Hello Wolff,
I first want to start off by asking you a question. Did we have an agreement that we were going to approach our discussions from a mutually beneficial direction?
I know that I agreed that I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but you immediately come back at me with accusations of my intentions and information. Now I certainly do not expect that you should not *question* and offer corrections when you find them, but to immediately return to your childish tactics indicates to me that you lack integrity, honesty, and maturity.
> Mr. Lemon I appreciate the effort you have taken in your
> post. However you need to not mislead people on the price
> of the MA 4 below is the text from your link,
So are you *asking* a question and offering more accurate information? Or are you making accusations ... the same accusations that you indicated were not acceptable on this thread? Please ... grow up!
> yes the computer can be had for the price you state but
> YOU HAVE TO A DISPLAY to use it.......add the price of
> either two display options and you have the price of
> ~$5000. That price is without much of the needed
> accesories.
So I have re-read the web page that FoxPC has, and you are correct ... I mis-read the text that they blatantly placed on their page. If you read the text from the top of the page (yes, this is the text which you conveniently left off of your text below!) then you are fully aware of what I saw.
As I quoted in my text, they have a paragraph at the top of the link that I sent, which states (and I quote!):
"The MA IV consists of:
- Fully functioning Pentium MMX CPU
- Full color Flat Panel Display
- XyberView Head Mounted Display (with optional Xybercam video camera
- Advanced Power System
..."
I trusted what I read and understood this to mean that this was the system that FoxPC was offering.
Upon re-reading the web page, per your post, I now see that the display portions are *not* included in this price. So yes, a display must be included. I would suggest that there are other more cost-effective display solutions that I am using now ... but a "pure" XYBR solution would have the additional expenses. I was wrong on this front, and did not take enough time to study their page in depth ...
> The killer app for the VCR was the rental, the Killer App
> for the Mac was Excel. The killer apps for the PC were
> Lotus123 and Wordperfect. The Killer app for the Amiga
> was the Toaster and Deluxe Paints. Not killer app for the
> Palm was the link to the PC.
I'm sorry, but you are slightly off base on *all* accounts ... the killer app for the VCR was pornography. This has been proven over and over ... and is the reason that VHS won ... more porn on VHS than Beta.
As for your other analogies, please go back and do some homework. If you would like, I will help you to properly define each of these, but you don't seem to be on target on any of them. (The Mac? Excel? Wow ... where do you get this stuff?)
As for your last sentence: "Not killer app for the Palm was the link to the PC." I'm not sure how to reply, since I can not understand what you mean. Since you do not want me to "interpret" what you are saying, then I can only ask that you re-write this sentence using different vocabulary ...
> The wearable needs a compeling reason for use.
You old minded people are so funny ... I outlined this in my last post, but obviously you fail to be able to comprehend it.
The "compelling reason" is that I can take it with me. Please tell me ... what is the "compelling reason" that I have a cell phone?
> We all have the capablity to use headphones to listen to
> music...arguably a better sound quality... but do most
> listen to music like that.....no.....most listen to music
> out of speakers.
Hmm ... I have to admit that you got me there! I see no parallel in your analogy ... can you please provide a different one which makes more sense?
> When people are away from there desktop, which I believe
> will be considered a must have in any PC user of the
> future, how much data do they need. More than a Palms 7
> connection, what will it be used for.
Ahhh ... this is *exactly* where I had hoped you would go ... this is walking down the path of understanding ...
First, I have to say that there is no such thing as "enough" ... sorry, you might think so, but the rest of the world doesn't. Like I indicated, I don't believe that you can name a single thing that was "enough" in the 1940's, 1950's or later that we decided was "enough". Yes, old people think it's enough, but young minds that are raised in a different day and age have the ability to consume far more information and have greater abilities to "consume" in a more efficient way.
As for your Palm VII comment ... I have one. And I try to use it. But you missed the point entirely ... and this explains some of your confusion. What will occur in the world, when the cost of owning a desktop PC and a Palm VII, a desktop PC and an advanced Cell Phone, and a full wearable PC all approach the same cost point? What will people purchase then? I will argue that the decision becomes simple.
> People use cell phones to talk....what computing is
> needed. This is a real question....
Wow ... you really are behind the times! I actually use the integrated WAP capabilities to look up white and yellow pages directly from my phone ... stock quotes, and even read SI! You are now starting down the traditional path of "failure to recognize what business you are in".
I would have though that you sat through business classes where such simple concepts were taught ... the railroads failed to recognize what business they were in when the airlines arrived ... they were not in the "railroad business" ... they were in the "transportation business".
Luckily, the cell phone vendors are not following the thought process that you are ... but instead they recognize that they are not in the "wireless phone business" ... they are in the "wireless communications business" ...
I'm sorry, but here we disagree also ...
> what is the Killer App? Without it the Wearable is a
> insignificant industrial tool.
Ok ... if you think so. Please feel free to refuse to understand how to learn from history ...
(Also ... in hearing you say this, it appears that you spend a lot of time listening to others, rather that thinking for yourself.)
> Futurists like yourself have been projected the future
> will Video Phones for many years.....
Ahhh ... so now we go back to personal attacks. I though that we were through with this. Please, explain yourself when you attempt to "stereotype" me in such a category!
If you are referring to my investments in White Pine software (WPNE) ... yes! I have bought thousands of shares of their stock, and have an average price of $2. I like being first in line ... and I'm very happy with their progress.
However, you are completely wrong to ever indicate that I made an such claims of "Video Phones" ... I have predicted for a long time (years) that with the enhancements in bandwidth to the home, we will finally have the video phone technologies that were promised by the telcos in the 1950's and 1960's. By the way, I actually use CUSee-Me and Netmeeting on a weekly basis ... sometimes more, sometimes less ... as I have since the early 1990's. It is completely useful, and as of a couple of months ago, my mother and sister (who both have cable modems) were able to call each other, using Netmeeting, and have a voice/video phone call ... all without any help from me! That is an impressive evolution of technology ... neither of them are technical computer users.
> this is a good comparison...the things that made the
> Video Phone the failure it is, are the same type of
> things that will effect the wearable.
Wow ... where do you live?
This *is* a good comparison because my family is now using video "phones" over the Internet today! And I am using it with my friends and business associates ... today! And I think that you are about to be very surprised at how many portals are going to begin to offer video-chat! So when you see this, will you then understand that this is real?
I know that it is tough to teach an old dog new tricks, but I will continue to try ... ;-)
> Describe why anyone would perfer low bandwith wearables
> compared to high bandwidth desktops?
Please ... can you explain this? What is a "low bandwidth" computer? Or a "high-bandwidth" computer? Please explain in detail how "bandwidth" now fits into this equation ...
I'm now using 11Mbps 802.11b wireless cards in the prototypes that we are working with ... and they work with the XYBR systems ... is this what you are referring to?
I still believe that you have limited knowledge of the real differences in these computer systems ... there is *none*!
> Why not just hook the dispaly screen head gear to a
> laptop? Same features essentially, except for form
> factor.
I tried to explain this to you, but it is again obvious that my attempts to educate you just aren't effective. I apologize for being so poor at explaining basic concepts.
I *do* hook displays to my laptop today! But the form factor *is* the problem! The laptop contains far too much in a case designed to go into a briefcase or backpack. Form factor is one of the keys ...
> Mr. Lemon while you emphasis potential, however you
> emphasis needs to be specific, hi-tech is the world of
> 100s of better mouse traps, nothing currently makes the
> MA4 a compelling tool for the masses or even early
> adopters, nor do I think the MA5 will change the bang for
> the buck equatations.
You're so funny ... ;-)
Scott C. Lemon |
