> 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> 2. Apps can be returned.

> Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> release.

> Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> allow previous apps to work.

> 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> be stolen.

> So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> comes with their phone.

> On Nov 6, 6:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > customers.

> > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > release.

> > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > allow previous apps to work.

> > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > be stolen.

> > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > comes with their phone.

> On Nov 6, 9:17 pm, Harm <jmhar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Wow, do you actually believe what you post?

> > On Nov 6, 6:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > customers.

> > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > release.

> > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > be stolen.

> > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > comes with their phone.

> On Nov 6, 6:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > customers.

> > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > release.

> > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > allow previous apps to work.

> > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > be stolen.

> > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > comes with their phone.

> www.readwriteweb.com/archives/using_an_unlocked_iphone_you_can_forget...

> Geeks and Gamers - EPIC FAIL

> The Droid is a geek phone with a geek name that would attract a
> prosumer geek audience but it does not have a geek amount of APP
> memory being limited by the Android OS to 256MB of internal memory for
> apps (versus 8GB for the iPhone 3G and up to 32GB of app memory for
> the iPhone GS) - only media is read off the external memory cards for
> ANDROID - not apps.

> Geeks love RPG games. These games are often over 100MB on the iPhone.
> So on the DROID it is possible to max out the memory with a couple big
> games - except these games will not be made because of the APP
> limitation and the different implementations of the touch layer across
> different androids and carriers Puts up a huge barrier to entry for
> developers to test their interface on EVERY Android device for quality
> assurance - whereas the multitouch layer is EXACTLY the same on every
> apple device - iPod and iPhone. Who want to develop games for Android
> when you have fragmented user input interfaces to deal with. Do you
> make Multitouch versions for the HTC phones and non multi UI versions
> for the MOTO? And as a developer do you want to worry that your app is
> artificially limited in sales by the application capacity of android
> causing android owners to be able to purchase fewer apps?

> So what is it going to be 32GB or 256MB?

> Fails the non-geeks...

> Don't forget that all of the reviewers are gadget freaks and will not
> have the usability problems that most people will face if they get the
> DROID. Verizon jacked up the cancellation fee to $350 on these
> things.
> If the average consumer picks up a DROID and it led to believe they
> are going to have an iPhone beating experience, it simply will not
> happen, and they will be very disappointed and return the phone. They
> should have advertised the DROID versus Blackberry, because DROID is a
> step up versus a Blackberry in the handheld computing and browser
> realm.

> Fails Bird Watchers and Doctors

> Compelling applications that could benefit from open source
> development could be things like field guides. However Medical
> Applications and Bird Watching Applications take up huge amount of
> memory.

> Fails Accessory / Peripheral makers

> If Motorola even lets 3rd parties make accessories for the DROID, the
> economy of scale is just not there versus the iPod/iPhone accessory
> ecosystem. Because each manufacturer will have different standards and
> barriers for accessory makers, there will be no universal android
> accessories.

> On Nov 7, 12:00 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Another thing that fails on an unlocked iPhone is push notification.
> > Even though these users are upset, Apple is ignoring them, so over
> > time unlocking probably will get chancier.  Here's the reference.

> >www.readwriteweb.com/archives/using_an_unlocked_iphone_you_can_forget...

> Geeks and Gamers - EPIC FAIL

> The Droid is a geek phone with a geek name that would attract a
> prosumer geek audience but it does not have a geek amount of APP
> memory being limited by the Android OS to 256MB of internal memory for
> apps (versus 8GB for the iPhone 3G and up to 32GB of app memory for
> the iPhone GS) - only media is read off the external memory cards for
> ANDROID - not apps.

> Geeks love RPG games. These games are often over 100MB on the iPhone.
> So on the DROID it is possible to max out the memory with a couple big
> games - except these games will not be made because of the APP
> limitation and the different implementations of the touch layer across
> different androids and carriers Puts up a huge barrier to entry for
> developers to test their interface on EVERY Android device for quality
> assurance - whereas the multitouch layer is EXACTLY the same on every
> apple device - iPod and iPhone. Who want to develop games for Android
> when you have fragmented user input interfaces to deal with. Do you
> make Multitouch versions for the HTC phones and non multi UI versions
> for the MOTO? And as a developer do you want to worry that your app is
> artificially limited in sales by the application capacity of android
> causing android owners to be able to purchase fewer apps?

