COCOViper

RIMM Responds to Competition with the Niagara

@Jon T

The "web apps" on the Pre are completely different that the first generation iPhone's apps. The iPhone were web applications in the classic sense (the actual app was run off a remote server, the application was dependent on your connection meaning it could lag, slow down, or even drop out).

The Pre's applications simply make use of web programming languages but the app resides on the phone itself and, unless functionality requires it, doesn't require a connection to the network to work. Palm set it up this way because web programming skills are everywhere today and putting a basic web application together is the easiest and quickest way to go for most programmers.

There's lots of info out there on Palm's WebOS...you might want to do some research.

On Mar 27 10:32 AM Jon T wrote:

> Despite all the high praise and attention, the Palm Pre is a version
> 1.0 iPhone lookalike. It's apps are just web apps - which the first
> generation iPhone was slammed for having. Because it's Palm it will
> now be hooray?!?

Just What the Telcos Didn't Want to Hear

There is simply no scientific basis for this. Not only do virtually all studies demonstrate little to no correlation of cell phone use to cancer, it scientifically doesn't even make sense.

If non-ionizing RF energy is dangerous, why are we not also warning people to stay away from WiFi, cell towers, radio towers, and tractor trailers (via their communication systems) ? All of these sources put out far more RF energy than a cell phone does. And it's not like it's a different "kind" of energy, some of them are in virtually the same frequency bands as CDMA and GSM. I love how this scientist when pushed says "well...better safe than sorry." Seriously? Do you know how many things we should get rid of if that's our criteria?