NEWS: Android Outsells Apple iPhone
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Introducing Poken Take your Social Network Offline
Next: Desperate Help Needed!! WIRELESS SHARING
From: nospam on 15 May 2010 15:52 In article <lottu5hpf13h2dro6vnsmc3bj8r6ord6c9(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > Well, for the last 5 years, it was about 8 times: yep, it's done quite well. > while Apple stopped paying dividends in 1995 and is now sitting on $23 > billion in cash, with zero debt. over $40 billion, currently. > I think I can easily guess who got > the better part of the iPhone deal. My guess is that Verizon isn't > going to jump in with both feet, like AT&T did. verizon has said they want it. personally, i expect a non-att iphone this year, next year at the very latest.
From: Jeff Liebermann on 15 May 2010 19:10 On Sat, 15 May 2010 15:52:00 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <lottu5hpf13h2dro6vnsmc3bj8r6ord6c9(a)4ax.com>, Jeff >Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >> while Apple stopped paying dividends in 1995 and is now sitting on $23 >> billion in cash, with zero debt. > >over $40 billion, currently. Sorry. Yahoo Finance said 23.16 billion: <http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL+Key+Statistics> but that was from 2009. Currently $40 and climbing: <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2010/01/almost_40_billion_in_cash_what_is_apple_waiting_for.html> My guess(tm) is they're shopping for a company or three to buy. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple> >> I think I can easily guess who got >> the better part of the iPhone deal. My guess is that Verizon isn't >> going to jump in with both feet, like AT&T did. > >verizon has said they want it. Sure, they want it, but they don't want all the strings and conditions that Apple has attached to the AT&T iPhone. Pre-announcements are cheap publicity. When the iPhone was initially released with the AT&T exclusive, VZW announced that they didn't want it because of the strings attached, and were initially treated by the press as being anti-consumer. They changed their tune immediately for damage control, but none of the subsequent posturing did much good. If AT&T hadn't been given an exclusive, leaving VZW hanging, then the Droid would never have been needed or gotten off the ground. >personally, i expect a non-att iphone this year, next year at the very >latest. Nope. The AT&T contract with AT&T ends in about 2 years during which time Apple has to pretend that AT&T is their exclusive iPhone retailer. <http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/confirmed-apple-and-atandt-signed-five-year-iphone-exclusivity-de/> Meanwhile, Verizon has announced that if there will be an VZW iPhone, it will probably be in late 2012 which kinda fits with the 5 year exclusive. Yet another conspiracy theory... Apple could deliver something that looks like an iPhone, but is sufficiently different that it would not appear that Apple is actually selling an iPhone to Verizon. For example, a two piece phone/PDA combination, where VZW provides the cellular layer, and Apple provides the PDA. Some kind of a sandwitch or book type derrangement. Whether Apple wants to risk relations with it's biggest and most successful customer is probably doubtful. They'll probably wait until the AT&T contract nearly ends before releasing something new. Chances are also good that if Apple does release something new in 2012, Verizon and AT&T will probably both have versions but not with exclusives. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's some kind of hidden clause the requires iPhone vendors to drop their Droid powered models. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 15 May 2010 19:41 John Navas wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 20:51:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> > wrote in <aptmu55n918uvgv3hqgubhh8me7j5f8ipi(a)4ax.com>: > >> On Wed, 12 May 2010 20:49:20 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> >> wrote: >> >>> MS Backup is about the same. Crude would be generous. It fails >>> miserably if there are bad sectors, read error, or strange characters >>> in the filenames. I'm a big fan of mirror backups, which is not >>> supplied by either MS or Apple. If you insist, the cost of a typical >>> commercial backup program for the PC is about $35. >> Oops. I'm a big fan of -image- backups, not mirror backups. Sorry. > > I'm a big fan of incremental backups -- much more efficient for regular > use. Image backups are better suited to deployments IMHO. > Incremental backups are fine when used intelligently. That means something like daily incremental backups and a weekly image backup. You might stretch it to an image backup every two weeks.
