Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Whats happenign to PDA sales?

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
November 27, 2004 7:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

They seem to be going down, and down. Some large retailers are not supplying
them in stores anymore. Does anyone know the reason for this drop in sales?

John
-------
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve -Steve Walz website
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve/walz/in... -Topical
postings page.
Should such a violent person be in a mental ward, behind bars or roaming
Newsgroups?
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 7:12:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <20041126230335.14202.00001087@mb-m13.aol.com>,
crucifyself03@aol.comREMOVE (John) wrote:

> They seem to be going down, and down. Some large retailers are not supplying
> them in stores anymore. Does anyone know the reason for this drop in sales?

You need to be more specific. What drop in sales? How are you measuring it?
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 8:35:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

crucifyself03@aol.comREMOVE (John) wrote:

> They seem to be going down, and down. Some large retailers are not supplying
> them in stores anymore. Does anyone know the reason for this drop in sales?

A large part of the reason is the definition of PDA. PDA/phone
combinations aren't counted.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 8:35:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:35:02 +0000, Alan Anderson wrote:

>> They seem to be going down, and down. Some large retailers are not
>> supplying them in stores anymore. Does anyone know the reason for this
>> drop in sales?
>
> A large part of the reason is the definition of PDA. PDA/phone
> combinations aren't counted.

And the fact that as every month passes, more and more
people are losing their jobs in the US, contrary to the false numbers the
current administration is offering as "proof" that jobs are coming back.

The real truth is that American companies are hiring lots of people,
except those people are not US citizens, nor are they living in the US.
So, "jobs" are increasing, just not US jobs. And while this is happening,
thousands upon thousands of hard-working people are put out of work every
day.

The other reason you see claims that jobs are increasing, and that
unemployment is slowing down, is because people who have lost their job,
and are on unemployment, have exhausted their benefits, so they drop off
of the list. The list of those people collecting unemployment drops, so
the statement that "unemployment is slowing down" is patently false.

Once you look at the US Labor Statistics, these become very clear.
Unfortunately, our current administration isn't looking at the same
numbers that the rest of us are.

People just don't have $399 to go spending on a PDA every 6 months
like they used to. They're sticking with their old PDAs, which worked
perfectly fine..
November 27, 2004 8:39:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

<< A large part of the reason is the definition of PDA. PDA/phone
combinations aren't counted. >>


Well what was counted as a traditional PDA is being phased out of many Circuit
City and Best Buy stores, if not at the moment, but will very soon. Cell
phone/pda sales are of coarse strong.


John
-------
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve -Steve Walz website
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve/walz/in... -Topical
postings page.
Should such a violent person be in a mental ward, behind bars or roaming
Newsgroups?
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 10:38:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.11.27.06.20.16.615370@abuse.org...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:35:02 +0000, Alan Anderson wrote:
>
>>> They seem to be going down, and down. Some large retailers are not
>>> supplying them in stores anymore. Does anyone know the reason for this
>>> drop in sales?
>>
>> A large part of the reason is the definition of PDA. PDA/phone
>> combinations aren't counted.
>
> And the fact that as every month passes, more and more
> people are losing their jobs in the US, contrary to the false numbers the
> current administration is offering as "proof" that jobs are coming back.
>
> The real truth is that American companies are hiring lots of people,
> except those people are not US citizens, nor are they living in the US.
> So, "jobs" are increasing, just not US jobs. And while this is happening,
> thousands upon thousands of hard-working people are put out of work every
> day.
>
> The other reason you see claims that jobs are increasing, and that
> unemployment is slowing down, is because people who have lost their job,
> and are on unemployment, have exhausted their benefits, so they drop off
> of the list. The list of those people collecting unemployment drops, so
> the statement that "unemployment is slowing down" is patently false.
>
> Once you look at the US Labor Statistics, these become very clear.
> Unfortunately, our current administration isn't looking at the same
> numbers that the rest of us are.

Will you people get over it, for Chrissake? Not only is this a shabby excuse
to turn this into a sour-grapes and ill-informed political discussion, but
face it: you friggin' LOST! Get on with your life and stop driving wedges.

>
> People just don't have $399 to go spending on a PDA every 6 months
> like they used to. They're sticking with their old PDAs, which worked
> perfectly fine..

Who says you need a new one every six months?
November 27, 2004 11:13:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

aranders@insightbb.com (Alan Anderson) wrote in message news:<aranders-2711040035000001@192.168.1.101>...
> crucifyself03@aol.comREMOVE (John) wrote:
>
> > They seem to be going down, and down. Some large retailers are not supplying
> > them in stores anymore. Does anyone know the reason for this drop in sales?
>
> A large part of the reason is the definition of PDA. PDA/phone
> combinations aren't counted.

PDA/phone combinations are both mediocre as a phone, and as a PDA.
It's good that they are not counted..
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 1:48:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:38:04 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:

> Will you people get over it, for Chrissake? Not only is this a shabby
> excuse to turn this into a sour-grapes and ill-informed political
> discussion, but face it: you friggin' LOST! Get on with your life and
> stop driving wedges.

What did we lose? Please inform us of the "facts".
November 27, 2004 6:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

<< People just don't have $399 to go spending on a PDA every 6 months
like they used to. They're sticking with their old PDAs, which worked
perfectly fine.. >>


Well they have that money to spend towards a new laptop every 6 months or so.


