0/8 -2/8 were reserved. 3/8 went to GE. 4/8 went to BBN Planet which was eventually bought by Nortel ( I think) and I think it's Level3 owned today. 5/8 was reserved ,6/8 & 7/8 was DoD, 8/8 went BBN again, 9/8 to IBM, 10/8 went to us all, 11/8 to DoD, 12/8 to AT&T.
All these allocations were a time before classless routing.
Not counting the authority, BBN got the first /8 in 1992. I never found why BBN wasn't given 3/8. Anyone remember?
Actually,
BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) now known as BBN Technologies is wholly-owned subsidiary of Raytheon.
BBN was granted several "class A" Internet address spaces prior to 1981.
BBN originally "owned" the 1, 3, 24, 31 and 41 address spaces.
Also, I always think its cool that Apple owns a whole Class A IP block. Odd that MS never requested one.
Microsoft didn't get the Internet.
Heck, they are still recovering from their narrow-minded paradigm that computing happens on desktop boxes in business facilities. To Microsoft, the only reason you'd need a computer network would be to print something to the shared office printer.
Above all, this is reflected in their current mobile situation, an unmitigated disaster. Neither Gates nor Ballmer could grasp how the concepts of the Internet and mobility would come into play. Microsoft has zero presence in the tablet industry and almost no presence in the mobile telephony industry.
And Wall Street knows this. MSFT has basically tracked the S&P 500 over the past ten years, not a proud accomplishment for a former high-tech high flyer.
BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) now known as BBN Technologies is wholly-owned subsidiary of Raytheon.
BBN was granted several "class A" Internet address spaces prior to 1981.
BBN originally "owned" the 1, 3, 24, 31 and 41 address spaces.
4/8 is indeed assigned to Level3 as a result of acquisition. What happened to the rest of BBN outside of BBN Planet is.....?
IAB wasn't formed until the mid 80s with ARIN and IANA formed much later as the U.S. Gov divested.
I'll ask John how they lost those assignments next time I see him.
4/8 is indeed assigned to Level3 as a result of acquisition. What happened to the rest of BBN outside of BBN Planet is.....?
IAB wasn't formed until the mid 80s with ARIN and IANA formed much later as the U.S. Gov divested.
I'll ask John how they lost those assignments next time I see him.
Much of this effort predates IANA.
In 1981 "Internet" Addresses were managed by Jon Postel at USC - Information Sciences Institute. Assignment of network address space was managed by Jon Postel or Joyce Reynolds until 1987.
As regards BBN, the history is quite convoluted for such a storied company that was critical to the formation of the Internet.
BBN Planet, one of the first Internet Service Providers, was acquired by GTE in 1997.
GTE merged with Bell Atlantic to form Verizon in 2000. BBN Planet was sold off as part of the Verizon acquisition and reformed as Genuity. Genuity was later acquired by Level 3 Communications.
Verizon continued to control some visage of BBN until spun off in 2004 as a separate entity later acquired by Raytheon.
Spot on. They were essentially small pocket-able computers as even Flanuer would probably admit. Now they're larger computers that in some cases aren't quite as pocket-able. As buyers began seeing larger than 3.5" phones a few years ago they realized they were easier to read and easier to type on. Much nicer for viewing media or showing off pics of the dog or the grandkids. Bigger was better even tho they might not have realized it yet in 2007.
Nice try at redirecting. Answer the question. It's a big phone no matter how you look at it. Thinness doesn’t change how long or wide it is. And yes people bought them, so much so that Apple had to go that route, or potentially start losing customers at a noticeable rate.
Sure, but it was ALWAYS a big phone. You don't remember the complaints when it was introduced?
In fact, it got bigger up through the 3GS and heavier up through the 4S. Now we have a 4" iPhone 5/5S and 4.7" iPhone 6 that's smaller than the first three 3+ years and lighter than the first 5+ years of iPhone releases.
Sure, but it was ALWAYS a big phone. You don't remember the complaints when it was introduced?
In fact, it got bigger up through the 3GS and heavier up through the 4S. Now we have a 4" iPhone 5/5S and 4.7" iPhone 6 that's smaller than the first three 3+ years and lighter than the first 5+ years of iPhone releases.
That was before we were so connected, and had a plethora of useful apps.
While it's overall smaller, the footprint is much larger.
