It's not that I don't believe you, as Nokia has been planning to use Maemo for a number of years, but can you please produce a quote from 2005 showing them saying this?
I don't know if I have the time to search for something from 2005, but here are comments about Maemo by Nokia officials. As I said, no company can put a line in the sand. What their thinking was in 2005 is irrelevant now. What their thinking now isn't, but might be a year from now. We can only go by what is happening around our own time.
I think that it's interesting that the company isn't speaking with one voice. The Maemo team obviously was privy of what was current thinking, but shouldn't have made public statements the company then had to qualify, though not actually deny. By the way, I've already said in previous posts that Nokia would likely keep Symbian for medium level smartphones while going to Maemo, now MeeGo, for its highest end models, whatever they may want to call them. i still believe that, as it's becoming obvious. But over time, more will leave the Symbian OS.
I'm not acting childish, you are now trying to fix the mistake you made in the first place. I wasn't insisting it was, maybe you should read who posted the message in the first place, you may notice it wasn't me. And in saying that, the message that Jody responded to questioned who would line up for a Nokia phone, and they said no one would, and Jody proved them wrong. But for some reason you guys here don't like getting proved wrong in any discussion, so who is acting childish?
I'm responding to you, and those comments were childish, or perhaps I should instead have said petulant, as childish went a bit further than I mean to.
You always jump in on any discussion of Nokia to defend it. Mostly, you say that "they're the biggest, that means they are the best", or something to that effect.
Market share has been decreasing (actually staying the same), but in units they have grown quite a bit. Targets are just that, targets, yes they will be disappointed with not meeting them, maybe Nokias problem is they are more open with their data than Apple is...
Ther units have not kept up with the market as a whole.
This page shows on top mobile OS sales 2008 and 2009, and then total cell sales 2008 and 2009, not just smartphone sales, so Apple isn't there. Note that both Symbian and Nokia's total sales and marketshares have dropped.
I don't know if I have the time to search for something from 2005, but here are comments about Maemo by Nokia officials. As I said, no company can put a line in the sand. What their thinking was in 2005 is irrelevant now. What their thinking now isn't, but might be a year from now. We can only go by what is happening around our own time.
You constantly chastise me for my comments, and yet you throw around a statement, and won't even come up with something to back it up?
Maemo was released in 2005, your words were
Quote:
It was also thought that Maemo was the "future" for them, as they had said when it first came out.
2005 isn't irrelevant, you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
I'm responding to you, and those comments were childish, or perhaps I should instead have said petulant, as childish went a bit further than I mean to.
You always jump in on any discussion of Nokia to defend it. Mostly, you say that "they're the biggest, that means they are the best", or something to that effect.
Or something to that effect? You always jump any discussion and defend Apple, no matter how bad they have been, or how dumb they have been. The fact that they sell an expensive phone, that requires an expensive monthly fee, and they place the aerial where people hold the damn thing, and you just defend them like normal. Then if you get proved wrong you jump in and say "but apple makes more money than everyone else".
Get over it, the majority of the comments made about Nokia are childish, and pathetic, and the only issue is someone is willing to correct people when they post such rubbish.
You constantly chastise me for my comments, and yet you throw around a statement, and won't even come up with something to back it up?
Maemo was released in 2005, your words were
2005 isn't irrelevant, you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
I said that I don't know if I'll have time to find something that far back, and yes, while they did say that around that time, what matters more, is what they're saying today. I did mention that as well.
You have no answer to any of my arguments, or to any of my links, so you resort to semantics, trying to catch little irrelevant things that don't affect the argument as a whole.
Or something to that effect? You always jump any discussion and defend Apple, no matter how bad they have been, or how dumb they have been. The fact that they sell an expensive phone, that requires an expensive monthly fee, and they place the aerial where people hold the damn thing, and you just defend them like normal. Then if you get proved wrong you jump in and say "but apple makes more money than everyone else".
Get over it, the majority of the comments made about Nokia are childish, and pathetic, and the only issue is someone is willing to correct people when they post such rubbish.
Now, you're totally making things up. Ask anyone around here if I always defend Apple. I most surely do not. And if you came on more threads, instead of just popping up in those about Nokia in some way, you'd know that.
If you could post something useful for once, I would agree.
Prove one thing I said or linked to about Nokia that isn't true? You can't do that. You just resort to innuendo, as you always do.
I asked you to post some links about Nokia the proves otherwise, but you haven't even acknowledged any of the ones I've posted last time, much less posted anything showing what you state to be the truth.
We all know Apple's having some problems here. But, with about 2 million phones sold, the problems are apparently only affecting a small number of people in weak signal areas. We've been discussing that. The sensor is also apparently too sensitive, and needs an adjustment. Happy now? Should I post all the links about Nokia models with problems? Would that make you any happier?
All cell phones have their signal drop, both incoming and outgoing when the hand is placed over where the antenna is located. Apple's occasional problems are related to the antenna being located outside, where a hand that sweats can short the antenna out. When that happens NO signal may move. There is no more radiation than otherwise. In addition. There has never been any proof from any properly done study that has shown that cell radiation is harmful. So far, that's just a bogy man. The FCC is just being careful in its rules.
Yes.. but it's a difference if a signal drops for 10 or 50 decibels. That means that the phone will have to emit more mwatts.
As for cell radiation, i agree that there is no definite proof with radiation of this strength, there are so many studies that claim one or another. It is though definite that (much) more powerful microwave radiation causes life threatening issues. That's why it's forbidden to get close to big radar antennas.
What is for sure is that i get a headache after talking on cell for some time so this might probably be an issue for me.
Now, you're totally making things up. Ask anyone around here if I always defend Apple. I most surely do not. And if you came on more threads, instead of just popping up in those about Nokia in some way, you'd know that.
I am not making things up, I read a lot of threads here, I only "pop" in, as you say, when someone is saying something wrong, and it needs correcting.
I said that I don't know if I'll have time to find something that far back, and yes, while they did say that around that time, what matters more, is what they're saying today. I did mention that as well.
You have no answer to any of my arguments, or to any of my links, so you resort to semantics, trying to catch little irrelevant things that don't affect the argument as a whole.
I might try that one as well shall I??
You have no answer to any of my arguments, or to any of my links, so you resort to semantics, trying to catch little irrelevant things that don't affect the argument as a whole.
Yes.. but it's a difference if a signal drops for 10 or 50 decibels. That means that the phone will have to emit more mwatts.
As for cell radiation, i agree that there is no definite proof with radiation of this strength, there are so many studies that claim one or another. It is though definite that (much) more powerful microwave radiation causes life threatening issues. That's why it's forbidden to get close to big radar antennas.
What is for sure is that i get a headache after talking on cell for some time so this might probably be an issue for me.
It's the antenna that causes the radiation. If it's shorted out, it's not really radiating properly. It's the water in our bodies that causes most of the problem, and water is difficult for radio signals to penetrate.
I am not making things up, I read a lot of threads here, I only "pop" in, as you say, when someone is saying something wrong, and it needs correcting.
So far, you haven't shown that I said a single thing that's wrong. It's not enough that YOU say so, because it's controversial until proof is given. I've given a lot of links to prove what I've been saying, and asked you to do the same, but you totally ignore that. You know, other people are reading this, they see that as well.
So if you want to say I'm wrong, fine, but prove it.
You have no answer to any of my arguments, or to any of my links, so you resort to semantics, trying to catch little irrelevant things that don't affect the argument as a whole.
You see? now you're parroting again. You're not saying anything useful, and you know it. You haven't supplied links to refute anything. The one you did supply didn't say anything that proved that what I said was wrong.
Really, if this is the best you can do, then don't bother. You may as well not post at all.
And if you think you're getting me frustrated, and you're getting excited at that thought, it's not happening. It's just boring.
I use a Nokia 6300 -- nice little phone, does the job, no one gets hurt.
Anyway, the manual clearly states that the top part of the phone should not be held, as this is where the antenna is placed and it may interfere with reception.
So far, you haven't shown that I said a single thing that's wrong. It's not enough that YOU say so, because it's controversial until proof is given. I've given a lot of links to prove what I've been saying, and asked you to do the same, but you totally ignore that. You know, other people are reading this, they see that as well.
So if you want to say I'm wrong, fine, but prove it.
I already have, but for whatever reason, you won't accept it. I have finished discussing this topic, I can see you are too childish to accept a simple mistake you have made, that is a characteristic that a lot of people on this site exhibit.
I don't remember Apple ever saying that cameras wouldn't work with PC's. Can you show where they said that? If they implied that they were, in general, more difficult to use with PC's, they were right. They would still be right. That was my business for years. PC's were, and still are, though less so today, more difficult to set up for these sorts of things.
Well, that was a cleverness of Get a Mac adds - they didn't say anything, they only implied. It is still very misleading, I believe. For average (clueless) buyer, commercial that portraits PC as not being able to communicate with camera cannot generate too many different opinions, even if it didn't say anything specific. Not being able is not the same as having difficulties, and having difficulties - again - is not the same as having to install driver first... not that any modern digital camera really needs any drivers to be installed anyway.
XP was leaving something to be desired when it came to driver's installation - I wouldn't say they were complicated beyond the comprehension of average user, but simpler they could be... but XP is 10 years old technology. W7, I think, does things right - all the hardware I have plugged on my home and office machines were detected and correctly installed without my input - didn't even require drivers CD. Sure people will come across hardware that will require drivers CD or drivers download, but that comes with the choice of hardware available.
Comments
It's not that I don't believe you, as Nokia has been planning to use Maemo for a number of years, but can you please produce a quote from 2005 showing them saying this?
I don't know if I have the time to search for something from 2005, but here are comments about Maemo by Nokia officials. As I said, no company can put a line in the sand. What their thinking was in 2005 is irrelevant now. What their thinking now isn't, but might be a year from now. We can only go by what is happening around our own time.
http://www.itpro.co.uk/614452/nokia-...will-run-maemo
I think that it's interesting that the company isn't speaking with one voice. The Maemo team obviously was privy of what was current thinking, but shouldn't have made public statements the company then had to qualify, though not actually deny. By the way, I've already said in previous posts that Nokia would likely keep Symbian for medium level smartphones while going to Maemo, now MeeGo, for its highest end models, whatever they may want to call them. i still believe that, as it's becoming obvious. But over time, more will leave the Symbian OS.
http://gigaom.com/2009/11/18/nokia-t...ture-on-maemo/
And now it's Meego:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/No...wlc=1277867823
Actually Meego is carrying on exacting where Maemo left off, they are focusing on QT
Not exactly, as Meego is a combination of Intel's OS and theirs. The QT development continuance is a lucky and good thing though.
I'm not acting childish, you are now trying to fix the mistake you made in the first place. I wasn't insisting it was, maybe you should read who posted the message in the first place, you may notice it wasn't me. And in saying that, the message that Jody responded to questioned who would line up for a Nokia phone, and they said no one would, and Jody proved them wrong. But for some reason you guys here don't like getting proved wrong in any discussion, so who is acting childish?
I'm responding to you, and those comments were childish, or perhaps I should instead have said petulant, as childish went a bit further than I mean to.
You always jump in on any discussion of Nokia to defend it. Mostly, you say that "they're the biggest, that means they are the best", or something to that effect.
No, I haven't been.
You did it twice. Check your posts.
Market share has been decreasing (actually staying the same), but in units they have grown quite a bit. Targets are just that, targets, yes they will be disappointed with not meeting them, maybe Nokias problem is they are more open with their data than Apple is...
Ther units have not kept up with the market as a whole.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18749
You keep talking about outside the States:
http://dialytechbuzz.com/blog/2010/0...e-falls-local/
I think the very topic we are discussing is a prime example that you are wrong.
Nope! Nokia's had, and has problems as well. but let's see how they're doing some more.
Worldwide smartphone sales from the end of 2007 right after the iPhone came out, until the end of Q4 2009:
http://gigaom.com/2010/02/23/the-smartphone-market/
This page shows on top mobile OS sales 2008 and 2009, and then total cell sales 2008 and 2009, not just smartphone sales, so Apple isn't there. Note that both Symbian and Nokia's total sales and marketshares have dropped.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/23/sma...-2009-gartner/
Another table from 2009:
http://www.edibleapple.com/nokia-sti...pressive-rate/
Let's go back to Q3 2008:
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/...-profits-down/
Here's a Nokia stock history chart:
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Nokia_(NOK)/WikiChart
Here's another, with better numbers, also going back five years. Notice what happened in late 2008? I wonder why?:
http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=NOK
I don't know if I have the time to search for something from 2005, but here are comments about Maemo by Nokia officials. As I said, no company can put a line in the sand. What their thinking was in 2005 is irrelevant now. What their thinking now isn't, but might be a year from now. We can only go by what is happening around our own time.
You constantly chastise me for my comments, and yet you throw around a statement, and won't even come up with something to back it up?
Maemo was released in 2005, your words were
It was also thought that Maemo was the "future" for them, as they had said when it first came out.
2005 isn't irrelevant, you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
Once again: When was the last time anyone lined up for a new Nokia phone?
You have already been given an example.
I'm responding to you, and those comments were childish, or perhaps I should instead have said petulant, as childish went a bit further than I mean to.
You always jump in on any discussion of Nokia to defend it. Mostly, you say that "they're the biggest, that means they are the best", or something to that effect.
Or something to that effect? You always jump any discussion and defend Apple, no matter how bad they have been, or how dumb they have been. The fact that they sell an expensive phone, that requires an expensive monthly fee, and they place the aerial where people hold the damn thing, and you just defend them like normal. Then if you get proved wrong you jump in and say "but apple makes more money than everyone else".
Get over it, the majority of the comments made about Nokia are childish, and pathetic, and the only issue is someone is willing to correct people when they post such rubbish.
You constantly chastise me for my comments, and yet you throw around a statement, and won't even come up with something to back it up?
Maemo was released in 2005, your words were
2005 isn't irrelevant, you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
I said that I don't know if I'll have time to find something that far back, and yes, while they did say that around that time, what matters more, is what they're saying today. I did mention that as well.
You have no answer to any of my arguments, or to any of my links, so you resort to semantics, trying to catch little irrelevant things that don't affect the argument as a whole.
Or something to that effect? You always jump any discussion and defend Apple, no matter how bad they have been, or how dumb they have been. The fact that they sell an expensive phone, that requires an expensive monthly fee, and they place the aerial where people hold the damn thing, and you just defend them like normal. Then if you get proved wrong you jump in and say "but apple makes more money than everyone else".
Get over it, the majority of the comments made about Nokia are childish, and pathetic, and the only issue is someone is willing to correct people when they post such rubbish.
Now, you're totally making things up. Ask anyone around here if I always defend Apple. I most surely do not. And if you came on more threads, instead of just popping up in those about Nokia in some way, you'd know that.
If you could post something useful for once, I would agree.
Prove one thing I said or linked to about Nokia that isn't true? You can't do that. You just resort to innuendo, as you always do.
I asked you to post some links about Nokia the proves otherwise, but you haven't even acknowledged any of the ones I've posted last time, much less posted anything showing what you state to be the truth.
We all know Apple's having some problems here. But, with about 2 million phones sold, the problems are apparently only affecting a small number of people in weak signal areas. We've been discussing that. The sensor is also apparently too sensitive, and needs an adjustment. Happy now? Should I post all the links about Nokia models with problems? Would that make you any happier?
All cell phones have their signal drop, both incoming and outgoing when the hand is placed over where the antenna is located. Apple's occasional problems are related to the antenna being located outside, where a hand that sweats can short the antenna out. When that happens NO signal may move. There is no more radiation than otherwise. In addition. There has never been any proof from any properly done study that has shown that cell radiation is harmful. So far, that's just a bogy man. The FCC is just being careful in its rules.
Yes.. but it's a difference if a signal drops for 10 or 50 decibels. That means that the phone will have to emit more mwatts.
As for cell radiation, i agree that there is no definite proof with radiation of this strength, there are so many studies that claim one or another. It is though definite that (much) more powerful microwave radiation causes life threatening issues. That's why it's forbidden to get close to big radar antennas.