> So what is it going to be 32GB or 256MB?

> Fails the non-geeks...

> Don't forget that all of the reviewers are gadget freaks and will not
> have the usability problems that most people will face if they get the
> DROID. Verizon jacked up the cancellation fee to $350 on these
> things.
> If the average consumer picks up a DROID and it led to believe they
> are going to have an iPhone beating experience, it simply will not
> happen, and they will be very disappointed and return the phone. They
> should have advertised the DROID versus Blackberry, because DROID is a
> step up versus a Blackberry in the handheld computing and browser
> realm.

> Fails Bird Watchers and Doctors

> Compelling applications that could benefit from open source
> development could be things like field guides. However Medical
> Applications and Bird Watching Applications take up huge amount of
> memory.

> Fails Accessory / Peripheral makers

> If Motorola even lets 3rd parties make accessories for the DROID, the
> economy of scale is just not there versus the iPod/iPhone accessory
> ecosystem. Because each manufacturer will have different standards and
> barriers for accessory makers, there will be no universal android
> accessories.

> On Nov 7, 12:00 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Another thing that fails on an unlocked iPhone is push notification.
> > Even though these users are upset, Apple is ignoring them, so over
> > time unlocking probably will get chancier.  Here's the reference.

> >www.readwriteweb.com/archives/using_an_unlocked_iphone_you_can_forget...

> 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> 2. Apps can be returned.

> Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> release.

> Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> allow previous apps to work.

> 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> be stolen.

> So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> comes with their phone.

> Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> will fail?

> Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > customers.

> > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > release.

> > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > allow previous apps to work.

> > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > be stolen.

> > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > comes with their phone.

> But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> that something better will not come along.

> On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > browser and multiple screens?

> > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > will fail?

> > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > customers.

> > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > release.

> > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > be stolen.

> > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > comes with their phone.

> But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> that something better will not come along.

> On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > browser and multiple screens?

> > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > will fail?

> > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > customers.

> > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > release.

> > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > be stolen.

> > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > comes with their phone.

> On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I love my IPhone.

> > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > that something better will not come along.

> > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > will fail?

> > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > customers.

> > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > release.

> > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > be stolen.

> > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > comes with their phone.

> I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> never stays the leader for long.

> The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> case next year is low.

> On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > Microsoft.

> > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I love my IPhone.

> > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > that something better will not come along.

> > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > will fail?

> > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > customers.

> > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > release.

> > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > comes with their phone.

> And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > never stays the leader for long.

> > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > case next year is low.

> > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > Microsoft.

> > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > will fail?

> > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > > release.

> > > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > > comes with their phone.

> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

> gen⋅ius  [jeen-yuhs]  Show IPA
> Use genius in a Sentence
> –noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i   [jee-nee-ahy] for 6,
> 7, 9.
> 1.      an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown
> in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius
> of Mozart.
> 2.      a person having such capacity.
> 3.      a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a
> psychological test, as an IQ above 140.
> 4.      natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius
> for leadership.
> 5.      distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or
> language.
> 6.      the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.
> 7.      either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other
> evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life.
> 8.      a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character,
> conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil
> genius of Russian politics.
> 9.       genie (defs. 1, 3).

> Merriam-Webster.com concurs that "geniuses" is the proper usage in
> this case:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius.

> However, there is some disagreement over "geniuses" vs. "genii":http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNB_enUS320US320&q=plural+genius

> On Nov 8, 9:12 am, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > Paul you're my favorite mobile space cadet .  In response to your
> > comment "... in tech, the leader never stays the leader for long ."
> > Your basic Cosmonaut would agree with you .  Realistically NASA
> > wouldn't .

> > And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> > the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> > Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> > On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > > never stays the leader for long.

> > > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > > case next year is low.

> > > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > > Microsoft.

> > > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > > will fail?

> > > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > > > release.

> > > > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > > > comes with their phone.

