«

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:16:31 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> And the main purpose of a phone is to make and receive telephone
>> calls.
>
>except this isn't just a phone, it's a multipurpose device. the phone
>is one of many functions. some people use the phone part a lot, others
>don't use it much at all.

"I don't use the phone much" is quite different from "I don't have
phone service". I'm not discussing the amount of time spent on
various features. I'm saying that if it doesn't have phone service
it's silly to call it a phone.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:19:27 -0700, John Navas
<> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:51:08 -0400, in
><>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:43:48 -0700, nospam <>
>>wrote:
>
>>>that's even sillier than before. the *main* purpose of a car is to go
>>>someplace.
>>
>>And the main purpose of a phone is to make and receive telephone
>>calls.
>
>The main purpose is whatever the owner wants it to be.
>
>>>however, as a mobile
>>>internet device or a portable music/video player, it can't be beat.
>>
>>Well, then, call it a "mobile internet device" or a "portable
>>music/video player". Don't call it a phone if is isn't a phone.
>>
>>What you have is a butterfly that you are still calling a caterpillar
>>just because it started out as a caterpillar.
>
>So are you now down to arguing semantics and labels?

It's always been about that. If it doesn't have phone service, it
shouldn't be called a phone.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >So are you now down to arguing semantics and labels?
>
> It's always been about that. If it doesn't have phone service, it
> shouldn't be called a phone.

call it whatever you want. it's still useful without phone service.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> "I don't use the phone much" is quite different from "I don't have
> phone service". I'm not discussing the amount of time spent on
> various features. I'm saying that if it doesn't have phone service
> it's silly to call it a phone.

so what do you want to call it?

iphone is its official name since it *does* include a phone but if a
user never uses the phone part, it's still an iphone.

some people do use iphones and android devices on pay as you go plans
(which can be a few bucks a month) and others use them with *no* phone
service, relying solely on wifi for connectivity for email and web
browsing.

as i said a while ago, an iphone without a phone plan is like an ipod
touch that has a camera and gps. that might change with the next ipod
though, as it's rumoured to be getting a camera in the next revision.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:37:22 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >So are you now down to arguing semantics and labels?
>>
>> It's always been about that. If it doesn't have phone service, it
>> shouldn't be called a phone.
>
>call it whatever you want. it's still useful without phone service.

I don't argue with that. All those wonderful things you've listed are
certainly useful for some people.

Me, I want a phone.

A few months ago I was called in on a three week project to grade
school standard achievement tests for another state. I smoke, and
there's a gazebo-like building where we smokers were segregated on our
breaks.

One of the other smokers had this device that did all the things
you've talked about. (And functioned as a phone) He showed me this
screen where all of his frequent contacts showed up on the screen as
little blue dots in their present location. Some sort of GPS
function, I suppose.

I asked him how he used this feature. He said he never had, but it
was there for him when he wanted it. Now that's fine for him, but if
I wanted to know where my wife was at any given time I'd call her on
my old phone-calls-only Nokia and ask her. Seems like it would serve
the same purpose.

I can think of a use for it, though. If someone had a
girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband that they suspected of cheating, the
blue dot would give them away if it was matched with another blue dot.

I don't worry about that with my wife, though. I would just worry
when her blue dot was at Neiman-Marcus or Nordstrom's or
Bloomingdale's.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:40:29 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> "I don't use the phone much" is quite different from "I don't have
>> phone service". I'm not discussing the amount of time spent on
>> various features. I'm saying that if it doesn't have phone service
>> it's silly to call it a phone.
>
>so what do you want to call it?

I'd call the iPhone an "iPhone" because that's the brand name for it.
I'd call the Android an "Android" because that's the brand name for
it. (Although I keep reading that as "adnoid")

Generically, though, I wouldn't call them phones unless they were used
as phones.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:13:34 -0700, John Navas
<> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 01:06:35 -0400, in
><>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:40:29 -0700, nospam <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <>, tony cooper
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "I don't use the phone much" is quite different from "I don't have
>>>> phone service". I'm not discussing the amount of time spent on
>>>> various features. I'm saying that if it doesn't have phone service
>>>> it's silly to call it a phone.
>>>
>>>so what do you want to call it?
>>
>>I'd call the iPhone an "iPhone" because that's the brand name for it.
>>I'd call the Android an "Android" because that's the brand name for
>>it. (Although I keep reading that as "adnoid")
>
>Android is just the name of the OS

Didn't know that. I was using that term because that's what people
keep using here.


>by that logic you should call the
>iPhone "IOS". My own Android phone is "T-Mobile 3G 3.5mm Jack" (one of
>the dumbest names ever invented), otherwise known as the "HTC Magic".
>You should at least be consistent.
>
>>Generically, though, I wouldn't call them phones unless they were used
>>as phones.
>
>Sure sounds like a double standard to me.
>
>THE HORSE IS REALLY STINKING NOW!!!

And yet you keep galloping back.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:13:57 -0700, John Navas
<> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:32:03 -0400, in
><>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:19:27 -0700, John Navas
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:51:08 -0400, in
>>><>, tony cooper
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:43:48 -0700, nospam <>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>that's even sillier than before. the *main* purpose of a car is to go
>>>>>someplace.
>>>>
>>>>And the main purpose of a phone is to make and receive telephone
>>>>calls.
>>>
>>>The main purpose is whatever the owner wants it to be.
>>>
>>>>>however, as a mobile
>>>>>internet device or a portable music/video player, it can't be beat.
>>>>
>>>>Well, then, call it a "mobile internet device" or a "portable
>>>>music/video player". Don't call it a phone if is isn't a phone.
>>>>
>>>>What you have is a butterfly that you are still calling a caterpillar
>>>>just because it started out as a caterpillar.
>>>
>>>So are you now down to arguing semantics and labels?
>>
>>It's always been about that. ...
>
>Roger that.

Semantics and labels are important. If you want someone to hand you a
knife, you don't ask for a fork. You use the right label.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >call it whatever you want. it's still useful without phone service.
>
> I don't argue with that. All those wonderful things you've listed are
> certainly useful for some people.
>
> Me, I want a phone.

that's why they make both.

i have a flip phone for calls, since as a phone, it's much, much
better, but for email and web browsing, it sucks.

> One of the other smokers had this device that did all the things
> you've talked about. (And functioned as a phone) He showed me this
> screen where all of his frequent contacts showed up on the screen as
> little blue dots in their present location. Some sort of GPS
> function, I suppose.
>
> I asked him how he used this feature. He said he never had, but it
> was there for him when he wanted it. Now that's fine for him, but if
> I wanted to know where my wife was at any given time I'd call her on
> my old phone-calls-only Nokia and ask her. Seems like it would serve
> the same purpose.
>
> I can think of a use for it, though. If someone had a
> girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband that they suspected of cheating, the
> blue dot would give them away if it was matched with another blue dot.

there are a number of apps that can do that, one of which is

<http://www.google.com/latitude/intro.html>

> I don't worry about that with my wife, though. I would just worry
> when her blue dot was at Neiman-Marcus or Nordstrom's or
> Bloomingdale's.

that's another issue

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> I'd call the iPhone an "iPhone" because that's the brand name for it.
> I'd call the Android an "Android" because that's the brand name for
> it. (Although I keep reading that as "adnoid")

android is the operating system, but there are a few android phones
that capitalize on that, such as the droid, droid incredible and droid
x.

> Generically, though, I wouldn't call them phones unless they were used
> as phones.

smartphones.