John
-------
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve -Steve Walz website
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve/walz/in... -Topical
postings page.
Should such a violent person be in a mental ward, behind bars or roaming
Newsgroups?
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 6:58:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

My understanding is that PDAs just aren't catching on overall. I saw an
interview a while back with an industry analyst who stated that the vast
majority of PDA sales any more are replacement units for people who already
own models. There are very few customers coming on board for their first
PDA. It's not that the industry is shrinking as much as it's just not
growing.

I saw the same analogy used to describe why the baseball fanbase is not
growing as well. Essentially, the vast majority of baseball fans today are
those who were brought up in families who are baseball fans from way back.
As a result, few new fans are coming on board and the base has stagnated.

Now hockey...

That's a whole different problem.
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 8:55:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.11.27.15.48.37.960795@abuse.org...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:38:04 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:
>
>> Will you people get over it, for Chrissake? Not only is this a shabby
>> excuse to turn this into a sour-grapes and ill-informed political
>> discussion, but face it: you friggin' LOST! Get on with your life and
>> stop driving wedges.
>
> What did we lose? Please inform us of the "facts".

The main fact is that this is a newsgroup for Palms, not sore-loser politics
and lame excuses for promoting that viewpoint. Next!
November 27, 2004 9:24:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

<< My understanding is that PDAs just aren't catching on overall. I saw an
interview a while back with an industry analyst who stated that the vast
majority of PDA sales any more are replacement units for people who already
own models. There are very few customers coming on board for their first
PDA. It's not that the industry is shrinking as much as it's just not
growing. >>


This is very much true. I've owned a Palm VIIx for sometime know and do not
plan to replace it, unless it breaks. But even if I wanted to replace it, it
may be a problem since both Circuit City and Best Buy are starting to phase out
PDA's. OfficeMax, Office Depot and others will soon follow, just like what
happened with the HPC units some years ago.


<< I saw the same analogy used to describe why the baseball fanbase is not
growing as well. Essentially, the vast majority of baseball fans today are
those who were brought up in families who are baseball fans from way back.
As a result, few new fans are coming on board and the base has stagnated. >>


When I was a kid in the 1990's baseball cards were huge. But these days they
have phased away. Back then I saw MLB commercials, basdeball card commercials,
and there was more incentive for the game. These days that is but lost. Back
then we had the big players in the game, that attracted people. Players like
Nolan Ryan, Cal Ripken Jr., Mark McGuire, Jose Canseco, among others that are
missing in the game today. This has to be a reason why few are interested in
MLB today like the way they were back in 1994.


John
-------
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve -Steve Walz website
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve/walz/in... -Topical
postings page.
Should such a violent person be in a mental ward, behind bars or roaming
Newsgroups?
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 9:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

crucifyself03@aol.comREMOVE (John) wrote:

> ...I've owned a Palm VIIx for sometime know and do not
> plan to replace it, unless it breaks. But even if I wanted to replace it, it
> may be a problem since both Circuit City and Best Buy are starting to
phase out
> PDA's.

The availability (or non-availability) of PDAs from local stores is not an
issue for me. Of the eight Palms I have bought over the years, only one
was from a retail store. Unless literal "off the shelf" prices come down
significantly, I will almost certainly continue to buy from online
suppliers.
November 27, 2004 10:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

<< The availability (or non-availability) of PDAs from local stores is not an
issue for me. Of the eight Palms I have bought over the years, only one
was from a retail store. Unless literal "off the shelf" prices come down
significantly, I will almost certainly continue to buy from online
suppliers. >>


Yes but the majority of people buy from local stores. If you cannot supply
them PDA's at a local level, then they may not buy them online. I like to test
them at a store and then go to ebay, amazon.com or whomever for a cheaper deal.



John
-------
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve -Steve Walz website
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve/walz/in... -Topical
postings page.
Q.Should such a violent person be in a mental ward, behind bars or roaming
Newsgroups?
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 10:10:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:58:43 GMT, Ned Buntline wrote:

> My understanding is that PDAs just aren't catching on overall. I saw an
> interview a while back with an industry analyst who stated that the vast
> majority of PDA sales any more are replacement units for people who already
> own models. There are very few customers coming on board for their first
> PDA. It's not that the industry is shrinking as much as it's just not
> growing.

And they're probably replacements for broken models. Gone are the days
when each new release prompted a flurry of existing user upgrades.

I had a PilotPro and got a III because I ran out of RAM. I got a Vx
because I liked the style and I ran out of RAM. I got an m500 because
I ran out of RAM and the M505 screen was horrible. I got an m515
because, finally, Palm got the screen right.

But after that, they really didn't offer anything that made my life
better. Yes, I know about the processor upgrades, RAM upgrades, screen
upgrades, headphone jacks, etc. But none of that is something I need.
Yes, I could use it, but I don't need it.

Granted, I finally got to play with a T5 today and it's tempting. But,
again, it's really nothing I need. I have BackupBuddy to keep from
losing my data and CardExport to use the SD card as a USB mass storage
device.

It's not just that the market has stagnated, it's that Palm's not
giving some of us any reason to keep it active.
--
Derek

It hurts to admit when you make mistakes.
But when they're big enough, the pain only lasts a second.
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 11:49:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <20041127003937.06016.00000681@mb-m21.aol.com>,
crucifyself03@aol.comREMOVE (John) wrote:

> << A large part of the reason is the definition of PDA. PDA/phone
> combinations aren't counted. >>
>
>
> Well what was counted as a traditional PDA is being phased out of many Circuit
> City and Best Buy stores, if not at the moment, but will very soon. Cell
> phone/pda sales are of coarse strong.

I was wondering what you were basing your question on. Could it be that
the CCs and BBs near you are understocked at the moment? Have you asked
them? My Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Max, and Office Depot stores are
filled with Palm devices and have surprisingly few PPCs.

In addition, there is the growing online sales channel.

Overall, the market studies indicate that PDA sales have stagnated. The
theory is that people who want basic PDA functionality, namely the
personal information management stuff, can get it from most cell phones.
The big growth is in the smartphone market. Keep in mind that phones
already sell in far bigger numbers than PDAs. Nokia alone sells around 300
million phones a year, although most are not "smartphones." (Definition of
smartphone: runs Symbian, Palm OS, PPC, or some other OS that lets them
add programs.)

The conclusion is that there will always be a market for PDAs but the
growth is in smartphones.
November 28, 2004 3:11:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

<< I was wondering what you were basing your question on. Could it be that
the CCs and BBs near you are understocked at the moment? Have you asked
them? My Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Max, and Office Depot stores are
filled with Palm devices and have surprisingly few PPCs. >>

I visited some Best Buys out of my area and saw similiar results. They tell me
that PDA's will soon vanish from the stores. They said that most people are
not buying PDA's anymore.

<< Keep in mind that phones
already sell in far bigger numbers than PDAs. Nokia alone sells around 300
million phones a yea >>

And how many PDA's sell a year? Last I looked, It was about 2 Million total
PDA's being sold a year.


John
-------
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve -Steve Walz website
http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve/walz/in... -Topical
postings page.
Q.Should such a violent person be in a mental ward, behind bars or roaming
Newsgroups?
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 7:06:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <30suinF34an8tU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Necron 99"
<fake@fakeryet.org> wrote:

> "John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.11.27.15.48.37.960795@abuse.org...
> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:38:04 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:
> >
> >> Will you people get over it, for Chrissake? Not only is this a shabby
> >> excuse to turn this into a sour-grapes and ill-informed political
> >> discussion, but face it: you friggin' LOST! Get on with your life and
> >> stop driving wedges.
> >
> > What did we lose? Please inform us of the "facts".
>
> The main fact is that this is a newsgroup for Palms, not sore-loser politics
> and lame excuses for promoting that viewpoint. Next!

And that would be *your* viewpoint.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 11:01:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Guy Bannis" <guy@ether.net> wrote in message
news:guy-2711042007120001@192.168.1.100...
> In article <30suinF34an8tU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Necron 99"
> <fake@fakeryet.org> wrote:
>
>> "John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
>> news:p an.2004.11.27.15.48.37.960795@abuse.org...
>> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:38:04 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Will you people get over it, for Chrissake? Not only is this a shabby
>> >> excuse to turn this into a sour-grapes and ill-informed political
>> >> discussion, but face it: you friggin' LOST! Get on with your life and
>> >> stop driving wedges.
>> >
>> > What did we lose? Please inform us of the "facts".
>>
>> The main fact is that this is a newsgroup for Palms, not sore-loser
>> politics
>> and lame excuses for promoting that viewpoint. Next!
>
> And that would be *your* viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that this group has PALM in the title, not "liberal
politics" or alt.bash.bush.
November 28, 2004 1:09:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:01:30 -0500, "Necron 99" <fake@fakeryet.org>
removed the duct tape and proclaimed:

>My viewpoint is that this group has PALM in the title, not "liberal
>politics" or alt.bash.bush.
>
So we shouldn't be bashing the vote-stealing, war-mongering,
living-off-Saudi-money, America-be-damned, lying scumbag Bush in this
group?

You are absolutely right.


--
"We have been following developments very closely
and are deeply disturbed by the extensive and
credible reports of fraud in the election"
- Colin Powell
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 6:27:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Bruno" <insert@address.here> wrote in message
news:2bqjq058ek36igbt42vg4skifvq76uv05t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:01:30 -0500, "Necron 99" <fake@fakeryet.org>
> removed the duct tape and proclaimed:
>
>>My viewpoint is that this group has PALM in the title, not "liberal
>>politics" or alt.bash.bush.
>>
> So we shouldn't be bashing the vote-stealing, war-mongering,
> living-off-Saudi-money, America-be-damned, lying scumbag Bush in this
> group?
>
> You are absolutely right.

You're the one that was plonking people for having a political discussion in
ONE thread. Bloody hypocrite.

>
>
> --
> "We have been following developments very closely
> and are deeply disturbed by the extensive and
> credible reports of fraud in the election"
> - Colin Powell
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:10:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Bruno" <insert@address.here> wrote in message
news:2bqjq058ek36igbt42vg4skifvq76uv05t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:01:30 -0500, "Necron 99" <fake@fakeryet.org>
> removed the duct tape and proclaimed:
>
>>My viewpoint is that this group has PALM in the title, not "liberal
>>politics" or alt.bash.bush.
>>
> So we shouldn't be bashing the vote-stealing, war-mongering,
> living-off-HIS WIFE'S-money, America-be-damned, lying scumbag KERRY in
> this
> group?
>
> You are absolutely right.
>
>
Dude,

you had two typos in that last post. I have corrected them (in CAPS) for
you.

TC
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:10:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:10:23 +0000, Tony Clark wrote:

> you had two typos in that last post. I have corrected them (in CAPS) for
> you.

You do realize, of course, that it has already been proven, and
investigated, that not a single dollar of his wife's earnings or
inheritence went to Kerry's campaign, right? In fact, its illegal for that
to happen, and so... it didn't.

If he buys him a sandwich, and you use that as motive for saying that
Kerry lives off of his wife's money, than that's probably true. I lived
off of my mother's money for a good 15 years myself, from the time I was
born until I left the house.

I'd trust someone who's been to war, decorated many times, than someone
who hasn't, has dodged his duties, has been an alcoholic, a cocaine
addict, lied and crashed and burned many companies in his wake, than
anyone else.

In fact, besides Hawaii, the only two times we've ever been attacked by
foreign terrorists on US soil were by the al Queda, both at the WTC (1992
and 2004), both led by bin Laden, and both were under Bush presidents.
Both Bush presidents also went after Saddam Hussein during their first
term.

It has been proven that life under Bush presidency makes the country
dramatically less-secure.

What was that you were saying again about Kerry?
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:10:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Tony Clark" <curiousgeorge1964@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jwoqd.2446$u81.2239@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Bruno" <insert@address.here> wrote in message
> news:2bqjq058ek36igbt42vg4skifvq76uv05t@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:01:30 -0500, "Necron 99" <fake@fakeryet.org>
>> removed the duct tape and proclaimed:
>>
>>>My viewpoint is that this group has PALM in the title, not "liberal
>>>politics" or alt.bash.bush.
>>>
>> So we shouldn't be bashing the vote-stealing, war-mongering,
>> living-off-HIS WIFE'S-money, America-be-damned, lying scumbag KERRY in
>> this
>> group?
>>
>> You are absolutely right.
>>
>>
> Dude,
>
> you had two typos in that last post. I have corrected them (in CAPS) for
> you.
>
> TC

<snicker>
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 10:38:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.11.28.18.20.25.134105@abuse.org...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:10:23 +0000, Tony Clark wrote:
>
>> you had two typos in that last post. I have corrected them (in CAPS) for
>> you.
>
> You do realize, of course, that it has already been proven, and
> investigated, that not a single dollar of his wife's earnings or
> inheritence went to Kerry's campaign, right? In fact, its illegal for that
> to happen, and so... it didn't.
>

Reread the post. Never said he got any money for campaigning from his wife.

> If he buys him a sandwich, and you use that as motive for saying that
> Kerry lives off of his wife's money, than that's probably true. I lived
> off of my mother's money for a good 15 years myself, from the time I was
> born until I left the house.
>
> I'd trust someone who's been to war, decorated many times, than someone
> who hasn't, has dodged his duties, has been an alcoholic, a cocaine
> addict, lied and crashed and burned many companies in his wake, than
> anyone else.
>

Versus a man who spent 30 years in Congress with nothing to show for it. As
for military service I don't think Kerry has much to stand on there. Nothing
like having a comrade in arms come back from the war and turn traitor to his
fellow soldiers. Likewise, did you miss the part when Kerry admitted he
participated in the attrocities in Viet Nam?

> In fact, besides Hawaii, the only two times we've ever been attacked by
> foreign terrorists on US soil were by the al Queda, both at the WTC (1992
> and 2004), both led by bin Laden, and both were under Bush presidents.
> Both Bush presidents also went after Saddam Hussein during their first
> term.
>

Did you miss Mr. Kerry's speech in 1998 in which he advoacted the unilateral
attack on Saasam? Oh, you also forgot the attack on the US Cole, under
Billy-bob Clinton, as well as the attacks on the embassies in Africa. And
what about the 23 billion that Saadam was siphoning off the food for oil
program under the watchful eye of the UN? I guess you'd be happy if we just
sent ol Saadam back home with our most sincere apologies. Maybe you'd enjoy
living in a country where the psychopathic sons of the dictator are free to
walk into any elementary school and pick out a nice 13 yr old girl for their
personal pleasure. Or perhaps it doesn't bother you to see mass graves
filled with women and children civilians?

> It has been proven that life under Bush presidency makes the country
> dramatically less-secure.
>

Really? Other than 9-11, which was being planned during the reign of Mr.
Clinton, how many attacks have occured here in the US since?

> What was that you were saying again about Kerry?

Mr. Kerry is a flip-flopping, elitist, big government,
tax-the-middle-class-to-death Democrat which the majority of this county saw
right through.I'd take a reformed alcoholic-drug addict any day over a man
that can't admit he has a problem. And to show you how far off the mark the
campaign was, John Edwards couldn't even carry his own state to help out.

