Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 4 Jul 2010 18:53 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gs2236t9l6h3oq0fsvq4mj4qi1vf5o5cmi(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:03:54 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:233036djem4k0v55c6j3dfp6kci9t1kk8t(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:18:20 -0400, "Peter" >>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>news:m0mv26dqgsohl1hkoga5r55de2sn56ne7c(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Jul 2, 7:42 am, Vance <vance.l...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > On 02 Jul 2010 05:25:38 GMT, Stuffed Crust >>>>>>> > <pi...(a)spam.shaftnet.org> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Barry >>>>>>> > ><bfeinst...(a)spamblocked.com> >>>>>>> > >wrote: >>>>>>> > >> Why does it bother you so much that the majority of >>>>>>> > >> photographers, >>>>>>> > >> amateur >>>>>>> > >> and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more >>>>>>> > >> cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly >>>>>>> > >> accepted, and >>>>>>> > >> more important than DSLRs today? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >Bzzt, wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >The majority of photographers now use cell phone cameras. More >>>>>>> > >cost-effective, portable, adaptable, and definitely more >>>>>>> > >publically >>>>>>> > >accepted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >As you like to point out, sales figures don't lie. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > - Solomon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the >>>>>>> > sales of >>>>>>> > microwave-ovens as clocks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vance >>>>>> >>>>>>But my phone cost me less than my P&S. >>>>> >>>>> Is that really correct? The cost of your phone was subsidized by the >>>>> requirement to subscribe to a provider. The real cost of your phone >>>>> is the amount you paid for the phone itself *plus* the monthly connect >>>>> fees for the term of your contract. Your P&S was a one-time cost. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>You would be correct if you were analyzing the total cost of telephone >>>>service, including the phone. to figure the true cost of just the phone, >>>>factor in the cost of the service, if no subsidy was given. >>> >>> You have to factor in the service. The phone has no function without >>> the service. A camera has function without a service requirement. >> >>My Android has a WiFi, GPS, music and camera functions. None of which >>require any servce agreement. >>It is only the 3G network and telephone functions that require any third >>party service, >> > > I can't get my mind around this. Your "phone" has WiFi, GPS, music, > and camera functions. A phone should have phone functions. Without > the phone functions, it's an electronic device but it's not a phone. > There ya go! If I agree to take the phone & 3G service Verizon will subsidize the phone cost. -- Peter
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 19:45 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 16:13:58 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <gs2236t9l6h3oq0fsvq4mj4qi1vf5o5cmi(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> I can't get my mind around this. Your "phone" has WiFi, GPS, music, >> and camera functions. A phone should have phone functions. Without >> the phone functions, it's an electronic device but it's not a phone. > >call it what you want, but the device is still functional if you don't >pay for phone service, other than the phone portion. That's like saying an automobile is still functional without an engine if all you want to do is sit in it and play the radio as long as the battery lasts. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 20:35 In article <v67236ta22j9drfgdcbm3klui5sa11ggee(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >call it what you want, but the device is still functional if you don't > >pay for phone service, other than the phone portion. > > That's like saying an automobile is still functional without an engine > if all you want to do is sit in it and play the radio as long as the > battery lasts. hardly. it's like saying you bought a car but don't pay for onstar. everything about the car will work but if you run off the road into a ditch, the onstar part won't work. iphones and android phones do a *lot* of things. for some people, the phone portion is a very small part.
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 20:42 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:46:09 -0400, in <p73236t9p46tecv44c0o3p6qpf8vtji90n(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >I am particularly uninterested in a phone that uses one of those >things about the size of a banana that clips on the ear. That's a shame, because Bluetooth can be quite handy. >As far as I'm concerned, the telephone peaked in ergometric design >when the single handset replaced the "candlestick". Phones could then >be held in one hand as one walked around within the limited range of >the cord. I think ergometrics have continued to improve: * smaller * lighter * much better displays * Caller ID * complete address books * call logs * speed dialing * voice dialing etc. >The cordless phone was a welcome improvement, but it only >encouraged longer phone conversations. I don't like long phone >conversations. Sounds like you don't like phone conversations much at all. ;) -- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> "At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past." -Maeterlinck
From: John Navas on 4 Jul 2010 20:44
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:36:33 -0400, in <gs2236t9l6h3oq0fsvq4mj4qi1vf5o5cmi(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >I can't get my mind around this. Your "phone" has WiFi, GPS, music, >and camera functions. A phone should have phone functions. Without >the phone functions, it's an electronic device but it's not a phone. That position is getting increasingly shaky. Time to declare victory and move on. ;) -- Best regards, John "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail." -Abraham Maslow |