Swap LIVE Scanner Audio Over The Net With Iphone

Swap LIVE Scanner Audio Over The Net With Iphone

Post by Eugene Ka » Sun, 20 Aug 1995 04:00:00




>> > I agree!  DEATH to 'net phone!!
>> You are crazy.  Saying Death to Net PHone - you might as well as say
>> death to RealAudio - Xingtech's audio server and others to come.  They
>> take up no more bandwidth than you actually d/ling the file.  
>==
>What do you mean "the file"?  If you think about it, 'net phone basically
>expands words.  The word "basically" in ASCII is nine bytes.  In 'net
>phone it is at least several _hundred_!  How can you people claim that
>'net phone uses no more bandwidth than IRC?

IRC? He said that Iphone takes no more bandwidth than downloading an
audio file of the same quality. NO mentio of IRC.

I guess Iphone lets one actually hear the other person's voice, unlike
email where no one knows how one sounds like.

Quote:>I agree that two-way voice communication has it's place on the 'net, but
>for every legitimate user, there will be twenty clueless neophytes playing
>with it.  THAT my friends, is going to kill more bandwidth than all of the
>browsers known to man!  Have you seen the Web camera that lets you look at
>the Hollywood sign?  That's probably 50k every time somebody visits, and I
>bet there are some lamers who check it out every day because they don't
>realize that there are *interesting* URLs out there.  MAN!  It's nothing

Isn't it the same as accessing any other page with a picture on it?

Quote:>but a stagnant eyesore, and some moron puts it on a ***.  This guy will

Remember that the Internet is worldwide. Many people have never really seen
it. Actually being able to see almost realtime stills do interest some
people.

Quote:>Think about this: read my post aloud, and think about how much data 'net
>phone would have to pass to convey this message.  I got it to hundreds of
>thousands of people in ASCII in under 3 kB.

But no one knows how you sound like or look like. {g}

Quote:>One last thought:  Does anyone delude themselves into thinking the long-
>distance companies are going to let this go unchallenged?  Do you really
>believe that there aren't some government dipshits out there trying to
>figure out how to charge you fifty cents to send an email?

Doesn't Compuserve charge 13 cents per email?

Quote:>This is getting off-topic for this group (sorry).  If anyone cares to
>continue this discussion, please move it to an appropriate group and
>leave a small post here noting that new group - thanks.

Oops..sorry. I didn't read it earlier.