From: nospam on 15 May 2010 19:49 In article <s09uu5leras1vbt5tkc7dtsqi4840fccuf(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > >verizon has said they want it. > > Sure, they want it, but they don't want all the strings and conditions > that Apple has attached to the AT&T iPhone. the only strings is that verizon can't get its claws into it and disable the features they normally would. > Pre-announcements are > cheap publicity. When the iPhone was initially released with the AT&T > exclusive, VZW announced that they didn't want it because of the > strings attached, and were initially treated by the press as being > anti-consumer. no they didn't. many people said that verizon turned apple down, but nobody outside of the meetings knows what actually happened. maybe apple turned verizon down. maybe they both couldn't agree on terms, or maybe they agreed to not pursue anything. it's not public. people like to guess though. > They changed their tune immediately for damage > control, but none of the subsequent posturing did much good. If AT&T > hadn't been given an exclusive, leaving VZW hanging, then the Droid > would never have been needed or gotten off the ground. maybe yes, maybe no. i think the at&t exclusive helped initially but it's time has passed. > >personally, i expect a non-att iphone this year, next year at the very > >latest. > > Nope. wait a month and we'll see. :) there is mounting evidence on several fronts that support more than just at&t with the next iphone. > The AT&T contract with AT&T ends in about 2 years during which > time Apple has to pretend that AT&T is their exclusive iPhone > retailer. the length of the contract is not public. people like to guess though. the *only* thing that's public is that it's multi-year and will expire. > <http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/confirmed-apple-and-atandt-signed-five-yea > r-iphone-exclusivity-de/> that doesn't actually confirm a 5 year contract is currently in place. apple's brief references a usa today article the plaintiff cited. there are other articles that had other numbers, including a recent one (after that court filing) that says it expires in 2010, not to mention that a contract can be renegotiated at any time. bottom line: nobody outside of apple and at&t knows when it's over. > Meanwhile, Verizon has announced that if there will be an VZW iPhone, > it will probably be in late 2012 which kinda fits with the 5 year > exclusive. they haven't said anything other than it's up to apple to make one that works on cdma. > Yet another conspiracy theory... Apple could deliver something that > looks like an iPhone, but is sufficiently different that it would not > appear that Apple is actually selling an iPhone to Verizon. For > example, a two piece phone/PDA combination, where VZW provides the > cellular layer, and Apple provides the PDA. Some kind of a sandwitch > or book type derrangement. Whether Apple wants to risk relations with > it's biggest and most successful customer is probably doubtful. that doesn't make any sense at all. > They'll probably wait until the AT&T contract nearly ends before > releasing something new. Chances are also good that if Apple does > release something new in 2012, Verizon and AT&T will probably both > have versions but not with exclusives. either they make two versions, one cdma and one gsm, or they make it have both in the same device. there are advantages to either approach. > I also wouldn't be surprised > if there's some kind of hidden clause the requires iPhone vendors to > drop their Droid powered models. at&t already has an android phone, although it's not particularly good.
From: Jeff Liebermann on 15 May 2010 20:44
On Sat, 15 May 2010 19:41:28 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Incremental backups are fine when used intelligently. That means >something like daily incremental backups and a weekly image backup. You > might stretch it to an image backup every two weeks. I've been playing computer consultant and repair person since about 1985. Nobody does backups until AFTER they have had a disaster with attendent data loss. The methods of doing backups have changed over the years, starting with floppy disks, tapes, and currently distributed between replication, image, file-by-file, on-line, and some hybrids. They all work. My specific problem is getting customers to actually do backups. Most will "forget" or find a suitable excuse. Therefore, my criteria for a successful backup program is that it must be: 1. Fast 2. Easy 3. Reasonably reliable in that order. Note that I did not list all inclusive (i.e. gets everyting right up to the last millisecond before the drive crashed) and safe (i.e. encrypted and theft proof). At this time, the fastest and easiest are the boot from a CD and run an image backup to a USB drive. The software costs about $40 and the drive about $80. All the image backup software I've tried sucks or worse, but as long as it meets the aformentioned criteria, I'll live with it until some company wakes up and decided to do it right. There are also some Open Source alternatives that are in the same class (awful but still useful). Since it requires very little input or "selection" by the user (to screw up), I like image backups. I've tried to automate them, but it's easier to just pass out a step-by-step instruction page to the customer. My worst case disaster is a failing hard disk, where the customer overscribbles a perfectly good but old backup, with a perfectly trashed image of their failing drive. Therefore, cloning the hard disk to another hard disk isn't going to work. Image backups have also saved my posterior when working on customers machines. It's a rare event, but sometimes, the drive fails while in my shop. The very first thing I do is make an image backup of the system, viruses, junk, and everything. 20GB takes 20-30 mins on most machines. When done, I make a 2nd backup, and keep both for about a month. Very handy. How often varies with the customer. During tax season, it's one full image every 2 weeks. The rest of the year, it's every 2 months with backups of key directories to NAS in the meantime. Lots of ways to do it tailored to the customers needs. In most cases, I have to yell at them to do a backup literally every time. I think the single biggest improvement to getting customers to do backups was when I started announcing that I don't care if they lose data. When they realized that it was their resonsibility to do backups, not mine, the situation improved dramatically. Mac OS X v10.5, v10.6: How to back up and restore your files <http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1553> Note the section in creating a disk image. For the PC, I'm currently using an earlier version of this: <http://www.farstone.com/software/totalrecovery-home.php> I consider the company to marginal, the product clumsy, and their tech support completely useless. For example, the previous DriveClone Express 6.0 simply gives up with an error 0x17 if it encountered a bad sector during the image backup. Still, it's the best I could find for the price that does an image backup on the PC. I found other image backup software that tolerates bad sectors, but is much slower and produces larger backup images. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |