NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: John Navas on 5 Aug 2010 11:18 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:06:27 -0600, in <piu6o.58720$YX3.46373(a)newsfe18.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: >At 04 Aug 2010 20:36:03 -0700 nospam wrote: >> nearly 2/3rds of the respondents do *not* find the antenna to be a >> problem and an additional 14% think it's a minor issue. for the math >> impaired that's about 80% who think it's not a big deal. >> >> of the remaining users, 14% think the antenna issue is somewhat of a >> problem and only 7% think it's a serious problem. >> >> that's pretty good for a phone that the media would like you to believe >> is fatally flawed. > >Or a testament to just how good cellular service is in most areas. Even >so, that's 1-in-5 believing it's a problem. That's actually quite bad. >Is it not possible that some of the dissatisfaction of AT&T by >iPhone owners is from antenna/dropped calls problems of the phone being >blamed on the operator? Indeed. >... 20% having issues is a pretty >significant number! Yep. -- John If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive, then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
From: John Navas on 5 Aug 2010 11:19 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:18:07 -0400, in <i3edml$niq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: >On 08-05-2010 04:06, Todd Allcock wrote: >> Is it not possible that some of the dissatisfaction of AT&T by >> iPhone owners is from antenna/dropped calls problems of the phone being >> blamed on the operator? > >Not if it's from people who had AT&T prior to iPhone 4 > >They really do suck. In some places. Not in others. No one carrier is great/best in all areas. >Picking them for the exclusive >was a stupid marketing move. It's actually worked out incredibly well for both Apple and AT&T. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 5 Aug 2010 11:23 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:43:27 -0500, in <lloydparsons-4B342F.07432705082010(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: >In article <040820102230590650%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <znu-D88994.01023305082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU >> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >> >> > In the case of an iPad in direct sunlight, the thermal energy is >> > primarily coming from an external source. Unless you think they should >> > have pun a fan in the thing (which is ludicrous, IMO), >> >> the wepad has a fan in it. >> >> > it's really >> > unclear exactly what they could have possibly done about this. I mean, >> > other than making the device highly reflective. Which it is. >> > >> > In any event, there is no systematic testing showing an actual problem >> > here in the first place. >> >> nor were there massive ipad (or iphone) failures over the last month >> when the temperature in the midwest/northeast usa was 90-100+. > >What do you mean 'when'??? ::) > >It is still that damn hot around here. The apparent problem here is nanny design by Apple, which shuts the machine down at a conservative temperature, which can be quite annoying, and quite possibly unnecessary. My ThinkPad, by comparison, will only resort to that when the processor actually approaches an unsafe temperature, continuing to operate normally even with a quite hot chassis. But then it has active cooling. ;) -- John If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive, then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
From: Lloyd Parsons on 5 Aug 2010 11:36 In article <7mll561hrkbausg6vsdrmrl17j15s6fesl(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:43:27 -0500, in > <lloydparsons-4B342F.07432705082010(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd Parsons > <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: > > >In article <040820102230590650%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > >> In article <znu-D88994.01023305082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > >> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> > In the case of an iPad in direct sunlight, the thermal energy is > >> > primarily coming from an external source. Unless you think they should > >> > have pun a fan in the thing (which is ludicrous, IMO), > >> > >> the wepad has a fan in it. > >> > >> > it's really > >> > unclear exactly what they could have possibly done about this. I mean, > >> > other than making the device highly reflective. Which it is. > >> > > >> > In any event, there is no systematic testing showing an actual problem > >> > here in the first place. > >> > >> nor were there massive ipad (or iphone) failures over the last month > >> when the temperature in the midwest/northeast usa was 90-100+. > > > >What do you mean 'when'??? ::) > > > >It is still that damn hot around here. > > The apparent problem here is nanny design by Apple, which shuts the > machine down at a conservative temperature, which can be quite annoying, > and quite possibly unnecessary. My ThinkPad, by comparison, will only > resort to that when the processor actually approaches an unsafe > temperature, continuing to operate normally even with a quite hot > chassis. But then it has active cooling. ;) I think Apple made the right choice. The iPad is an ultra-portable device, meant to be more portable than a laptop. So you don't go to battery shortening fans and such in these things. But frankly, the only time it seems to be an issue is if you put it out on a very hot day in direct sunlight for an extended length of time. Hardly a normal useage, imo. But this isn't about whether it is good or bad design, it is strictly that some lawyer thinks he/she can make a buck or two in a lawsuit. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Lloyd
From: Lloyd Parsons on 5 Aug 2010 11:40
In article <7ill56tjqi01s3f9theq58ujb0frr06geg(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:18:07 -0400, in > <i3edml$niq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau > <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > > >On 08-05-2010 04:06, Todd Allcock wrote: > >> Is it not possible that some of the dissatisfaction of AT&T by > >> iPhone owners is from antenna/dropped calls problems of the phone being > >> blamed on the operator? > > > >Not if it's from people who had AT&T prior to iPhone 4 > > > >They really do suck. > > In some places. Not in others. > No one carrier is great/best in all areas. > > >Picking them for the exclusive > >was a stupid marketing move. > > It's actually worked out incredibly well for both Apple and AT&T. Yes it did. And for all the complaints about how good/bad AT&T is, there has been much conjecture that if any other provider had been given the iPhone exclusive, they would have had the same problems that AT&T has had with the useage patterns. Locally I've been told by those that have the iPhone that the service is excellent. I have no need for a smartphone of any sort, so I have no direct experience. -- Lloyd |