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: JF Mezei on 8 Aug 2010 18:30 John Navas wrote: > None of the decent ones. > What you're doing is rude. > Please stop. And you think it is not rude to corss ports to an att newsgroup a discussion that is not related to AT&T ? I'll ignore this thread. Learn about NNTP etiquette which unfortunatly has been disregarded by so many.
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 18:37 In article <3fbu561l244eqcrnn26ugahc2bfhd095af(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> 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? you mean like the leica m8 that omitted an infrared cut filter so black clothing can turn out magenta but other colours are correct, so it's nearly impossible to fix? or omitting an anti-alias filter (shades of sigma) so the images often have artifacts? leica had to then distribute hot mirror filters to all users to be fitted on the front of the lens to avoid it. sort of like distributing iphone cases. hot mirror filters aren't a complete fix, since they're angular dependent. however, they look really cool. it's a bit closer than you think. > PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE CROSS-POSTING -- IT'S RUDE! so is all caps.
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 18:49 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 18:30:20 -0400, in <4c5f2ffd$0$16660$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: >John Navas wrote: > >> None of the decent ones. >> What you're doing is rude. >> Please stop. > >And you think it is not rude to corss ports to an att newsgroup a >discussion that is not related to AT&T ? 1. I didn't start this thread. 2. 3G service for the iPad in the USA is provided by AT&T. >I'll ignore this thread. Perhaps that's just as well. Thanks. >Learn about NNTP etiquette which unfortunatly >has been disregarded by so many. You might benefit from taking your own advice. You'll find that what you did is not endorsed by any official guideline. [cross-posting restored] -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: awkward on 8 Aug 2010 19:13 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:37:12 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <3fbu561l244eqcrnn26ugahc2bfhd095af(a)4ax.com>, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE CROSS-POSTING -- IT'S RUDE! > >so is all caps. So is no caps. ;-)
From: Jeff Liebermann on 8 Aug 2010 19:38
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:16:01 -0400, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >Yes. But the only time this is an advantage for Android vs. iPhone is if >it can happen faster as a consequence of the fact that Android phones >are released throughout the year while there is only one new iPhone >model per year. So, iPhones tend to have order of magnitude improvements while Android based phones progress in smaller increments. If I read your statement correctly, you're agreeing with me rather than your previous suggestion that Android is handicapped in some way: >But this is precisely my point. Having more models >doesn't actually mean >the phone an individual user buys is less likely to have an issue. Please make up your mind. Actually, things are not as simple as they seem. Most manufacturers would be elated to only make one model and sell it forever. However, that's not reality as consumers tend to migrate to whatever is fashionable, hot, cool, or otherwise popular. So, we have incremental progress, feature bloat, bizarre cosmetics, and experiments that seem to be more gamble than market research. The GUM expects instant gratification. The problem with Apple's approach to progress in large jumps is that it automatically kills the sales of previous products. The incremental changes from iPhone 2G, 3G, and 3GS did not trash sales of the predecessor because they were mostly quite similar. The iPhone 4 seems to have cannibalize 3GS sales. $99 for a 3GS from AT&T. <http://www.att.com/wireless/iphone/> They'll probably give it away as the inventory dwindles. >Given the lead times for products this complex, I'm not sure I buy that >vendors can effectively 'borrow' from each other on timescales that >short. Ok, not borrow. More like steal, rip-off, plagiarize, etc, with hints of industrial espionage. It's nothing new. When I was in the marine radio biz, the Japanese engineers attended each boat show en mass, all carrying cameras. Our latest release magically was cloned immediately after showing it in public. Cosmetic turn around time is VERY fast these days. Not so fast for the electronics and guts. Instead, a vendor arrives with a revolutionary new chip, that either adds features, reduces size, reduces power consumption, or otherwise is sufficient justification for a new design. Once product released and samples distributed, literally everyone in the biz starts using the same chip. Apple uses the Qualcomm 1GHz SnapDragon chip, but so does HTC. (Samsung uses their own Hummingbird chip). So, it takes a while for new electronics to appear, but they appear at almost the same time. The problem is that a vendor will often have the next two or three generations of newer products in the design chain when a product is initially released. It has to be as design cycles tend to be longer than product lifetimes. With an average of 18 months lifetime on the typical commodity cell phone, and 24 months on the PDAphones, a vendor has to have a totally new product line every 2 years or customers will balk at the "same old handsets" and look elsewhere. Incidentally, I watched several laptop manufacturers do some amazing retrofits just to cram internal wireless cards and antenna into their products. The market had moved faster than their development, and they were caught with a product that lacked a feature that customers were demanding. Remanufacturing was expensive and messy, but it saved their posterior. Yes, overnight cosmetic redesigns are possible. >> >IOW, the whole thing was a huge Internet echo chamber phenomenon that >> >turns out to be pretty pointless. >> >> Apple was lucky that the problem was somewhat mitigated with a rubber >> bumper. Had it been something more difficult to solve, it could >> easily have been a disaster. > >Meh. Remember, estimates are that Apple earns more profit from phones >than any other company in the entire global cellular industry. They'd >take a bit of a quarterly hit if a recall had been necessary, but they >could afford it. Altruism is something that is not in the Apple culture. Ask any stockholder when they paid their last dividend. (Spoiler... 1995). So much for Apple sharing the wealth and taking a voluntary financial hit. >> However, a good question to ask was how could Apple have missed this >> effect? Could it be that someone unilaterally decided that it wasn't >> a problem and go ship it anyway? > >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. > >They clearly failed to anticipate its potential to cause widespread >Internet hysteria. Well, that's one guess. Mine is that they knew, they were told by their engineers, but were over-ruled by marketing. The ground rules were probably "do whatever you want inside, but don't mess with the package and cosmetics". Another possibility was that few people had actually used the new phone sufficiently to notice the effect until late in the development cycle. At that time, someone probably decided that it was to late to stop and redesign, so just ship it and hope for the best. I had this happen to me. I helped design an HF SSB radio. I spent about 9 months testing and tweaking it with the most sophisticated test equipment available. Someone finally suggested that we do a talk test. It sounded like garbage. RF was getting into the microphone, but nobody noticed because it had never been tested with a microphone. Same with antenna simulators, that model antennas based on theoretical conditions, but fail miserably when asked to model the antenna with a real user attached. It might be that Apple relied too much on computah antenna modeling. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |