hpones and MP3 players do.

[Mastiker]

Hey, it's all personal preference :D

In all honesty, I don't care what's coming next on my music. Music is music. I care more about listening to it than I care what it's coming out of. I just don't like it when people think they're holier than thou because they have an iPod, or think that they're the greatest invention since forever. They haven't "revolutionized" anything.

And the directions on my sister's iPod were so simple, that it didn't make a lick of difference. First direction: "install iTunes from iTunes.com"

We don't have the capability to do that. We have dial-up. I've tried to download iTunes before, and it takes about three weeks to do so. So we got an iTunes cd from my uncle, and installed it. It wasn't the latest edition, but we didn't think that would matter.

It did.

So what do we do? How do we get a recent copy of iTunes? Well, I had to go to my grandmother's house, download iTunes, and burn it to a disc. Then, I had to go home and install it. Then, I had to wait until it converted all of my songs to a special "iTunes" format. (which is mp3, i'm just being obnoxious) Then, after finally waiting until all the songs were converted, my sister and I hooked up her iPod to the computer. And then our computer denied that iPod existed. So then we had to install the iPod. Yeah, sounds weird, but we had to. So... we've gone through all this, finally, all I have to do is click and drag my sister's music into her iPod, and all is good. But, alas, there is a problem. The first five days, of following instructions, the iPod refused to hold any of the songs that was being put on it. It took a week before we could get an album on there. Nearly three weeks after X-Mas, and my sister finally has it under control... and then it freezes. It has a dent in it, despite the carrying case. Oh joy.

I'm sorry but, all that = not simple. Not to me. The instructions were so simple they didn't help us at all when we couldn't figure out why it wasn't working. Now the iRiver instructions; they may be wrong with the Mac, I don't know, but those look REALLY simple to follow because they go through every little step. It doesn't seem like they left any detail out. There's a difference between simple, and oversimplifying.

And the whole ">> skip right << skip left |> play/pause" yeah, nobody has ever done that before.

My point is, iPods aren't any more simple than CD players. I will agree with you, yes, they are less bulky. Yes, it makes it easy to be able to read your songs. But unless you've been living under a rock since the 80's, CD players are easy to understand. Making the arguement that young people don't like it because it's simple is idiotic. Anything is simple with enough practice. I don't hate a piece of technology, as I've stated, that would be useless. I hate people that tote them around like they're the greatest. They really aren't.

And don't get me wrong; to say that I'll never get one is far from saying anything. I might not buy one but I wouldn't punch someone in the nose for getting me one... nor do I really care if you have one. It's just something to listen to music on. It shouldn't be about what it's playing on, it should be about what's playing.

[Kass]

An iPod is only easy to use if you use it on a Mac. It takes an act of Steve Jobs paid for with illegal stock options to get the bloody things to work right on a PC. It's probably deliberate too.

[Mastiker]

It's probably deliberate too.

Probably. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Kass]

Microsquish and Apple do that all the time. They make it difficult to use their wonderful gadgets on any other platform. It is smart business because it means people tend to stay with one brand name, but it is a PITA for the consumer.

I rarely listen to podcasts because it is so much of a pain to set up on my PC. I can do it, but it is more hassle than it is worth. Shame because there are some I would love to listen to.

[Mastiker]

Microsquish and Apple do that all the time. They make it difficult to use their wonderful gadgets on any other platform. It is smart business because it means people tend to stay with one brand name, but it is a PITA for the consumer.

I rarely listen to podcasts because it is so much of a pain to set up on my PC. I can do it, but it is more hassle than it is worth. Shame because there are some I would love to listen to.

Okay, people keep saying "podcasts" and I see it on iTunes a lot; what the hell is a podcast?

[Trump]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast

google is your friend...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Apodcast

[LJustus]

My fav podcast is NPR's "Wait, wait. . . Don't tell me".

Yes, I am a nerd.

[King Kong]

Apple is gold. Anyone who disagrees with me is a total bastard and should die painfully.

[Trump]

Bring on the pain!!!

Though I do wish I had bought some Apple stock a couple years ago =/

[Plekto]

The reason Apple will win with this is because they are pros at integrating like Nokia is. It lokos, feels, works... just a bit better than the competition in every way. And it all adds up to a great compromise.

Take the IPod - I don't own one(MP3 CDs work better, IMO), but I can see how many peolpe would. It's idiotproof, looks clean, and works acceptably well.

And merging it with a Macintosh computer is genius. Palm is blown out of the water. Windows CE - has serious competition. Unix-based PDAs? Oh wait - OSX is Unix...

As for the buttons - it has a lock that requires a specific symbol/movement to be done on the screen to activate. And if they say it won't turn on by mistake, they have spent the time making sure it won't.

[Kass]

The reason Apple will win with this is because they are pros at integrating like Nokia is. It lokos, feels, works... just a bit better than the competition in every way. And it all adds up to a great compromise.

Take the IPod - I don't own one(MP3 CDs work better, IMO), but I can see how many peolpe would. It's idiotproof, looks clean, and works acceptably well.

Unless you own a PC and want to use an iPod.

Of course, one of the reasons most of their stuff is idiot proof is that was the whole point of Apple. They wanted a computer easy enough for absolute idiots to use. If it was a complicated idea, they ditched it or did it for the users and gave them icons to look at instead. When all else fails, make it into a pretty picture and think for the user. It works for them.

The DOS/now Windows PCs work on the assumption that you will learn how to use them.

Mac has also been lucky. Because it doesn't have the lion's share of the market, it isn't an attractive target to hackers. As it has gotten more popular, more viruses are cropping up for Macs. It's only a matter of time before Macs have as many problems as Windows in that regard.

And merging it with a Macintosh computer is genius. Palm is blown out of the water. Windows CE - has serious competition. Unix-based PDAs? Oh wait - OSX is Unix...


The Mac is good for a lot of things, but if you are a hardcore/professional programmer or a hardcore PC gamer, it sucks wind.

Macs are kick ass for graphics generation, animation and photo editing though. Any graphic artist should own the best Mac possible.

As for the buttons - it has a lock that requires a specific symbol/movement to be done on the screen to activate. And if they say it won't turn on by mistake, they have spent the time making sure it won't.

I'm sure it will happen to someone. It's handheld computer technology and if there is something that can screw up, it will.

[akitaka]

I stick to Windows based on utility factors. At least in my experience, upgrading and keeping up with firmware (the software that lets your computer components work) is MUCH easier with windows-based systems.

On the other hand, the Macs cope well with handling memory and hard-drive space; you never have to defragment (or close gaps caused by deleting junk) as it does it automatically upon new program installations. Totally stellar feature which is the reason editors/graphic artist pick it, but since I know my way around and back with a Windows machine (unlike most conventional artists), such issues are resolvable by quick bi-yearly checks.

If you aren't willing to study into your purchased technology, it gets harder and harder to use it without issues. For most people, I'd totally recommend a Mac. Besides, they always look slick, and tend to have good resale value.

The iPod is overrated, overpriced, but serve an as excellent tool in what it does. I can't say that the same will be evident for the iPhone (legal issues in-check), where the much cheaper and already effective black berries have a hold on the market.

Another issue is durability; hard-drive based items are very damage-prone to shock. One of my friends is on his third one; each dropped, tossed, and beaten up in his bag. If this new "phone" doesn't have some wonderful coating/mechanism to prevent this, people will be buying a $500+ piece glass, unless I'm wrong and that it uses flash memory.

[Y.T.]

From The Register:

Planet Earth is in crisis, and no messing. With fossil fuel reserves running low and confusion among the world's governments as how best to proceed, we'd like to offer the ultimate clean-energy-generating system: the iPhone superheated atmosphere turbine.

The operational principle is simple: a multi-box Mac set-up via which small groups of Macheads are exposed to screen images of the iPhone, thereby provoking the production of vast quantities of hot air as they bang on relentlessly about how the device has changed their lives and those of their children, and their children's children, etc, etc.

This superheated atmosphere is vented via vast turbines which can produce up to 100kW per geek hour - 70 per cent more efficient than simply burning Apple disciples for fuel. In times of peak demand, extra energy is created by pumping a snap of a sultry Carrie Anne Moss onto an emergency screen, as seen here. To prevent meltdown, one or more of the iPhone images can be removed to cool the reactor's human core.

The iPhone superheated atmosphere turbine generator is fuelled by environmentally-friendly, organic pizza. Note the unspent fuel cell at the bottom left of the picture.

[Wakka]

Okay, people keep saying "podcasts" and I see it on iTunes a lot; what the hell is a podcast?


Classic quote from our 'resident nerd'.

Next week, we'll cover the keyboard and mouse!

[Roxie]

My fav podcast is NPR's "Wait, wait. . . Don't tell me".

Yes, I am a nerd.
OMG, I cannot tell you how much I *love* that show!!!! NPR is my heart, my love. We'll be nerds together. Answering all the quiz questions and laughing at the political+pop culture references. :innocent:




Anyway, I don't care for iPods. they don't do enough for me. They're what I call "continuous purchase products". You (if you so desire to do so) have to keep buying separate accessories in addition to the cost of the iPod itself.

I prefer bundled products like the iRiver Hseries and the Creative Vision M series. That way, I can get everything I want in a listening device in one swoop and then some.

However, I do not think I'd want it all bundled into a phone. That's just too much for me. Besides, there's set backs. You'll have to deal with less music capacity or some other thing. Plus, why get an iPhone if you have an ipod unless you're getting rid of both your cellphone and ipod? too much.

[Plekto]

Unless you own a PC and want to use an iPod.

Of course, one of the reasons most of their stuff is idiot proof is that was the whole point of Apple. They wanted a computer easy enough for absolute idiots to use. If it was a complicated idea, they ditched it or did it for the users and gave them icons to look at instead. When all else fails, make it into a pretty picture and think for the user. It works for them.

And yet... Windows is copying them at every instance. Why? Because 95% of all people want a computer to work like an appliance. Even IF they know how to do complicated things with it, most peolpe are glad to just press a button and be done with it after a day at the office.(much like how first generation HT systems had to be configured manually - now you turn on your TV and it all syncs into place automatically.)


Mac has also been lucky. Because it doesn't have the lion's share of the market, it isn't an attractive target to hackers. As it has gotten more popular, more viruses are cropping up for Macs. It's only a matter of time before Macs have as many problems as Windows in that regard.


Maybe, but Apple managed to dodge 90% of it by opting to jump ship to *IX. This makes it infinately harder to attack as the holes and backdoors and kludges... almost all gone. Windws is a never-ending nightmare as far as security goes. I know - I do it all the time for clients. My own PC has two firewalls, two anti-spyware, and two antivirus programs running. And it's still about only 80-90% secure, because the OS has more holes in it than a Swiss Cheese Maker's convention.


The Mac is good for a lot of things, but if you are a hardcore/professional programmer or a hardcore PC gamer, it sucks wind.

New flash! Most of the *world* doesn't give a damn about gaming. Almost all PC sales are for other things as their primary intended use. And if you run a small company, Windows is a nightmare to maintain.

Also, for programming, since Mac is *IX, and *IX is the future, like it or not, the reality is that higher-end programming and games will be going that direction - and soon. Vista and 64 bit code is a headache compared to a few tweaks and presto-Mac version as well as PC!

(odd itdbit for the day)
Also, did you know that the oft-quoted market-share for PCs counts the PC and the OS as two seperate sales? So the reality is that PC sales are actually about 60% of what they report?(10% or so are DIY/not sold with windows) This gives the Macintosh not a 15% marketshare, but ~23%, since the OS and computer are sold together.

85%*.6(actual sales)=.51 .51+15%(remains unchanged)=66. 15/66=22.7%

[Y.T.]

... I don't get one thing ?
Why do they call them "podcasts" ?
... someone reading some text.. and they had to invent a new word for it.

[Trump]

The iPod is overrated, overpriced, but serve an as excellent tool in what it does.

Amen. I'm not saying the product sucks, but I'm not willing to pay the premium for the name when there are tons of other products that do the same thing.

Regardless, Pletko, How do you really know Mac has less security gaps? The only reason Windows has a bad name is because people have found and exploited them in the past. Just because people haven't found them on the Mac doesn't mean they are there, especially when they haven't been looking. Seriously, an operating system is terribly complex set of software. I've done some programming for them in school, and it taught me a lot of respect the people who work on them.