> On Nov 8, 1:56 pm, Rastard <rast...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Actually, if he uses "genii" he'll look like a pretentious twit, and
> > according to many sources, will be wrong:

> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

> > gen⋅ius  [jeen-yuhs]  Show IPA
> > Use genius in a Sentence
> > –noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i   [jee-nee-ahy] for 6,
> > 7, 9.
> > 1.      an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown
> > in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius
> > of Mozart.
> > 2.      a person having such capacity.
> > 3.      a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a
> > psychological test, as an IQ above 140.
> > 4.      natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius
> > for leadership.
> > 5.      distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or
> > language.
> > 6.      the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.
> > 7.      either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other
> > evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life.
> > 8.      a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character,
> > conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil
> > genius of Russian politics.
> > 9.       genie (defs. 1, 3).

> > Merriam-Webster.com concurs that "geniuses" is the proper usage in
> > this case:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius.

> > However, there is some disagreement over "geniuses" vs. "genii":http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNB_enUS320US320&q=plural+genius

> > On Nov 8, 9:12 am, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > Paul you're my favorite mobile space cadet .  In response to your
> > > comment "... in tech, the leader never stays the leader for long ."
> > > Your basic Cosmonaut would agree with you .  Realistically NASA
> > > wouldn't .

> > > And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> > > the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> > > Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> > > On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > > > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > > > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > > > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > > > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > > > never stays the leader for long.

> > > > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > > > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > > > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > > > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > > > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > > > case next year is low.

> > > > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > > > Microsoft.

> > > > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > > > will fail?

> > > > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > > > > release.

> > > > > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > > > > comes with their phone.

> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

> gen⋅ius  [jeen-yuhs]  Show IPA
> Use genius in a Sentence
> –noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i   [jee-nee-ahy] for 6,
> 7, 9.
> 1.      an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown
> in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius
> of Mozart.
> 2.      a person having such capacity.
> 3.      a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a
> psychological test, as an IQ above 140.
> 4.      natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius
> for leadership.
> 5.      distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or
> language.
> 6.      the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.
> 7.      either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other
> evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life.
> 8.      a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character,
> conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil
> genius of Russian politics.
> 9.       genie (defs. 1, 3).

> Merriam-Webster.com concurs that "geniuses" is the proper usage in
> this case:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius.

> However, there is some disagreement over "geniuses" vs. "genii":http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNB_enUS320US320&q=plural+genius

> On Nov 8, 9:12 am, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > Paul you're my favorite mobile space cadet .  In response to your
> > comment "... in tech, the leader never stays the leader for long ."
> > Your basic Cosmonaut would agree with you .  Realistically NASA
> > wouldn't .

> > And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> > the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> > Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> > On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > > never stays the leader for long.

> > > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > > case next year is low.

> > > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > > Microsoft.

> > > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > > will fail?

> > > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > > > release.

> > > > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > > > comes with their phone.

> On Nov 8, 1:56 pm, Rastard <rast...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Actually, if he uses "genii" he'll look like a pretentious twit, and
> > according to many sources, will be wrong:

> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

> > gen⋅ius  [jeen-yuhs]  Show IPA
> > Use genius in a Sentence
> > –noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i   [jee-nee-ahy] for 6,
> > 7, 9.
> > 1.      an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown
> > in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius
> > of Mozart.
> > 2.      a person having such capacity.
> > 3.      a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a
> > psychological test, as an IQ above 140.
> > 4.      natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius
> > for leadership.
> > 5.      distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or
> > language.
> > 6.      the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.
> > 7.      either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other
> > evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life.
> > 8.      a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character,
> > conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil
> > genius of Russian politics.
> > 9.       genie (defs. 1, 3).

> > Merriam-Webster.com concurs that "geniuses" is the proper usage in
> > this case:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius.

> > However, there is some disagreement over "geniuses" vs. "genii":http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNB_enUS320US320&q=plural+genius

> > On Nov 8, 9:12 am, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > Paul you're my favorite mobile space cadet .  In response to your
> > > comment "... in tech, the leader never stays the leader for long ."
> > > Your basic Cosmonaut would agree with you .  Realistically NASA
> > > wouldn't .

> > > And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> > > the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> > > Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> > > On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > > > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > > > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > > > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > > > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > > > never stays the leader for long.

> > > > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > > > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > > > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > > > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > > > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > > > case next year is low.

> > > > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > > > Microsoft.

> > > > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > > > will fail?

> > > > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > > > > release.

> > > > > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > > > > comes with their phone.

> On Nov 8, 10:08 pm, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > Rastard  I'm sorry, but none of those sources will prove using genii
> > is incorrect .  It is and was the plural form before the other became
> > recently acceptable .  I'm sure the OED will prove that etymology .
> > -... two geniuses in the garage implies two tools that probably
> > couldn't fix a garage door or make a fist, etc ... with genii there's
> > no doubt if you say potato they'll say vodka .

> > On Nov 8, 1:56 pm, Rastard <rast...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Actually, if he uses "genii" he'll look like a pretentious twit, and
> > > according to many sources, will be wrong:

> > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

> > > gen⋅ius  [jeen-yuhs]  Show IPA
> > > Use genius in a Sentence
> > > –noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i   [jee-nee-ahy] for 6,
> > > 7, 9.
> > > 1.      an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown
> > > in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius
> > > of Mozart.
> > > 2.      a person having such capacity.
> > > 3.      a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a
> > > psychological test, as an IQ above 140.
> > > 4.      natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius
> > > for leadership.
> > > 5.      distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or
> > > language.
> > > 6.      the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.
> > > 7.      either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other
> > > evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life.
> > > 8.      a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character,
> > > conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil
> > > genius of Russian politics.
> > > 9.       genie (defs. 1, 3).

> > > Merriam-Webster.com concurs that "geniuses" is the proper usage in
> > > this case:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius.

> > > However, there is some disagreement over "geniuses" vs. "genii":http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNB_enUS320US320&q=plural+genius

> > > On Nov 8, 9:12 am, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > Paul you're my favorite mobile space cadet .  In response to your
> > > > comment "... in tech, the leader never stays the leader for long ."
> > > > Your basic Cosmonaut would agree with you .  Realistically NASA
> > > > wouldn't .

> > > > And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> > > > the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> > > > Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> > > > On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > > > > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > > > > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > > > > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > > > > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > > > > never stays the leader for long.

> > > > > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > > > > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > > > > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > > > > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > > > > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > > > > case next year is low.

> > > > > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > > > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > > > > Microsoft.

> > > > > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > > > > will fail?

> > > > > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > > > > > release.

> > > > > > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > > > > > comes with their phone.

> For the competition, it will take years of hard work to emulate the
> present tech on the iPhone and ecosystem, by then, the iPhone will be
> truly uncatchable ... isn't it already ?

> And Paul, you little dinosaur with read-only mind, some young startup
> has 0.000% chance of beating Apple in the smartphone market. Yes, they
> could invent something completely different like a social network or
> something ... but what you say is like "if Jobs and Woz wanted, as
> they were some genii, they could have taken IBM by storm in the
> mainframe market directly from their garage" - is IBM bankrupt or
> something after 30 years ? They still have their markets and profits.
> The smartphone market is an order of magnitude larger than the
> mainframe market ... if Apple own it for 30 years (even 10), it will
> be the largest business ever by far. And before you start flaming,
> remember all the iPod killers and the actual 70%+ market share they
> hold for several years already in that market !

> You should better worry about m$ who build an empire on ignorance and
> (bad, convoluted) legacy / compatibility. People (other than you) are
> awaking from this 20 years m$ nightmare !

> On Nov 9, 6:27 am, Mike <mwestjee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Android has one HUGE thing going for it that the iPhone does NOT... It
> > isn't on the ATT network.  It's on Sprint and Verizon (and Tmobile)
> > and Sprint and Verizon's data networks smoke ATT.

