Wow, Apple's marketing is something else. People have been carrying around that tidy package for some time now except that they didn't have an Apple logo on them. Just like I said the other day, this reinvention of history is very interesting else but unlike the young mp3 market where they could get away with it, the cellphone market is mature and people are going to openly scoff at the notion that Apple pulled off something that was available for years before the iphone came out.

I have a phone (motorola) that supposedly does a lot of that (so poorly, or at so much cost it's not worth it), but it's a piece of crap that I paid too much for, from a provider that only works in small places (Sprint) in my area, with huge areas not serviced at all. I hope to be able to change all that pretty soon. After looking at the tutorial videos on the iPhone, I think it's more than just marketing, it's something that'll actually be used, and one can enjoy using it. I've NEVER enjoyed one second on a cellphone. If I find that I can enjoy the iPhone, that would be an accomplishment, and Apple would deserve kudos for creating a device that works. Judging by how well their other items work, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I expect the iPhone will be just as good, if not better.

Perhaps you missed the significance of my comment that I find it likely that the iPhone will work just as well as their other devices (and I have experience with a number of Apple devices, such as computers, printers, etc.). I've not had enjoyable experiences with other phones. So are you suggesting I should buy dozens more phones just to find something that might possibly be as good a device TO USE as the iPhone is? I just really doubt it. I know too many people with these other types of devices, and after a short time, they quit using them. Somehow, I don't think that's likely with the iPhone, given the useful longevity of other Apple devices. I have I don't know how many worthless cellphones in my drawer or thrown away (they start falling apart, won't charge any more, even with new batteries, you name it). So that's why I say it's not just marketing, no matter how much you think it is.

"Well, you could try any of the DOZENS of other models, no? There are plenty of devices that currently "work". In fact, some of them work so well that they've been unofficially renamed as Crackberrys. The RIM server was down for several hours one day recently and the NYT ran an article on how people adjusted without them for the mere few hours they couldn't use them! What do iPhone advocates think millions of people have been doing all these years with their Treos, Blackberrys, Motos, Blackjacks, Helios, Nokia N series, Sidekicks and on and on? All of the stuff you can do on the iPhone and then some. The iPhone looks to be well designed though.

Kinda funny that you say it's not just marketing after reading Apples marketing...err, "tutorial"."

Realname, your description exactly matches mine. I've been so frustrated with all the things that DON'T work on my bluetooth phone from Sprint. It cost me $300, and bluetooth has been worthless. It doesn't work to do anything on Mac OR Windows. They want you to pay extra for stuff the phone should provide for free! Forget any sensible synching.

"Based on my experience with Sprint

And its unerring need to cripple virtually all the features of every phone it's ever marketed I say the simple fact that the iPhone will do what it says it will do is refreshing enough.--Realname"

That pretty much describes what will happen if Sheehan follows through on her threat. If she were running against Doolittle, or any other republican criminal, then she'd be completely in the right. Does she really think that Pelosi is worse than the republicans? That's what's so foolish about her intentions. She's weakening the opposition to the real problem, the REPUBLICANS. She's ignoring where the blockade to investigating and removing Bush/Cheney, the REPUBLICANS.

I'm very sorry for what happened to her son. I was against this war long before it got started, and I believe her son did not die for any noble cause. He died for Bush hubris and Cheney incompetence, nothing more. It was all stoked by Republicans who pushed through these things. Does she REALLY think that democrats would have initiated this crap, or the war? I don't think so, so why go after the people who didn't/wouldn't initiate this useless death? It's not reasonable, and is just to sickeningly reminiscent of the Nader run for president that brought on this national nightmare.

--Ron