[akitaka]

@plekto: I take it you don't visit computer forums, at least the ones where people know what they are doing/buying when dealing with the prices and components of a machine. They game plenty, and tend to have many gripes about firmware compatibility and component builds; Macs demand certain brands of memory, if I'm not mistaken.

If you're referring to the average buyer, than yeah you're very much right, but they just another part of the market for these companies to sell to.

As for stability, I'm totally with you in that Windows is horrible for high-number networks; I mean, you can get SUSE for free and remain problem-free granted that you let people learn the ropes of it (though I found it too stiff and restrictive in the way it accesses files).

But that doesn't mean that Mac is the 'future'; what's in the future is what sells, or if people are willing to cooperate, what they use. Even when the code is frusterating to work with, it's bringing in cash from those who could care less as long as their screens look pretty.

[Plekto]

No, but *IX is the future - and Apple has moved to it quicker than the stodgy guys at Microsoft. It's cleaner and simpler. And it's dead-simple to shut down all the unused ports in the OS by default(90%+ of Windows problems stem from this).

Also, they have built-in protections. See, having one OS and hardware standard with rigid controls and bug fixes that actually work 95% of the time as opposed to maybe 25% of the time. One was built with no backwards-compatability in mind as a new OS with built-in security and the other is crippled by reliying on legacy code compatability. The fact that you can literally drop in a copy of OSX or damaged parts into the machine as well as apps and go is amazing. No registry. No 8-bit filenames. No BSODs. For everything but games and SQL, it's far superior.

But, yeah, for games, it's pretty slim. Thankfully, the Intel Dual-core models out now can run Windows apps at about 90% real speed. So the reasons to not own one are rapidly becoming moot. My next box will definately be a dual-core Mac with the PC area set aside for games only.

My sister, in fact, just got a dual-core powerbook and she's elated. All her PC apps run perfectly and if they do crash - well, it's a Mac first and foremost, so if Windows blows up - reload and go(using it for games only). All the main apps like office, email, photoshop, itunes, bittorrnet, and the rest... all on the mac and stable.

[Kaji]

Roxie: What "extras" do you need for the iPod? I just have the iPod and a new set of headphones (since I'm no fan of earbuds), and I've been set ever since for the 10 months or so I've had mine.

[Roxie]

Roxie: What "extras" do you need for the iPod? I just have the iPod and a new set of headphones (since I'm no fan of earbuds), and I've been set ever since for the 10 months or so I've had mine.

An fm tuner (npr addict/morning show lover), in-line connection (for recording streaming audio you can't d/l), and microphone to record things (cause I plan on being a writer/journalist).

These are all are very important to me.

[ZylitoL]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth

What do ya think?

[Trinadad]

An fm tuner (npr addict/morning show lover), in-line connection (for recording streaming audio you can't d/l), and microphone to record things (cause I plan on being a writer/journalist).

These are all are very important to me.

Yeah, that's why I got an iaudio instead of an ipod. Comes with all that and it looks great, it's very customizable, too.
Although ipods are great, I'd just rather not have one. So mixing it with a phone would be death for me.


And ZylitoL - the one of them is LG... something's bound to go wrong. Eep.

[ZylitoL]

What's wrong with LGs? Personally I don't use them but their phones seem to be fine =S

[Trump]

I don't see how you can sue based on the fact that it is phone shaped and has a number pad. Really, how different can you make a number pad look?

[Roxie]

From NY Times
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/business/yourmoney/14digi.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=8550e742ea670ba2&ex=1169010000&pagewanted=print)
Want an iPhone? Beware the iHandcuffs
By RANDALL STROSS

STEVE JOBS, Apple’s showman nonpareil, provided the first public glimpse of the iPhone last week — gorgeous, feature-laden and pricey. While following the master magician’s gestures, it was easy to overlook a most disappointing aspect: like its slimmer iPod siblings, the iPhone’s music-playing function will be limited by factory-installed “crippleware.”

If “crippleware” seems an unduly harsh description, it balances the euphemistic names that the industry uses for copy protection. Apple officially calls its own standard “FairPlay,” but fair it is not.

The term “crippleware” comes from the plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit, Melanie Tucker v. Apple Computer Inc., that is making its way through Federal District Court in Northern California. The suit contends that Apple unfairly restricts consumer choice because it does not load onto the iPod the software needed to play music that uses Microsoft’s copy-protection standard, in addition to Apple’s own.

Ms. Tucker’s core argument is that the absence of another company’s software on the iPod constitutes “crippleware.” I disagree. It is Apple’s own copy-protection software itself that cripples the device.

Here is how FairPlay works: When you buy songs at the iTunes Music Store, you can play them on one — and only one — line of portable player, the iPod. And when you buy an iPod, you can play copy-protected songs bought from one — and only one — online music store, the iTunes Music Store.

The only legal way around this built-in limitation is to strip out the copy protection by burning a CD with the tracks, then uploading the music back to the computer. If you’re willing to go to that trouble, you can play the music where and how you choose — the equivalent to rights that would have been granted automatically at the cash register if you had bought the same music on a CD in the first place.

Even if you are ready to pledge a lifetime commitment to the iPod as your only brand of portable music player or to the iPhone as your only cellphone once it is released, you may find that FairPlay copy protection will, sooner or later, cause you grief. You are always going to have to buy Apple stuff. Forever and ever. Because your iTunes will not play on anyone else’s hardware.

Unlike Apple, Microsoft has been willing to license its copy-protection software to third-party hardware vendors. But copy protection is copy protection: a headache only for the law-abiding.

Microsoft used to promote its PlaysForSure copy-protection standard, but there must have been some difficulty with the “for sure” because the company has dropped it in favor of an entirely new copy-protection standard for its new Zune player, which, incidentally, is incompatible with the old one.

Pity the overly trusting customers who invested earlier in music collections before the Zune arrived. Their music cannot be played on the new Zune because it is locked up by software enforcing the earlier copy-protection standard: PlaysFor(Pretty)Sure — ButNotTheNewStuff.

The name for the umbrella category for copy-protection software is itself an indefensible euphemism: Digital Rights Management. As consumers, the “rights” enjoyed are few. As some wags have said, the initials D.R.M. should really stand for “Digital Restrictions Management.”

As consumers become more aware of how copy protection limits perfectly lawful behavior, they should throw their support behind the music labels that offer digital music for sale in plain-vanilla MP3 format, without copy protection.

Apple pretends that the decision to use copy protection is out of its hands. In defending itself against Ms. Tucker’s lawsuit, Apple’s lawyers noted in passing that digital-rights-management software is required by the major record companies as a condition of permitting their music to be sold online: “Without D.R.M., legal online music stores would not exist.”

In other words, however irksome customers may find the limitations imposed by copy protection, the fault is the music companies’, not Apple’s.

This claim requires willful blindness to the presence of online music stores that eschew copy protection. For example, one online store, eMusic, offers two million tracks from independent labels that represent about 30 percent of worldwide music sales.

Unlike the four major labels — Universal, Warner Music Group, EMI and Sony BMG — the independents provide eMusic with permission to distribute the music in plain MP3 format. There is no copy protection, no customer lock-in, no restrictions on what kind of music player or media center a customer chooses to use — the MP3 standard is accommodated by all players.

EMusic recently celebrated the sale of its 100 millionth download; it trails only iTunes as the largest online seller of digital music. (Of course, iTunes, with 2 billion downloads, has a substantial lead.)

Among the artists who can be found at eMusic are Barenaked Ladies, Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne, who are represented by Nettwerk Music Group, based in Vancouver, British Columbia. All Nettwerk releases are available at eMusic without copy protection.

But when the same tracks are sold by the iTunes Music Store, Apple insists on attaching FairPlay copy protection that limits their use to only one portable player, the iPod. Terry McBride, Nettwerk’s chief executive, said that the artists initially required Apple to use copy protection, but that this was no longer the case. At this point, he said, copy protection serves only Apple’s interests .

Josh Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester Research, agreed, saying copy protection “just locks people into Apple.” He said he had recently asked Apple when the company would remove copy protection and was told, “We see no need to do so.”

Apple’s statement is a detailed treatise on the subject, compared with what I received when I asked the company last week whether it would offer tracks without copy protection if the publisher did not insist on it: the Apple spokesman took my query and never got back to me.

David Pakman, the C.E.O. of eMusic, said the major labels have watched their revenues decline about $10 billion since a 2001 peak; meanwhile, revenue earned by the independents has held steady. He said his service offers music from 9,800 labels, each of which has embraced downloads in MP3 format. Only four labels still cling to copy protection, even though piracy has not declined, and those are the four major labels.

Mr. McBride, of Nettwerk, predicted that in 2007 the major labels would finally move to drop copy protection in order to provide iPod owners the option of shopping at online music stores other than iTunes; by doing so, he added, they would “break the monopoly of Apple” that dictates terms and conditions for music industry suppliers and customers. Some encouraging signs have appeared recently. Dave Goldberg, the head of Yahoo Music, persuaded EMI to try some experiments last month with MP3 downloads — a Norah Jones single here, a Reliant K single there.

With sales of physical CDs falling faster than digital music sales are growing, he said, the major labels “have got to make it easier for people to do the right thing” — that is, to buy recorded music unencumbered with copy protection rather than to engage in illegal file-sharing.

IN the long view, Mr. Goldberg said he believes that today’s copy-protection battles will prove short-lived. Eventually, perhaps in 5 or 10 years, he predicts, all portable players will have wireless broadband capability and will provide direct access, anytime, anywhere, to every song ever released for a low monthly subscription fee.

It’s a prediction that has a high probability of realization because such a system is already found in South Korea, where three million subscribers enjoy direct, wireless access to a virtually limitless music catalog for only $5 a month. He noted, however, that music companies in South Korea did not agree to such a radically different business model until sales of physical CDs had collapsed.

Pointing to South Korea, where copy protection has disappeared, Mr. Goldberg invoked the pithy aphorism attributed to the author William Gibson: “The future is here; it’s just not widely distributed yet.”

Randall Stross is the author of “The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World,” which will be published in March by Crown.

[Kaji]

Eh, guess I should sue because Verizon just limited their phones to only WMA files (and low quality ones, at that), as opposed to allowing MP3 support. Less choice, after all.

Frankly, there's nothing wrong with Apple putting a DRM on the music if it elects to, for several reasons:

1) If a company insists that its music be protected as a condition of sale, then it is Apple's duty to do so. The opinions of the specific artists involved matters little unless they have secured the rights to their own music from the label.

2) Copy protecting all songs by default resolves any hassle regarding whether permission was given to sell a song unprotected or not, everything gets the same treatment. This in turn also gives customers a consistent buying experience, because they aren't going to get caught buying Track B thinking that it's unprotected the same way Track A was that they got 5 minutes before. (And frankly, if you don't know iTunes tracks are protected by this time, you've either been living under a rock, or don't know enough about computers for the protection issues to affect you anyway).

3) It's in the user agreement when you register to use iTunes and download tracks from them that they are protected under this system. Therefore, you are legally agreeing to abide by this, and realize the limitations of this medium of distribution. It's just like how you aren't allowed to buy a book, scan in all of the pages, and then discard the book, due to copyright regulations on electronic storage of said book.

Really, it's not that difficult. Don't want to play the game, don't buy from iTunes.

[Wakka]

What an absolutely ridiculous article. Oh gee, you mean you can only play iTunes Store songs on your iPod or iPhone? Well that's a fucking shock and a half. Welcome to 2002. ¬_¬

iCrippled...jesus christ. You're a serious dumbass if you expect to be able to buy Microsoft DRMed music and then play it on your Apple product. The solution is to buy CDs and rip your music to industry-standard MP3 format which will play on nearly everything, if you really must pay for it.

[akitaka]

@plekto: What do you think about mac boot camp? A friend of mine in Texas was elated by the fact that he could switch OSs to game, then use the main Mac OS to do what he needs to do. It seems more convenient that having two machines, at least to minimalists who want to keep everything in one place. The only expense is an extra HD partition of maybe 20-40 gigs for gaming (depending on the user).

On DRM: I'm with Kaji on this, becuase they are providing a service for thos lazy enough to not go out and buy a CD. Really, there isn't much to complain about. While some scream about oppression, I know that it's simply a way of protecting one's own business and work.

If you want something for free, you either make a work around, or risk getting axed. "Stealing" is a harsh word (as I tend to dl full albums prior to in-store purchase), but you do what you gotta do.

[ZylitoL]

Even if you are ready to pledge a lifetime commitment to the iPod as your only brand of portable music player or to the iPhone as your only cellphone once it is released, you may find that FairPlay copy protection will, sooner or later, cause you grief. You are always going to have to buy Apple stuff. Forever and ever. Because your iTunes will not play on anyone else’s hardware.

HAH!

I'm sure there will be all sorts of hacks and cracks to get around it, but for the average joe (though the typical average Joe wouldn't be able to afford an iPhone), this is not good news.

...Apple sucks. Proud to be an iAUDIO user.

[Trump]

Until you realize some CDs do wierd crap for copy protection that makes the CDs not play music on some computers. I have a couple CDs I can't listen to at work because of this, I can only listen to them in my car? WTF

[Plekto]

My sister is using bootcamp and it works great.

Stripped of the main apps, most users only really need a PC for games and a few specific tasks. It also helps that the PC side can be set up as though it has no network card/adaptors at all, virtually. This can work well - since you won't need a firewall or other bloatware if all you want to do is play a few games and run a couple of PC specific apps.(ie - internet and the rest is on the mac side).

Pc for games... Mac for everything else. Why not?

[ZylitoL]

Trump - My friend had that problem with Foo Fighters' "In Your Honor" There are ways around it though.

Plekto - How about.. PCs for everything? It's been working really well for me, it should be no different for you! =P

[Plekto]

The big deal with Windows based PCs is Vista. It's expensive, a security nightmare, full of holes and bugs, and requires essentially a whole new computer for most of us. In 3-4 years, XP will no longer be officially supported and we'll have to deal with it. And let's not even get into DirectX 10.

PCs are a huge pain as well. Imagine going from working really well to works effortlessly. With a dual-OS option on current macs(all models, actually), and OS 11 or OS 12 eventually being non-Apple dependant for hardware, why not jump ship at the next upgrade? Why not get two OSs for the same price as upgrading to Vista?

[NERD]

I used a Powerbook for 4 years, and switched back to Windows. I thought of getting another Powerbook, but it's just too expensive- I would've if I had the dough though.

XP was a great improvement for Windows from the get-go, though I don't think Vista is that great. Oh, not to mention that it will be buggy for the next couple of months.

And let's stop arguing for/against Mac. I think it's stupid to argue about which platform you like better. iPod is a decent player that is limited for users who would like more customizations/options, but good enough for most people, and it's the brand that sells those units, just like Walkmen/Discmen used to be the 'cool' portable audio player few years ago.

[Kass]

If you want something for free, you either make a work around, or risk getting axed. "Stealing" is a harsh word (as I tend to dl full albums prior to in-store purchase), but you do what you gotta do.

Except they don't want it for free. They purchase the songs and want to play them on their iPod, but can't. In the same way Microsoft locked out other browser manucturers and forced users to go out of their way to load and run other browsers, Apple is locking out other music retailers, thus forcing consumers to use only their store and only their product or go out of their way to burn the songs and reload them to their PC for use on the iPod. iTunes doesn't have every song people might want to play either. Their selection is limited by who allows them to sell their music, like every other online music store.

It's a denial of the fair use clauses of copyright protections. If someone purchases a CD, they can play it on any CD player at any time in any place. That is the consumer's right because they purchased the CD. The same applies to purchasing individual songs. You buy it, you are allowed to play it on any mp3 player at any time in any place--unless you own an iPod.

In case you're wondering, this is exactly the kind of charge that Microsoft lost in federal court and was forced to settle for millions and forced to change their marketing practice. Sorry, but Apple doesn't get to break regulations that Microsoft can't. If it's good for Bill Gates, it's good for Steven Jobs.

And I know that some of you defending Apple hammered Microsoft for their business practices. I've read your posts on it.

[Trump]

Now what is wrong with DX10? First I've heard there. Why do I feel like some people are afraid of different.

[Mastiker]

Classic quote from our 'resident nerd'.

Next week, we'll cover the keyboard and mouse!

XD I did that in reference to the amount of nerdliness I had when it comes to other stuff that's non-podcast related.

I'll go put my foot in my mouth now. >.>

[Kaji]

I don't recall anywhere in the Microsoft EULA that it states (or used to state) that you agreed to only use Microsoft Explorer as your web broswer. The iTunes terms of use clearly states that songs from there are only compatible with iTunes and iPod, and can only be licensed to play on a set number of non-iPod devices before having to be reauthorized. If you agree to the terms set forth by the people operating the service, and they're operating within those terms, then there's not much one can do.

You can sign away just about any of your rights in a legally binding fashion in a contract. Why else do several places require you to give up your right to hold them responsible in the event of harm up to and including death?

[Kass]

The whole deal with Microsoft was that they impeded the consumer's ability to do what they wanted with their purchased products and impeded their ability to acquire and use other browsers. Of course they didn't putit in the EULA. They did put it in contracts with distributors.

What Apple is doing is using technology to prevent other competitors from gaining a foothold in the market and prevent consumers from changing products without losing significant amounts of money to repurchase the music. Microsoft did the same thing by integrating IE into its operating system and requiring that distributors not load other browsers onto the machines.

No, you can't always just sign away your rights. Those kinds of contracts are not legal IF the terms the contracts are trying to enforce are not legal. A contract agreeing to an illegal act is invalid on its face and not enforceable in a court of law. When consumers purchase various media like videos, DVDs, CDs or online electronic media, they purchase "fair use" rights to the media. Their is no exception for internet music or iPods. You purchase the song and the right to use it on any machine at any time. The rights don't attach to the player or media format, it attaches to the song.

This is not the same as a "hold harmless" clause. Hold harmless clauses involve known risks and consequences. If there is a known risk that your purse will be stolen out of your car in a parking garage, you can willingly accept that risk and agree not to make the garage owners pay for the illegal actions of another. You can, however, seek restitution from the perpetrator should he/she be caught.

Hold harmless clauses involving injury and death are frequently overturned if it is determined that the property owners/manufacturers were negligent in negating or minimizing those risks. If you are at a ski lodge that maintains its property well, you can accept that skiing is a risky sport and assume responsibility for your own actions--namely skiing. If you accept those risks and are a lousy skier, fall and break your neck, it's your responsibility. Were the ski lodge negligent in some way and caused your injury, say they covered up a log with snow so they didn't have to move it, you hit the log and broke your neck, a hold harmless agreement would be invalid.

What you are not doing in a "hold harmless" is agreeing to allow someone to steal your purse or injure/kill you. You are not waiving any rights. Accepting a risk is not the same as waiving a right.

[Trump]

This is somewhat amusing...

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070117/191446.shtml

[ZylitoL]

Stuck with Cingular? Hmm...

I'm not too sure about the American companies but some of the comments on that article aren't favoring Cingular.

A similar thing happened up here in Canada regarding the RAZR. It was first locked with Rogers for about 6 months. Then, two other (though one is a subordinate of Rogers) phone companies offered it. A similar situation might happen to the iPhone.

A monopoly is almost always a bad thing though.

[Trump]

Rogers and Cingular have a deal I believe. When I was up in Montreal my phone said "Rogers" instead of "Cingular". It was kinda cool that it didn't cost me any more to make calls up there though. I believe Cingular and Verizon are still the only services that offer the Razer here.

[Roxie]

Rogers and Cingular have a deal I believe. When I was up in Montreal my phone said "Rogers" instead of "Cingular". It was kinda cool that it didn't cost me any more to make calls up there though. I believe Cingular and Verizon are still the only services that offer the Razer here.
No. You can get the Razr with nearly everyone now.T-mobile, Alltell..

[Masa the Masta]

Question:

I've gone to the iPhone site, gone and tried to search the web, no go..

Does anyone have an idea when this phone is going to be released? I'll buy one since I have neither a cell phone or an mp3 player, I may as well.

[ZylitoL]

June 2007.

Or so I've heard.

[Kaji]

Everything I've seen says a street date of 2007. No hard date yet, though.