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 8 Aug 2010 18:15 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:03:17 -0400, in <znu-0050EC.17031708082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >In article <nq5u56pi853987e002dk328q1rgorrtsa5(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> If you learn something about how such devices are actually developed >> (outside of Apple at least), you'll discover that such incremental >> improvements in each subsequent model are SOP. > >But models coming out, say, three months apart are not actually >"subsequent models". Given realistic lead times, they would have been >developed mostly in _parallel_. That's in fact what often happens, but doesn't preclude incremental improvements. Learn about how the development is done. >> As but one of a great many factors, a particular component (e.g., >> chipset) might not be ready for phone 101 but in time for phone 102 a >> month later. When you have only one release a year, like Apple, you >> wind up with an average of six month lag, > >This ignores the fact that Apple does a fair bit in-house component >development that is synced to iPhone release cycles, and probably even >buys enough components to get outside suppliers to sync up with them to >some extent. That has no bearing on the average six lag. >At best here, you've got an advantage for Android in a few trivial edge >cases. Six months is six months. >> which is a tough hand to play over the long term, part of why Apple >> went through three different CPU architectures in the PC business. > >Huh? I've never heard the theory that that had anything to do with Mac >release cycles -- which are not nearly as rigid as iPhone release cycles >have been so far. Think it through more carefully. The issue was and is Apple trying to go it alone (your "fair bit in-house component development"). >> You've defined the iPhone 3G as not being in the same class as the >> iPhone 4, which is too meaningless (and self-serving, no offense >> intended) for me to waste time on. > >It has processor half the speed, it has half the RAM, it has a screen >with a quarter of the pixels. What sort of criteria did you think I was >using to assign devices to classes? I think you're wasting my time. ;) -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 18:20 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:09:48 -0400, in <znu-4C6D0C.17094708082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >In article <4c5f1714$0$5493$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> ZnU wrote: >> >> > I suspect Apple was aware of the tradeoff being made and decided to make >> > it anyway on the basis that it didn't impact real-world performance that >> > much. Which it doesn't seem to. >> >> I am convinced that there are folks within Apple who knew the antenna >> had problems. I don't know who, and high high up. >> >> What puzzles me is that Jobs would have extoled the virtues of the new >> antenna in his keynote speech if he knew the antenna had flaws. >> >> Perhaps he could have said "the antenna is so magical, it only works if >> you don't hold the phone :-)" >> >> Perhaps, at the time of the keynote, Jobs was confident that a fix would >> be found prior to first shipments. >> >> Perhaps Jobs is still confident that a fix will be made. You will note >> that the offer for those free bumbers ends September 30th. Perhaps >> lacker coated handsets will start shipping soon. > >Remember, there are a _lot_ of reports out there of the iPhone 4 getting >reception in places the 3Gs doesn't, and at least one survey that has >consumers saying the iPhone 4 drops fewer calls. > >If instead of being an unambiguous design flaw, the design choices that >produce the "death grip" effect are instead _tradeoffs_ that result in >_better_ performance under other circumstances, then everything here -- >including Jobs extolling the virtues of the new antenna -- makes perfect >sense. > >And it's far more reasonable to assume that Apple made a deliberate >design tradeoff than to assume their $100M antenna testing facility and >months of field testing missed a trivially correctable and unambiguous >flaw that anyone in possession of at least one human hand can detect. If that were true, then the principal engineer would still have a job, yet he was fired. Oops! PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE CROSS-POSTING -- IT'S RUDE! -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 18:22 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:25:37 -0400, in <4c5f20d2$0$21242$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: >BTW, in his Keynote, Jobs mentioned that the build quality is like that >of an old Leica camera. Looking at the 4 in my hands, I have to agree >that Apple has done an incredible job with the build precision/quality >of this device. Leica owners would scoff, and for good reason. Have you ever actually used a Leica? PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE CROSS-POSTING -- IT'S RUDE! -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 18:25 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:10:28 -0400, in <4c5f2b54$0$4733$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: >(newsgroups trimmed back, many NNTP servers filter out posts that have >more than 3 crosspostings) None of the decent ones. What you're doing is rude. Please stop. >John Navas wrote: >> But that only matters to Apple because it doesn't OEM products, sells >> directly to consumers -- different business model, different branding, >> and not viable for most suppliers, as Google found out the hard way with >> the Nexus One storefront. > >Google doesn't have infrastrucrture to deal with individual customers. >Trying to sell/support a retail device when you have no such infrastrure >is bound to fail. It doesn't mean that the principle of a manufacturer >selling directly is flawed. Just means that Google grossly >underestimated the fact that it was not equipped to sell to individuals. It means just what I wrote. -- John "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 18:28
In article <v9bu5618p0gou9kevekfsef4hrm3jtomad(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >Remember, there are a _lot_ of reports out there of the iPhone 4 getting > >reception in places the 3Gs doesn't, and at least one survey that has > >consumers saying the iPhone 4 drops fewer calls. > > > >If instead of being an unambiguous design flaw, the design choices that > >produce the "death grip" effect are instead _tradeoffs_ that result in > >_better_ performance under other circumstances, then everything here -- > >including Jobs extolling the virtues of the new antenna -- makes perfect > >sense. > > > >And it's far more reasonable to assume that Apple made a deliberate > >design tradeoff than to assume their $100M antenna testing facility and > >months of field testing missed a trivially correctable and unambiguous > >flaw that anyone in possession of at least one human hand can detect. > > If that were true, then the principal engineer would still have a job, > yet he was fired. Oops! nonsense. you don't know the reasons why he was fired, nor does anyone else outside of apple. he was on his way out well before antennagate. he was supposedly in charge of the iphone, but he never appeared in any publicity about the phone. the promotional videos were filmed *months* ago, long before any antenna issue appeared. why wasn't the guy in charge in them? apple has made some other fuckups like the puck mouse or 3rd gen ipod with the bouncy buttons, but johnny ive didn't get booted. papermaster may have not worked out for any number of reasons (none of which will ever be made public), but of course the bashers won't listen to actual facts. > PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE CROSS-POSTING -- IT'S RUDE! so is all caps. |