What is for sure is that i get a headache after talking on cell for some time so this might probably be an issue for me.
Now, you're totally making things up. Ask anyone around here if I always defend Apple. I most surely do not. And if you came on more threads, instead of just popping up in those about Nokia in some way, you'd know that.
I am not making things up, I read a lot of threads here, I only "pop" in, as you say, when someone is saying something wrong, and it needs correcting.
I said that I don't know if I'll have time to find something that far back, and yes, while they did say that around that time, what matters more, is what they're saying today. I did mention that as well.
You have no answer to any of my arguments, or to any of my links, so you resort to semantics, trying to catch little irrelevant things that don't affect the argument as a whole.
I might try that one as well shall I??
You have no answer to any of my arguments, or to any of my links, so you resort to semantics, trying to catch little irrelevant things that don't affect the argument as a whole.
Yes.. but it's a difference if a signal drops for 10 or 50 decibels. That means that the phone will have to emit more mwatts.
As for cell radiation, i agree that there is no definite proof with radiation of this strength, there are so many studies that claim one or another. It is though definite that (much) more powerful microwave radiation causes life threatening issues. That's why it's forbidden to get close to big radar antennas.
What is for sure is that i get a headache after talking on cell for some time so this might probably be an issue for me.
It's the antenna that causes the radiation. If it's shorted out, it's not really radiating properly. It's the water in our bodies that causes most of the problem, and water is difficult for radio signals to penetrate.
I am not making things up, I read a lot of threads here, I only "pop" in, as you say, when someone is saying something wrong, and it needs correcting.
So far, you haven't shown that I said a single thing that's wrong. It's not enough that YOU say so, because it's controversial until proof is given. I've given a lot of links to prove what I've been saying, and asked you to do the same, but you totally ignore that. You know, other people are reading this, they see that as well.
So if you want to say I'm wrong, fine, but prove it.
I might try that one as well shall I??
You have no answer to any of my arguments, or to any of my links, so you resort to semantics, trying to catch little irrelevant things that don't affect the argument as a whole.
You see? now you're parroting again. You're not saying anything useful, and you know it. You haven't supplied links to refute anything. The one you did supply didn't say anything that proved that what I said was wrong.
Really, if this is the best you can do, then don't bother. You may as well not post at all.
And if you think you're getting me frustrated, and you're getting excited at that thought, it's not happening. It's just boring.
Anyway, the manual clearly states that the top part of the phone should not be held, as this is where the antenna is placed and it may interfere with reception.
People who live in glass houses...
So far, you haven't shown that I said a single thing that's wrong. It's not enough that YOU say so, because it's controversial until proof is given. I've given a lot of links to prove what I've been saying, and asked you to do the same, but you totally ignore that. You know, other people are reading this, they see that as well.
So if you want to say I'm wrong, fine, but prove it.
I already have, but for whatever reason, you won't accept it. I have finished discussing this topic, I can see you are too childish to accept a simple mistake you have made, that is a characteristic that a lot of people on this site exhibit.
You have already been given an example.
Where? Can't find anything in this thread.
I don't remember Apple ever saying that cameras wouldn't work with PC's. Can you show where they said that? If they implied that they were, in general, more difficult to use with PC's, they were right. They would still be right. That was my business for years. PC's were, and still are, though less so today, more difficult to set up for these sorts of things.
Well, that was a cleverness of Get a Mac adds - they didn't say anything, they only implied. It is still very misleading, I believe. For average (clueless) buyer, commercial that portraits PC as not being able to communicate with camera cannot generate too many different opinions, even if it didn't say anything specific. Not being able is not the same as having difficulties, and having difficulties - again - is not the same as having to install driver first... not that any modern digital camera really needs any drivers to be installed anyway.
XP was leaving something to be desired when it came to driver's installation - I wouldn't say they were complicated beyond the comprehension of average user, but simpler they could be... but XP is 10 years old technology. W7, I think, does things right - all the hardware I have plugged on my home and office machines were detected and correctly installed without my input - didn't even require drivers CD. Sure people will come across hardware that will require drivers CD or drivers download, but that comes with the choice of hardware available.