tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14344386.post231119825763788874..comments2012-02-16T06:00:41.421-05:00Doug Alexanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03585324787204297785noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14344386.post-8066655078970550062007-01-12T14:58:00.000-05:002007-01-12T14:58:00.000-05:00

Good point. I guess what I'm saying is that I wouldn't get it for numerous reasons, and in fact I find myself not really lusting after it a heck of a lot. But that may just be sour grapes. Seems to me that they traded Wi-Fi capability for 3G, though the NYT said that it could be added later via software.<br /><br />It's undoubtedly a different playing field than the iPod entered, but iPod didn't

Doug A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/03585324787204297785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14344386.post-58189861289121598392007-01-11T16:09:00.000-05:002007-01-11T16:09:00.000-05:00

Yeah, but the point isn't to celebrate iPhone version 2.0. Just because it will be fixed doesn't not make it an issue for this version. <br /><br />Anyway, it isn't even out yet so I'm hesitant to pass any judgment whatsoever. But the fact remains: iPods pretty much invented a medium; iPhone is entering a *very* well-established one. I'm sure they'll sell, but I have a sinking feeling this is a

Dr. Tobias Funkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10208025696085747281noreply@blogger.com