Although Apple working with DuckDuckGo is a great idea I would hate for them to use that URL name.
Trust me when I say there are even more palatable names than google.
Also there's this wicked rumor that Apple will announce a search engine that will shake up the industry next year and the announcement will feature a speech by Steve Jobs himself!! :O
Apple has a repeatedly said that they won't be introducing a product or service unless they really add value that people would love. With spotlight I think that time has come, so a search engine could be in the works. Also Google's pagerank patent expires in 2017
Aha! THAT'S the real reason they are buying up so many weirdly diverse companies. Google is about to go "splat"!
That was before we were so connected, and had a plethora of useful apps.
While it's overall smaller, the footprint is much larger.
So? What matters is usability. The reduced thickness, the curve, including the curvature of the glass, and display closer to the edge does allow for the display to be larger whilst keeping the usability in the same range for the iPhone 6. There is absolutely no way that the iphone 6 could have existed with the current battery life back in 2007 with a usability even close to what it is today, even if you did reduce the display by 75% of its pixels. This is a result of the state of the art, just like the iPhone 5 and 5S which became thinner and lighter than all other iPhones to that point.
As I've said for years, don't focus on the display size as what needs to be perfect, but the size and weight of the device. The display is limited to the rest, but we all want a larger display, just not a unwilling device for the larger display.
Do you think Apple is moving in that direction? If they were, I'd first expect to see some lateral movement that sets a foundation for later access. For example, making Spotlight much smarter so that we can do a search without having to go into the URL field in Safari. I don't see that happening for at least several years, and I'd first like them make the maps.apple.com URLs they create in their Maps app do more than convert to a Google Maps link when it hits their web server.
OT: On the subject of what 'I' want, I can't believe Apple doesn't use a URL shortener for Messages. URLs can very long. All it would have to do is look for links pasted that are over n<sub>1</sub> characters and have more than n<sub>2</sub> ampersands to tell it to slide up a screen with options to shorten the link or not. I think it could be that simple. They don't even have to buy a new domain. Even link.apple.com/?blah would be good enough or using Bitly (or a similar service).
I say this as they still haven't gotten the pasting of URLs in Messages down properly. With iOS 8 if there are hyperlinks with titles in a section of text they will pull out the URLs, put them in greater-than and less-than symbols following the title text for the hyperlink, but if you simply copy and paste a titled URL from Messages in Mac OS X it will be the formatted text being sent so only someone using Messages on a Mac will be able to open the link while those on iOS will only see it as plaintext. I see this as being unusually sloppy for Apple.
It's already happening.
Spotlight is already prepped to begin removing Google from the search equation.
An apple search public cross platform feature with iAd support just may be coming up soon.
Spot on. They were essentially small pocket-able computers as even Flanuer would probably admit. Now they're larger computers that in some cases aren't quite as pocket-able. As buyers began seeing larger than 3.5" phones a few years ago they realized they were easier to read and easier to type on. Much nicer for viewing media or showing off pics of the dog or the grandkids. Bigger was better even tho they might not have realized it yet in 2007.
What the heck are you on about, in 2007, no one even believed Jobs and Apple would manage to have that size of a screen and a battery life not going dead within 2 hours, ask rim, that's exactly what they thought, that was exactly what they said they though, that it was impossible. Do you realise the amount of gradual optimisation, and strategic staged release of the os it took to get there? Plus uber tight controlling of the multitasking, completely new thinking on multitasking, uber tight control of malware and mobile os threats by third party software, etc. etc. And then to be able to draw enough power and make it optimal for uhd, retina, displays... A larger screen was out of the question. And the screen size of the first iPhone and the subsequent models was/is ideal for a lot of people, myself included.
The pictures of the dog for grandkids it was what the iPad was for, again a marvel that they hit this price point, as thin, and as efficient as they made it. Of course others that had their heads in their behinds and were thinking physical keyboards (google) or yet others who had nothing on their minds whatsoever started to try to get on the money/innovation game, with "sandpaper" (again Steve was right) devices too small and the wrong aspect ratio, that are now as good as being bricks while the iPad 1 is still a proud piece of computing history, functioning great on many peoples' hands. So since they were left with **** all they started pushing the market towards the fablet direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Umm, yeah it IS bigger, per se. A LOT bigger.
Original iPhone you mentioned:
115 mm (4.5 in) H; 61 mm (2.4 in) W; 11.6 mm (0.46 in) D
iPhone 6:
138.1 mm (5.44 in) H; 67 mm (2.64 in) W; 6.3 mm (0.27 in) D
iPhone: 3.5"; 135 g; 115 mm × 61 mm × 11.6 mm = 81,374 mm3 135 g;
iPhone 6: 4.7"; 129 g; 138.1 mm × 67.0 mm × 6.9 mm = 63,844 mm3 129 g
In what sense is something 20% or so smaller in volume, bigger? Just because it has a larger screen? The iPhone 6 is an evolved iPhone, 7 years onwards, of course the damn screen is going to be larger by a factor of something, that's happened to any computer before in the evolution of computers, but it's not bigger, it's less in volume, and also weighs less, it's making better use of the tech available to create a thinner, lighter, less volume consuming model and thus enable a slightly larger screen, and for 7 years onwards, it is just slightly larger, and you know why, because Steve was right, people don't want large phones, a la phablet or samsung, they want properly sized manageable phones, and sized includes weigh and volume.
Because by the same token you can put side by side, and photograph them straight on, a future iPad pro and a 10" CRT circa 1982 or so, and say, hey, the iPad pro is much bigger than the CRT based on screen size. No, it's not because the CRT has big cathode ray tube and is about 1000% weightier and bigger in volume than the iPad.
The new iPhone has taken up space from the top and bottom of the old one and added almost an extra stripe on the side of 5mm, out of which 2mm are former larger bezels, still four icons on every row, and an extra couple of lines of icons, 4 instead of 6, while at the same time being slimmer and lighter, and all that after 7 years? Now how the heck is that not verifying what Steve said?
And I don't see any response to that:
Quote:
So wait a second you mean to tell us that after Steve correctly predicted something, what 4-5 years ago or so, and after technology evolved so bezels can become much slimmer and devices much thinner so phones can incorporate larger screen sizes, and 3 years after every other manufacturer has been pushing for phablet sized phones, subsidising them to the nth, creating demand, playing on the need of people for convergence devices when they can't afford to own a tablet too, and advertising this asset ad nausem (because screens is the only thing they do well), and still the market is at about 10-12% say, that's actually a sign that people want phones with a big screen?
You would think that after all that garbage by samsung and co about how Steve was wrong you'd look at the numbers and get a landslide 60% - 70% of users opting for large screen phones and apple panting and pandering after that market. And hell, it's 15% at most? Does that make for a convincing argument, I think not. I think it further validates the fact that Steve was absolutely right, and he needn't be, it's technology anyway, it evolves.
So, tell me again, how come since Steve was wrong and people want large phones, how come the market is at best a 15% for large phones, after all the marketing, and all the extra incentives of combining tablets and phones, and the (now famed) samsung and htc and sony price cuts and subsidies? It's really strange that a market favours and demands something that only about 15% actually want.
So wait a second you mean to tell us that after Steve correctly predicted something, what 4-5 years ago or so, and after technology evolved so bezels can become much slimmer and devices much thinner so phones can incorporate larger screen sizes, and 3 years after every other manufacturer has been pushing for phablet sized phones, subsidising them to the nth, creating demand, playing on the need of people for convergence devices when they can't afford to own a tablet too, and advertising this asset ad nausem (because screens is the only thing they do well), and still the market is at about 10-12% say, that's actually a sign that people want phones with a big screen?
You would think that after all that garbage by samsung and co about how Steve was wrong you'd look at the numbers and get a landslide 60% - 70% of users opting for large screen phones and apple panting and pandering after that market. And hell, it's 15% at most? Does that make for a convincing argument, I think not. I think it further validates the fact that Steve was absolutely right, and he needn't be, it's technology anyway, it evolves.
And I 'll continue saying that the way Larry Page and Samsung keep bringing him up to slight his memory is simply disgraceful. One way or the other, they are getting frenched though, because Steve left a great leader at the helm of apple.
What a long winded attempt to avoid admitting you were 100-200% wrong.
Comments
Actually,
Also, I always think its cool that Apple owns a whole Class A IP block. Odd that MS never requested one.
Microsoft didn't get the Internet.
Heck, they are still recovering from their narrow-minded paradigm that computing happens on desktop boxes in business facilities. To Microsoft, the only reason you'd need a computer network would be to print something to the shared office printer.
Above all, this is reflected in their current mobile situation, an unmitigated disaster. Neither Gates nor Ballmer could grasp how the concepts of the Internet and mobility would come into play. Microsoft has zero presence in the tablet industry and almost no presence in the mobile telephony industry.
And Wall Street knows this. MSFT has basically tracked the S&P 500 over the past ten years, not a proud accomplishment for a former high-tech high flyer.
4/8 is indeed assigned to Level3 as a result of acquisition. What happened to the rest of BBN outside of BBN Planet is.....?
IAB wasn't formed until the mid 80s with ARIN and IANA formed much later as the U.S. Gov divested.
I'll ask John how they lost those assignments next time I see him.
Much of this effort predates IANA.
In 1981 "Internet" Addresses were managed by Jon Postel at USC - Information Sciences Institute. Assignment of network address space was managed by Jon Postel or Joyce Reynolds until 1987.
As regards BBN, the history is quite convoluted for such a storied company that was critical to the formation of the Internet.
They're no longer just phones, like SHSF and others are trying to tell you. Times and the technology have changed.
They weren't phones back then neither.
Apple was assigned their first "Internet" network address space in 1985, a "Class C" network space.
Microsoft was assigned their first "Internet" network address space in 1989.
The number and types of queries is suggestive of more than testing. :err:
Sure, but it was ALWAYS a big phone. You don't remember the complaints when it was introduced?
In fact, it got bigger up through the 3GS and heavier up through the 4S. Now we have a 4" iPhone 5/5S and 4.7" iPhone 6 that's smaller than the first three 3+ years and lighter than the first 5+ years of iPhone releases.
That was before we were so connected, and had a plethora of useful apps.
While it's overall smaller, the footprint is much larger.
Trust me when I say there are even more palatable names than google.
Also there's this wicked rumor that Apple will announce a search engine that will shake up the industry next year and the announcement will feature a speech by Steve Jobs himself!! :O
Aha! THAT'S the real reason they are buying up so many weirdly diverse companies. Google is about to go "splat"!
So? What matters is usability. The reduced thickness, the curve, including the curvature of the glass, and display closer to the edge does allow for the display to be larger whilst keeping the usability in the same range for the iPhone 6. There is absolutely no way that the iphone 6 could have existed with the current battery life back in 2007 with a usability even close to what it is today, even if you did reduce the display by 75% of its pixels. This is a result of the state of the art, just like the iPhone 5 and 5S which became thinner and lighter than all other iPhones to that point.
As I've said for years, don't focus on the display size as what needs to be perfect, but the size and weight of the device. The display is limited to the rest, but we all want a larger display, just not a unwilling device for the larger display.
It's already happening.
Spotlight is already prepped to begin removing Google from the search equation.
An apple search public cross platform feature with iAd support just may be coming up soon.
Spot on. They were essentially small pocket-able computers as even Flanuer would probably admit. Now they're larger computers that in some cases aren't quite as pocket-able. As buyers began seeing larger than 3.5" phones a few years ago they realized they were easier to read and easier to type on. Much nicer for viewing media or showing off pics of the dog or the grandkids. Bigger was better even tho they might not have realized it yet in 2007.
What the heck are you on about, in 2007, no one even believed Jobs and Apple would manage to have that size of a screen and a battery life not going dead within 2 hours, ask rim, that's exactly what they thought, that was exactly what they said they though, that it was impossible. Do you realise the amount of gradual optimisation, and strategic staged release of the os it took to get there? Plus uber tight controlling of the multitasking, completely new thinking on multitasking, uber tight control of malware and mobile os threats by third party software, etc. etc. And then to be able to draw enough power and make it optimal for uhd, retina, displays... A larger screen was out of the question. And the screen size of the first iPhone and the subsequent models was/is ideal for a lot of people, myself included.
The pictures of the dog for grandkids it was what the iPad was for, again a marvel that they hit this price point, as thin, and as efficient as they made it. Of course others that had their heads in their behinds and were thinking physical keyboards (google) or yet others who had nothing on their minds whatsoever started to try to get on the money/innovation game, with "sandpaper" (again Steve was right) devices too small and the wrong aspect ratio, that are now as good as being bricks while the iPad 1 is still a proud piece of computing history, functioning great on many peoples' hands. So since they were left with **** all they started pushing the market towards the fablet direction.