> > On Nov 8, 10:08 pm, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > Rastard  I'm sorry, but none of those sources will prove using genii
> > > is incorrect .  It is and was the plural form before the other became
> > > recently acceptable .  I'm sure the OED will prove that etymology .
> > > -... two geniuses in the garage implies two tools that probably
> > > couldn't fix a garage door or make a fist, etc ... with genii there's
> > > no doubt if you say potato they'll say vodka .

> > > On Nov 8, 1:56 pm, Rastard <rast...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Actually, if he uses "genii" he'll look like a pretentious twit, and
> > > > according to many sources, will be wrong:

> > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

> > > > gen⋅ius  [jeen-yuhs]  Show IPA
> > > > Use genius in a Sentence
> > > > –noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i   [jee-nee-ahy] for 6,
> > > > 7, 9.
> > > > 1.      an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown
> > > > in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius
> > > > of Mozart.
> > > > 2.      a person having such capacity.
> > > > 3.      a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a
> > > > psychological test, as an IQ above 140.
> > > > 4.      natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius
> > > > for leadership.
> > > > 5.      distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or
> > > > language.
> > > > 6.      the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.
> > > > 7.      either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other
> > > > evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life.
> > > > 8.      a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character,
> > > > conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil
> > > > genius of Russian politics.
> > > > 9.       genie (defs. 1, 3).

> > > > Merriam-Webster.com concurs that "geniuses" is the proper usage in
> > > > this case:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius.

> > > > However, there is some disagreement over "geniuses" vs. "genii":http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNB_enUS320US320&q=plural+genius

> > > > On Nov 8, 9:12 am, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > Paul you're my favorite mobile space cadet .  In response to your
> > > > > comment "... in tech, the leader never stays the leader for long ."
> > > > > Your basic Cosmonaut would agree with you .  Realistically NASA
> > > > > wouldn't .

> > > > > And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> > > > > the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> > > > > Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> > > > > On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > > > > > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > > > > > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > > > > > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > > > > > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > > > > > never stays the leader for long.

> > > > > > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > > > > > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > > > > > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > > > > > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > > > > > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > > > > > case next year is low.

> > > > > > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > > > > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > > > > > Microsoft.

> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > > > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > > > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > > > > > will fail?

> > > > > > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > > > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > > > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > > > > > > release.

> > > > > > > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > > > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > > > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > > > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > > > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > > > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > > > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > > > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > > > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > > > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > > > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > > > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > > > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > > > > > > comes with their phone.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> On Nov 8, 1:56 pm, Rastard <rast...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Actually, if he uses "genii" he'll look like a pretentious twit, and
> > according to many sources, will be wrong:

> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

> > gen⋅ius  [jeen-yuhs]  Show IPA
> > Use genius in a Sentence
> > –noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i   [jee-nee-ahy] for 6,
> > 7, 9.
> > 1.      an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown
> > in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius
> > of Mozart.
> > 2.      a person having such capacity.
> > 3.      a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a
> > psychological test, as an IQ above 140.
> > 4.      natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius
> > for leadership.
> > 5.      distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or
> > language.
> > 6.      the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.
> > 7.      either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other
> > evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life.
> > 8.      a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character,
> > conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil
> > genius of Russian politics.
> > 9.       genie (defs. 1, 3).

> > Merriam-Webster.com concurs that "geniuses" is the proper usage in
> > this case:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius.

> > However, there is some disagreement over "geniuses" vs. "genii":http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNB_enUS320US320&q=plural+genius

> > On Nov 8, 9:12 am, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > Paul you're my favorite mobile space cadet .  In response to your
> > > comment "... in tech, the leader never stays the leader for long ."
> > > Your basic Cosmonaut would agree with you .  Realistically NASA
> > > wouldn't .

> > > And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> > > the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> > > Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> > > On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > > > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > > > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > > > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > > > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > > > never stays the leader for long.

> > > > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > > > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > > > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > > > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > > > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > > > case next year is low.

> > > > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > > > Microsoft.

> > > > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > > > will fail?

> > > > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because
> > > > > > > > Google doesn't test them, they have to let you return them.

> > > > > > > > 3. Android phones will hardly ever be able to be updated to a new OS
> > > > > > > > release.