PS - you really should learn how to take a joke.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 10:38:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Tony Clark" <curiousgeorge1964@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fPpqd.5826$NU3.3026@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.11.28.18.20.25.134105@abuse.org...
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:10:23 +0000, Tony Clark wrote:
>>
>>> you had two typos in that last post. I have corrected them (in CAPS) for
>>> you.
>>
>> You do realize, of course, that it has already been proven, and
>> investigated, that not a single dollar of his wife's earnings or
>> inheritence went to Kerry's campaign, right? In fact, its illegal for
>> that
>> to happen, and so... it didn't.
>>
>
> Reread the post. Never said he got any money for campaigning from his
> wife.
>
>> If he buys him a sandwich, and you use that as motive for saying that
>> Kerry lives off of his wife's money, than that's probably true. I lived
>> off of my mother's money for a good 15 years myself, from the time I was
>> born until I left the house.
>>
>> I'd trust someone who's been to war, decorated many times, than someone
>> who hasn't, has dodged his duties, has been an alcoholic, a cocaine
>> addict, lied and crashed and burned many companies in his wake, than
>> anyone else.
>>
>
> Versus a man who spent 30 years in Congress with nothing to show for it.
> As for military service I don't think Kerry has much to stand on there.
> Nothing like having a comrade in arms come back from the war and turn
> traitor to his fellow soldiers. Likewise, did you miss the part when Kerry
> admitted he participated in the attrocities in Viet Nam?
>
>> In fact, besides Hawaii, the only two times we've ever been attacked by
>> foreign terrorists on US soil were by the al Queda, both at the WTC (1992
>> and 2004), both led by bin Laden, and both were under Bush presidents.
>> Both Bush presidents also went after Saddam Hussein during their first
>> term.
>>
>
> Did you miss Mr. Kerry's speech in 1998 in which he advoacted the
> unilateral attack on Saasam? Oh, you also forgot the attack on the US
> Cole, under Billy-bob Clinton, as well as the attacks on the embassies in
> Africa. And what about the 23 billion that Saadam was siphoning off the
> food for oil program under the watchful eye of the UN? I guess you'd be
> happy if we just sent ol Saadam back home with our most sincere apologies.
> Maybe you'd enjoy living in a country where the psychopathic sons of the
> dictator are free to walk into any elementary school and pick out a nice
> 13 yr old girl for their personal pleasure. Or perhaps it doesn't bother
> you to see mass graves filled with women and children civilians?
>
>> It has been proven that life under Bush presidency makes the country
>> dramatically less-secure.
>>
>
> Really? Other than 9-11, which was being planned during the reign of Mr.
> Clinton, how many attacks have occured here in the US since?
>
>> What was that you were saying again about Kerry?
>
> Mr. Kerry is a flip-flopping, elitist, big government,
> tax-the-middle-class-to-death Democrat which the majority of this county
> saw right through.I'd take a reformed alcoholic-drug addict any day over a
> man that can't admit he has a problem. And to show you how far off the
> mark the campaign was, John Edwards couldn't even carry his own state to
> help out.
>

I like the bit where Kerry made far more than GWB, but actually paid a lower
percentage of income tax. Maybe his ambulance chaser boy toy helped in that
department?

> PS - you really should learn how to take a joke.

Liberals that lose major elections have no sense of humor.

>
>
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 10:38:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:38:51 +0000, Tony Clark wrote:

> Really? Other than 9-11, which was being planned during the reign of
> Mr. Clinton, how many attacks have occured here in the US since?

None, but as I mentioned, in the last 27 presidents (not terms),
there have been 3 attacks on US soil, and both of the attacks that
happened during non-wartime, were under Bush, both of them.

Please do your research first.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 10:38:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:30:13 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:

>> PS - you really should learn how to take a joke.
>
> Liberals that lose major elections have no sense of humor.

Its a good thing there are none of those around.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 12:44:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.11.28.21.50.09.625393@abuse.org...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:38:51 +0000, Tony Clark wrote:
>
>> Really? Other than 9-11, which was being planned during the reign of
>> Mr. Clinton, how many attacks have occured here in the US since?
>
> None, but as I mentioned, in the last 27 presidents (not terms),
> there have been 3 attacks on US soil, and both of the attacks that
> happened during non-wartime, were under Bush, both of them.

Then those attacks *made* it wartime. And somehow, it's Bush's fault???
Weird. Anyway, the terrorists were emboldened by Cliton's lame-ass responses
to terrorism, and didn't expect the US to actually respond.


>
> Please do your research first.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 6:18:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In the last exciting episode, "Necron 99" <fake@fakeryet.org> wrote:
> "John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.11.28.21.50.09.625393@abuse.org...
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:38:51 +0000, Tony Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Really? Other than 9-11, which was being planned during the reign
>>> of Mr. Clinton, how many attacks have occured here in the US
>>> since?
>>
>> None, but as I mentioned, in the last 27 presidents (not terms),
>> there have been 3 attacks on US soil, and both of the attacks that
>> happened during non-wartime, were under Bush, both of them.
>
> Then those attacks *made* it wartime. And somehow, it's Bush's
> fault??? Weird. Anyway, the terrorists were emboldened by Cliton's
> lame-ass responses to terrorism, and didn't expect the US to
> actually respond.

Bush's administration had nearly a year to resolve things; it's only
in a totally victimization-oriented system where everything is always
to be blamed on someone else. Your country seems full of this...

The terrorists should have been "disemboldened" by the new
administration's policy by 9/11; that's plenty of time to get going,
given an experienced, competent set of staff. And there certainly
were some seasoned people there...

Or are you implying that Bush and friends were insufficiently
competent to reasonably replace Clinton?
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #121. "If I come into possession of an
artifact which can only be used by the pure of heart, I will not
attempt to use it regardless." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/&gt;
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:49:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

As cell phones do more and more PDA type stuff.. there is much less of a
need for seperate PDA's for the vast majority of people.

Cell phones are programmable now! Can you believe that? They are quite
powerful. I guess the next gaming boom will be cell phone games.

PDA's are pretty much going to be niche devices.

Thanks,

Mike

John wrote:
> They seem to be going down, and down. Some large retailers are not supplying
> them in stores anymore. Does anyone know the reason for this drop in sales?
>
> John
> -------
> http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve -Steve Walz website
> http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve/walz/in... -Topical
> postings page.
> Should such a violent person be in a mental ward, behind bars or roaming
> Newsgroups?
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 8:03:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message
news:30vinvF34tmecU1@uni-berlin.de...
> In the last exciting episode, "Necron 99" <fake@fakeryet.org> wrote:
SNIP

>
> Bush's administration had nearly a year to resolve things; it's only
> in a totally victimization-oriented system where everything is always
> to be blamed on someone else. Your country seems full of this...
>
> The terrorists should have been "disemboldened" by the new
> administration's policy by 9/11; that's plenty of time to get going,
> given an experienced, competent set of staff. And there certainly
> were some seasoned people there...
>
> Or are you implying that Bush and friends were insufficiently
> competent to reasonably replace Clinton?
> --

No, however, the Bush administration was severly handicapped given that
funding for intelligence organizations had been systematically reduced under
the Clinton administration. You can't fix that sort of problem in a year or
even two. You need assets in place on the ground for years gathering
information which we didn't have and only now are getting in place.

TC
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 9:15:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message
news:30vinvF34tmecU1@uni-berlin.de...
> In the last exciting episode, "Necron 99" <fake@fakeryet.org> wrote:
>> "John Doe" <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message
>> news:p an.2004.11.28.21.50.09.625393@abuse.org...
>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:38:51 +0000, Tony Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really? Other than 9-11, which was being planned during the reign
>>>> of Mr. Clinton, how many attacks have occured here in the US
>>>> since?
>>>
>>> None, but as I mentioned, in the last 27 presidents (not terms),
>>> there have been 3 attacks on US soil, and both of the attacks that
>>> happened during non-wartime, were under Bush, both of them.
>>
>> Then those attacks *made* it wartime. And somehow, it's Bush's
>> fault??? Weird. Anyway, the terrorists were emboldened by Cliton's
>> lame-ass responses to terrorism, and didn't expect the US to
>> actually respond.
>
> Bush's administration had nearly a year to resolve things; it's only
> in a totally victimization-oriented system where everything is always
> to be blamed on someone else. Your country seems full of this...
>
> The terrorists should have been "disemboldened" by the new
> administration's policy by 9/11; that's plenty of time to get going,
> given an experienced, competent set of staff. And there certainly
> were some seasoned people there...
>
> Or are you implying that Bush and friends were insufficiently
> competent to reasonably replace Clinton?

No, I was saying that the new staff was better than the Clinton gang, and
surprised the terrorists. They have been on the run, many caught or killed,
their safe haven of Iraq is far less safe, etc.


> --
> (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
> http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
> Rules of the Evil Overlord #121. "If I come into possession of an
> artifact which can only be used by the pure of heart, I will not
> attempt to use it regardless." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/&gt;
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 9:20:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Mike (remove XX's to reply)" <aXXeneXXas@gwis.com> wrote in message
news:41AAF0B8.4070303@gwis.com...
> As cell phones do more and more PDA type stuff.. there is much less of a
> need for seperate PDA's for the vast majority of people.
>
> Cell phones are programmable now! Can you believe that? They are quite
> powerful. I guess the next gaming boom will be cell phone games.
>
> PDA's are pretty much going to be niche devices.

Perhaps it's up to those of us who actually use the things to "get the word
out"; I've been bragging mine up about what it does, and may have a small
influence in sales. Which can multiply. Sorta like a church message, "go ye
and spread the word".

>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> John wrote:
>> They seem to be going down, and down. Some large retailers are not
>> supplying
>> them in stores anymore. Does anyone know the reason for this drop in
>> sales?
>>
>> John
>> -------
>> http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve -Steve Walz website
>> http://www.members.aol.com/crucifyself03/Rsteve/walz/in... -Topical
>> postings page.
>> Should such a violent person be in a mental ward, behind bars or roaming
>> Newsgroups?
November 29, 2004 10:10:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:03:18 GMT, Tony Clark wrote:

> > Or are you implying that Bush and friends were insufficiently
> > competent to reasonably replace Clinton?
> > --
>
> No, however, the Bush administration was severly handicapped given that
> funding for intelligence organizations had been systematically reduced under
> the Clinton administration. You can't fix that sort of problem in a year or
> even two. You need assets in place on the ground for years gathering
> information which we didn't have and only now are getting in place.

So you say. But I've read and heard contradictory information, so
anyone wanting to judge the validity of your statements might find
citations useful. The following text is a portion (only the first
and last paragraph) of a Washington Post article that may or may not
still be available at:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13541-2004Mar...

> FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11
> Request for New Counterterror Funds Cut by Two-Thirds
> By Dana Milbank
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A06
>
> In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House
> cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds
> by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows.The document,
> dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional
> funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024
> positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that
> request to $531 million. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within
> the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer
> networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security
> request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for "collaborative
> capabilities."
>
> . . .
>
> Other documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism
> top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the
> FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's "Strategic Plan" from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put
> fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a
> sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. After the attacks, fighting terrorism
> became the department's primary goal. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's
> predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism "the most challenging threat in the
> criminal justice area."
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 10:10:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"BillB" <rainbose@earthlink.newt> wrote in message
news:0rhlq01rtl1t4sc32isledj0soghpuh377@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:03:18 GMT, Tony Clark wrote:
>
>> > Or are you implying that Bush and friends were insufficiently
>> > competent to reasonably replace Clinton?
>> > --
>>
>> No, however, the Bush administration was severly handicapped given that
>> funding for intelligence organizations had been systematically reduced
>> under
>> the Clinton administration. You can't fix that sort of problem in a year
>> or
>> even two. You need assets in place on the ground for years gathering
>> information which we didn't have and only now are getting in place.
>
> So you say. But I've read and heard contradictory information, so
> anyone wanting to judge the validity of your statements might find
> citations useful. The following text is a portion (only the first
> and last paragraph) of a Washington Post article that may or may not
> still be available at:
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13541-2004Mar...

Washington Post? Gimme a break. Try the direct mailings from the DoD and DoS
for better info.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 2:16:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <0rhlq01rtl1t4sc32isledj0soghpuh377@4ax.com>,
alt.usenet.this.newsgroup wrote:

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13541-2004Mar...
>
> > FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11
> > [...]
> > In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House
> > cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds
> > by the FBI,...