Quote:Umm, yeah it IS bigger, per se. A LOT bigger.
Original iPhone you mentioned:
115 mm (4.5 in) H; 61 mm (2.4 in) W; 11.6 mm (0.46 in) D
iPhone 6:
138.1 mm (5.44 in) H; 67 mm (2.64 in) W; 6.3 mm (0.27 in) D
In what sense is something 20% or so smaller in volume, bigger? Just because it has a larger screen? The iPhone 6 is an evolved iPhone, 7 years onwards, of course the damn screen is going to be larger by a factor of something, that's happened to any computer before in the evolution of computers, but it's not bigger, it's less in volume, and also weighs less, it's making better use of the tech available to create a thinner, lighter, less volume consuming model and thus enable a slightly larger screen, and for 7 years onwards, it is just slightly larger, and you know why, because Steve was right, people don't want large phones, a la phablet or samsung, they want properly sized manageable phones, and sized includes weigh and volume.
Because by the same token you can put side by side, and photograph them straight on, a future iPad pro and a 10" CRT circa 1982 or so, and say, hey, the iPad pro is much bigger than the CRT based on screen size. No, it's not because the CRT has big cathode ray tube and is about 1000% weightier and bigger in volume than the iPad.
The new iPhone has taken up space from the top and bottom of the old one and added almost an extra stripe on the side of 5mm, out of which 2mm are former larger bezels, still four icons on every row, and an extra couple of lines of icons, 4 instead of 6, while at the same time being slimmer and lighter, and all that after 7 years? Now how the heck is that not verifying what Steve said?
And I don't see any response to that:
So wait a second you mean to tell us that after Steve correctly predicted something, what 4-5 years ago or so, and after technology evolved so bezels can become much slimmer and devices much thinner so phones can incorporate larger screen sizes, and 3 years after every other manufacturer has been pushing for phablet sized phones, subsidising them to the nth, creating demand, playing on the need of people for convergence devices when they can't afford to own a tablet too, and advertising this asset ad nausem (because screens is the only thing they do well), and still the market is at about 10-12% say, that's actually a sign that people want phones with a big screen?
You would think that after all that garbage by samsung and co about how Steve was wrong you'd look at the numbers and get a landslide 60% - 70% of users opting for large screen phones and apple panting and pandering after that market. And hell, it's 15% at most? Does that make for a convincing argument, I think not. I think it further validates the fact that Steve was absolutely right, and he needn't be, it's technology anyway, it evolves.
So, tell me again, how come since Steve was wrong and people want large phones, how come the market is at best a 15% for large phones, after all the marketing, and all the extra incentives of combining tablets and phones, and the (now famed) samsung and htc and sony price cuts and subsidies? It's really strange that a market favours and demands something that only about 15% actually want.
It's already happening.
Spotlight is already prepped to begin removing Google from the search equation.
An apple search public cross platform feature with iAd support just may be coming up soon.
You think Apple, with Spotlight, has what it takes to compete with Google Search. They still have work to do to catch up to Google Maps.
After Google bought Android...
So wait a second you mean to tell us that after Steve correctly predicted something, what 4-5 years ago or so, and after technology evolved so bezels can become much slimmer and devices much thinner so phones can incorporate larger screen sizes, and 3 years after every other manufacturer has been pushing for phablet sized phones, subsidising them to the nth, creating demand, playing on the need of people for convergence devices when they can't afford to own a tablet too, and advertising this asset ad nausem (because screens is the only thing they do well), and still the market is at about 10-12% say, that's actually a sign that people want phones with a big screen?
You would think that after all that garbage by samsung and co about how Steve was wrong you'd look at the numbers and get a landslide 60% - 70% of users opting for large screen phones and apple panting and pandering after that market. And hell, it's 15% at most? Does that make for a convincing argument, I think not. I think it further validates the fact that Steve was absolutely right, and he needn't be, it's technology anyway, it evolves.
And I 'll continue saying that the way Larry Page and Samsung keep bringing him up to slight his memory is simply disgraceful. One way or the other, they are getting frenched though, because Steve left a great leader at the helm of apple.
What a long winded attempt to avoid admitting you were 100-200% wrong.