> > > > > > > > Apple will occasionally insist that you test you app on a new release
> > > > > > > > or have it removed from the AppStore.  So, if Apple cannot guarantee
> > > > > > > > upwards compatibility, what are the chances that Android releases will
> > > > > > > > allow previous apps to work.

> > > > > > > > 4. Apps are easily pirated.

> > > > > > > > Android phones cannot be locked.  One of the reasons that Apple fights
> > > > > > > > unlocking is to prevent pirating.  If you unlock your iPhone, you
> > > > > > > > cannot purchase apps from the AppStore.  Apps on Android have no DRM,
> > > > > > > > so it's relatively easy to pirate them (even if it had DRM, it not
> > > > > > > > that difficult).   So, we know that any app that costs anything will
> > > > > > > > be stolen.

> > > > > > > > So, in the end the user will get buggy apps.  Developers will have
> > > > > > > > their hard work stolen.  Users will be stuck with whatever OS release
> > > > > > > > comes with their phone.

> Do you realize how much Google has changed the way people
> communication. Most currently phone companies will disappear in the
> next decade, if they cannot adapt to this change.

> You mentioned that IBM still exist. Is IBM today, the same as IBM 30
> years ago? IBM only exists today, because they can adapt to the
> changing environment. You said that, some young startup has 0.000%
> chance of beating Apple in the smartphone market. That would be the
> same as saying some young startup has 0.000% chance of beating IBM in
> the laptop market 25 years ago. IBM sold their PC division to Lenovo
> in 2004.

> On Nov 9, 4:10 am, Nicu <nicu.mihala...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yep, but all it takes is a decision to change that : don't worry, when
> > the time will be right, Apple will turn the switch.

> > For the competition, it will take years of hard work to emulate the
> > present tech on the iPhone and ecosystem, by then, the iPhone will be
> > truly uncatchable ... isn't it already ?

> > And Paul, you little dinosaur with read-only mind, some young startup
> > has 0.000% chance of beating Apple in the smartphone market. Yes, they
> > could invent something completely different like a social network or
> > something ... but what you say is like "if Jobs and Woz wanted, as
> > they were some genii, they could have taken IBM by storm in the
> > mainframe market directly from their garage" - is IBM bankrupt or
> > something after 30 years ? They still have their markets and profits.
> > The smartphone market is an order of magnitude larger than the
> > mainframe market ... if Apple own it for 30 years (even 10), it will
> > be the largest business ever by far. And before you start flaming,
> > remember all the iPod killers and the actual 70%+ market share they
> > hold for several years already in that market !

> > You should better worry about m$ who build an empire on ignorance and
> > (bad, convoluted) legacy / compatibility. People (other than you) are
> > awaking from this 20 years m$ nightmare !

> > On Nov 9, 6:27 am, Mike <mwestjee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Android has one HUGE thing going for it that the iPhone does NOT... It
> > > isn't on the ATT network.  It's on Sprint and Verizon (and Tmobile)
> > > and Sprint and Verizon's data networks smoke ATT.

> > > On Nov 8, 10:08 pm, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > Rastard  I'm sorry, but none of those sources will prove using genii
> > > > is incorrect .  It is and was the plural form before the other became
> > > > recently acceptable .  I'm sure the OED will prove that etymology .
> > > > -... two geniuses in the garage implies two tools that probably
> > > > couldn't fix a garage door or make a fist, etc ... with genii there's
> > > > no doubt if you say potato they'll say vodka .

> > > > On Nov 8, 1:56 pm, Rastard <rast...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Actually, if he uses "genii" he'll look like a pretentious twit, and
> > > > > according to many sources, will be wrong:

> > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genius

> > > > > gen⋅ius  [jeen-yuhs]  Show IPA
> > > > > Use genius in a Sentence
> > > > > –noun, plural gen⋅ius⋅es for 2, 3, 8, gen⋅i⋅i   [jee-nee-ahy] for 6,
> > > > > 7, 9.
> > > > > 1.      an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown
> > > > > in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius
> > > > > of Mozart.
> > > > > 2.      a person having such capacity.
> > > > > 3.      a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a
> > > > > psychological test, as an IQ above 140.
> > > > > 4.      natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius
> > > > > for leadership.
> > > > > 5.      distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or
> > > > > language.
> > > > > 6.      the guardian spirit of a place, institution, etc.
> > > > > 7.      either of two mutually opposed spirits, one good and the other
> > > > > evil, supposed to attend a person throughout life.
> > > > > 8.      a person who strongly influences for good or ill the character,
> > > > > conduct, or destiny of a person, place, or thing: Rasputin, the evil
> > > > > genius of Russian politics.
> > > > > 9.       genie (defs. 1, 3).

> > > > > Merriam-Webster.com concurs that "geniuses" is the proper usage in
> > > > > this case:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius.

> > > > > However, there is some disagreement over "geniuses" vs. "genii":http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNB_enUS320US320&q=plural+genius

> > > > > On Nov 8, 9:12 am, Zee <zee...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > > Paul you're my favorite mobile space cadet .  In response to your
> > > > > > comment "... in tech, the leader never stays the leader for long ."
> > > > > > Your basic Cosmonaut would agree with you .  Realistically NASA
> > > > > > wouldn't .

> > > > > > And next time you're talking about Jobs and Woz and you need to use
> > > > > > the plural form of genius try genii .  It'll make you look smarter .
> > > > > > Example : ... the genii in the garage demand vegetarian pizza ...

> > > > > > On Nov 7, 8:54 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Or the next great mobile device may be getting designed by some 24
> > > > > > > year old geniuses in somebody's garage (how like Jobs and Woz),
> > > > > > > redesigning all the key compenent of the IPhone to be even better
> > > > > > > (just like Jobs and Woz did with the PCs at the time).

> > > > > > > I'm not claiming to know anything, except that in tech, the leader
> > > > > > > never stays the leader for long.

> > > > > > > The mobile phone space is crowded (LG, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony
> > > > > > > Erickson, RIM, MSFT, Google), so the chances of somebody making a
> > > > > > > competitive device is much higher than most industries.

> > > > > > > As we speak, the IPhone has zero competition (there's really no other
> > > > > > > phone that is a full mobile PC). But the chances of that being the
> > > > > > > case next year is low.

> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 5:34 pm, brownetal <jbrowne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > When something better comes along, 100 to one it will be made by
> > > > > > > > Apple, and 100,000 to one it will not be anything related to
> > > > > > > > Microsoft.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 6:55 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > I love my IPhone.

> > > > > > > > > But never, and I mean never, should anybody be naive enough to believe
> > > > > > > > > that something better will not come along.

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 3:52 pm, Paul <paulmorrison...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > So does that mean the Internet should fail because there are multiple
> > > > > > > > > > browser and multiple screens?

> > > > > > > > > > Since UNIX has many variations, does that mean anything UNIX-based
> > > > > > > > > > will fail?

> > > > > > > > > > Since Windows runs on my difference hardware setups, does that mean
> > > > > > > > > > Windows could never get 90 percent market share?

> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 4:38 pm, Birra <birraveri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, people will buy them for awhile, but once they discover these
> > > > > > > > > > > problems, they will grab an iPhone.   Most of this is due to the fact
> > > > > > > > > > > that Android phones will vary greatly and Android is open source.
> > > > > > > > > > > What does open source mean, well, that an bunch of incompetent handset
> > > > > > > > > > > manufacturers can mess around with it.  It saves them a lot of
> > > > > > > > > > > development, so it's a good deal for them, but not for the poor
> > > > > > > > > > > customers.

> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Apps are not tested, they are just placed in Android Market.

> > > > > > > > > > > Most apps don't make it through Apple's quality assurance, even though
> > > > > > > > > > > developers know they will be tested.  Why does Google do that?  Well
> > > > > > > > > > > they would have to do the same thing the developer has to do, test it
> > > > > > > > > > > on all of the Android releases and Android platforms, a big and
> > > > > > > > > > > expensive job.  So, instead they let you return the app.

> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Apps can be returned.

> > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, you're paying a few bucks at the AppStore, but you
> > > > > > > > > > > know it will run, since it's been tested by Apple.  But, because