Far from squeezing the FBI budget, this is talking about an *increase* of
over 500 million dollars. Only in Washington does a spending increase of
less than the proposed amount get called a "cut".
November 29, 2004 4:04:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:17:40 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:

> Washington Post? Gimme a break. Try the direct mailings from the
> DoD and DoS for better info.

<haha> Well, at least you didn't get foxy by mooning over the
Washington Times.
November 29, 2004 4:26:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:16:01 GMT, Alan Anderson wrote:

>>> FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11
>>> [...]
>>> In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House
>>> cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds
>>> by the FBI,...
>
> Far from squeezing the FBI budget, this is talking about an *increase* of
> over 500 million dollars. Only in Washington does a spending increase of
> less than the proposed amount get called a "cut".

You're right, that sort of thing happens often in Washington, but
usually by politicians that are well aware that they are spinning
and distorting the truth. Here though, you are quibbling about a
slight literal innacurracy in a headline. And far from attempting
to mislead, by either never mentioning that it was a cut in an
emergency request, or burying it in fine print on some other page,
this clarification was spelled out in the very first sentence of the
article.

The last paragraph of the article apparently got past your keen
editor's eye, but even though it doesn't mention funding, is more
damning, and weakens or discredits TC's claim that funding
intelligence organizations was a priority of the Bush
administration. The fact that it wasn't seems to have been due in
large part to the Bush administration's reluctance to concede that
any concern of the outgoing Clinton administration might be worth
examining. There are many examples of this that have nothing to do
with funding, but as none of them are about conspiracies involving
Palm Pilots, I'll spare you the gory details.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 5:36:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

Necron 99 wrote:

>
> Perhaps it's up to those of us who actually use the things to "get the word
> out"; I've been bragging mine up about what it does, and may have a small
> influence in sales. Which can multiply. Sorta like a church message, "go ye
> and spread the word".
>

But why should that be our job? Doesn't Palm have a marketing department?

Thanks,

Mike
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 6:16:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"BillB" <rainbose@earthlink.newt> wrote in message
news:5j7mq0p3b01mtr2dhu8bpa3ifq80lh48qq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:16:01 GMT, Alan Anderson wrote:
>
SNIP

>
> The last paragraph of the article apparently got past your keen
> editor's eye, but even though it doesn't mention funding, is more
> damning, and weakens or discredits TC's claim that funding
> intelligence organizations was a priority of the Bush
> administration. The fact that it wasn't seems to have been due in
> large part to the Bush administration's reluctance to concede that
> any concern of the outgoing Clinton administration might be worth
> examining. There are many examples of this that have nothing to do
> with funding, but as none of them are about conspiracies involving
> Palm Pilots, I'll spare you the gory details.
>

Well, I don't have the dollar figures but citing one article that talks
about FBI funding doesn't take into account funding for all the other
intelligence agencies. I'd hardly say that this article proves your point.
Furthermore, when it comes to Janet Reno saying that terrorism is the most
challenging threat doesn't say anything about how the intelligence agencies
were funded during the Clinton years. Intelligence funding has always been
rather secretive so you'd be hard pressed to cite any specific numbers. But,
here is what George Tenet had to say about that:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/101702tenet.htm...
"The last decade saw a number of conflicting and competing trends: military
forces deployed to more locations than ever in our nation's history; a
growing counterproliferation and counterterrorism threat; constant tensions
in the Mid East and, to deal with these and a host of other issues, far
fewer intelligence dollars and manpower. At the end of the Cold War, the
Intelligence Community, like much of the National Security Community, was
asked by both Congress and successive Administrations to pay the price of
the "peace dividend."

--> The cost of the "peace dividend" was that during the 1990s our
Intelligence community funding declined in real terms - reducing our buying
power by tens of billions of dollars over the decade. <--

We lost nearly one in four of our positions. This loss of manpower was
devastating, particularly in our two most manpower intensive activities:
all-source analysis and human source collection. By the mid-1990s,
recruitment of new CIA analysts and case officers had come to a virtual
halt. NSA was hiring no new technologists during the greatest information
technology change in our lifetimes. It is absolutely essential that we
understand that both Congress and the Executive Branch for most of the
decade embraced the idea that we could "surge" our resources to deal with
emerging intelligence challenges, including threats from terrorism. And
surge we did."



TC
November 29, 2004 7:34:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

John Doe <a.nonymous@abuse.org> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.28.22.00.00.16638@abuse.org>...
> > Did you miss Mr. Kerry's speech in 1998 in which he advoacted the
> > unilateral attack on Saasam?
>
> Supporting the need to depose Saddam, is not the same as voting
> to attack Saddam. Please study your Civics class.
>
> > And what about the 23 billion that Saadam was siphoning off the food for
> > oil program under the watchful eye of the UN? I guess you'd be happy if
> > we just sent ol Saadam back home with our most sincere apologies.
>
> Saddam had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11, except living within
> a 1000-mile proximity to the general location of the real attackers. Where
> is bin Laden? When Saudis attack, we invade Iraq. Twice. Cute.
>
> And what about DPRK? They are CLEARLY a more-important threat to
> national and international security. Their major (legal) export is
> weapons, to Yemen and other countries. They've disabled the UN-sanctioned
> cameras at their nuclear facilities, they have already tested missiles
> over Japan (Tae-Po Dong), they've got nuclear capabilities, and have said
> that they'll use them whenever they want.
>
> Why don't we go after them? Why? No oil. No profit in the venture.
>
> > Mr. Kerry is a flip-flopping, elitist, big government,
> > tax-the-middle-class-to-death Democrat which the majority of this county
> > saw right through.I'd take a reformed alcoholic-drug addict any day over
> > a man that can't admit he has a problem. And to show you how far off the
> > mark the campaign was, John Edwards couldn't even carry his own state to
> > help out.
>
> Funny that you call Kerry a flip-flopper. Can you name three documented
> instances of where that is true? Let's try the same for Bush:
>
> In September 2001, Bush said capturing bin Laden was "our number one
> priority.�


Fictious quote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918437/posts

By March 2002, he was claiming, "I don't know where he
> is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important.�


Exagerated, taken out of context.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918437/posts
>
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 10:58:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"BillB" <rainbose@earthlink.newt> wrote in message
news:cc7mq0d3gvvompj3oe6qacktfnd22jlfls@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:17:40 -0500, Necron 99 wrote:
>
>> Washington Post? Gimme a break. Try the direct mailings from the
>> DoD and DoS for better info.
>
> <haha> Well, at least you didn't get foxy by mooning over the
> Washington Times.
>

That brings up another debate I'd love to go into--in the appropriate group.
Sheesh, that commie that told me state-controlled press is essential...
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 11:00:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

> Fictious quote.
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918437/posts
>
>
Your (ahem) "facts" are questionable. It is not fictitious:

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200304/04...

Here's some more, if you need further proof:

http://www.xenophilia.com/vid/notconcerned.wmv


>> is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that
>> important.�
>
>
> Exagerated, taken out of context.
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918437/posts

Yes, taken right out of the context of his speech:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/bush.tra...

Please do your research first, your false claims are disproved by
reams and reams of evidence, transcript, and video on the web.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 11:46:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <41AB7A2A.1030303@gwis.com>, "Mike (remove XX's to reply)"
<aXXeneXXas@gwis.com> wrote:

> Necron 99 wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps it's up to those of us who actually use the things to "get the word
> > out"; I've been bragging mine up about what it does, and may have a small
> > influence in sales. Which can multiply. Sorta like a church message, "go ye
> > and spread the word".
> >
>
> But why should that be our job? Doesn't Palm have a marketing department?

Yes. But why one or the other? When friends ask us to recommend a
restaurant, do you refuse? When you see a movie you like a lot, do you
keep it to yourself?
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 11:46:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Guy Bannis" <guy@ether.net> wrote in message
news:guy-2911041246410001@192.168.1.100...
> In article <41AB7A2A.1030303@gwis.com>, "Mike (remove XX's to reply)"
> <aXXeneXXas@gwis.com> wrote:
>
>> Necron 99 wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Perhaps it's up to those of us who actually use the things to "get the
>> > word
>> > out"; I've been bragging mine up about what it does, and may have a
>> > small
>> > influence in sales. Which can multiply. Sorta like a church message,
>> > "go ye
>> > and spread the word".
>> >
>>
>> But why should that be our job? Doesn't Palm have a marketing
>> department?
>
> Yes. But why one or the other? When friends ask us to recommend a
> restaurant, do you refuse? When you see a movie you like a lot, do you
> keep it to yourself?

If it's a "cause" you believe in, you'd want to help out. Now, calling this
a "cause" is probably a bit extreme.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 9:09:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On 27 Nov 2004 05:39:37 GMT, crucifyself03@aol.comREMOVE (John) wrote:

[Re: Handheld sales and Palm specifically being down in 04 Q3]

There is a lot I could say about this whole discussion but I
only have time to put down a couple of thoughts:

1. Palm has always been very "quarter specific" in their sales. They
have very bad quarters and very good one. That fact that Q3 for 2004
was a bad one is not surprising. Watch the end of year numbers when
they come out -- probably March next year when no-one is paying
attention.

><< A large part of the reason is the definition of PDA. PDA/phone
>combinations aren't counted. >>

2. This is what Gartner wrote in 04 Q2

Note: Totals include cellular PDAs, such as the RIM BlackBerry 7230,
but not smartphones, such as the Treo 600. palmOne's results include
Handspring PDA shipments.

Functionally, the RIM BB7230 did about the same thing as the Treo 600
except the shape was more like the Palm Tungsten W. Think about
that. It is almost as if Gartner specifically wanted to "low-ball"
the Palm sales, but make RIM look more significant than it is.

>Well what was counted as a traditional PDA is being phased out of many Circuit
>City and Best Buy stores, if not at the moment, but will very soon. Cell
>phone/pda sales are of coarse strong.

3. Do not believe everything you hear from retail salespeople in
this industry -- even at Circuit City and Best Buy (and Radio Shack).
Most of them know little more than the guy in the shoe store down
a couple of stores. At best, most of them are well intentioned.

4. "A long time ago . . ." the videogame industry was dominated
by Atari. Then Atari video games waned and eventually disappeared.
The home computer fans sagely pronounced that the video game had died
because of the clear superiority of playing video games on
personal computers. I think there was about a couple of years when
there were no retail videogames available -- I am not entirely
sure about that. Someone else can look up their historical notes.

Then "out of nowhere" (actually, Japan), there appeared the
Nintendo and Sega 8-bit video games. The home computer fans
laughed at these over priced game systems and said very loudly
that they would never sell in North America and video games would
stay dead.

[Fast forward]

Gee, now MSFT has the "Xbox". . . .
:-)

Conclusion:

Read what you will from all this, but "[t]he only thing
constant is change."

--
The Moving Target: mobile information technology
http://www.pathcom.com/~jimomura/
!