It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one was
battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no battery
life. Maybe there going to make a battery access door.
If that were to happen Plan to carry around a few extra.
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:IoY3j.27591$lD6.3103@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one was
> battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no battery
> life. Maybe there going to make a battery access door.
Battery life was _never_ the reason for the lack of 3G on the first version
of the iPhone. If battery life was a concern then they wouldn't have
included 802.11g either. Battery life was a rationalization used by Apple
when they were criticized for the lack of 3G.
> If that were to happen Plan to carry around a few extra.
Battery life will be shorter than with EDGE, but will still be acceptable.
Apple had no choice but to pre-announce 3G, as they are losing a lot of
sales to other devices due to this issue. The major reason that the iPhone
has been doing so poorly in Europe is the lack of 3G. Sales have been far,
far, below expectations. The price is one issue, but people would have paid
the price if the iPhone had 3G, which is even more important in Europe
because there is less free WiFi than in the U.S..
Scott Lawson wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:IoY3j.27591$lD6.3103@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one
>> was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no
>> battery life. Maybe there going to make a battery access door.
>
> Battery life was _never_ the reason for the lack of 3G on the first
> version of the iPhone. If battery life was a concern then they
> wouldn't have included 802.11g either. Battery life was a
> rationalization used by Apple when they were criticized for the lack
> of 3G.
Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box that
does nothing at all.
I am amused over how some of the iPhone-haters believe they "know" what
Apple's true intentions were. Hysterical.
There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys (especially
in the logic department).
"Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in message
news:5rb9gnF13diecU1@mid.individual.net...
> Scott Lawson wrote:
>> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:IoY3j.27591$lD6.3103@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one
>>> was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no
>>> battery life. Maybe there going to make a battery access door.
>>
>> Battery life was _never_ the reason for the lack of 3G on the first
>> version of the iPhone. If battery life was a concern then they
>> wouldn't have included 802.11g either. Battery life was a
>> rationalization used by Apple when they were criticized for the lack
>> of 3G.
>
> Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box that
> does nothing at all.
Geez you're dense.
I was explaining to Kevin Weaver that battery life will _not_ be an issue in
the 3G iPhone. He apparently actually believed those that claimed the reason
3G wasn't on rev 1 was due to battery life.
> I am amused over how some of the iPhone-haters believe they "know" what
> Apple's true intentions were. Hysterical.
There's no need to speculate, as the actual reasons for the lack of 3G on
rev 1 were never a secret, and they had nothing to do with battery life.
> There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys (especially
> in the logic department).
I am neither an iPhone hater nor a fanboy. Just someone that happens to know
that battery life had nothing to do with Apple's decision to not include 3G
on rev 1.
Next time do at least a little research before making a fool of yourself.
Oxford provides enough idiocy for the entire group, and we don't need
another one.
Tom Delaney wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in message
> news:5rb9gnF13diecU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Scott Lawson wrote:
>>> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:IoY3j.27591$lD6.3103@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st
>>>> one was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will
>>>> be no battery life. Maybe there going to make a battery access
>>>> door.
>>>
>>> Battery life was _never_ the reason for the lack of 3G on the first
>>> version of the iPhone. If battery life was a concern then they
>>> wouldn't have included 802.11g either. Battery life was a
>>> rationalization used by Apple when they were criticized for the lack
>>> of 3G.
>>
>> Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box
>> that does nothing at all.
>
> Geez you're dense.
Wow, is that, like, your best shot? Cuz I gotta tell ya' I'm not really
feelin' it.
>
> I was explaining to Kevin Weaver... <schnipp>
I see: "you" were explaining to Kevin Weaver. Just like Oxford you post
under multiple IDs.
>
>> I am amused over how some of the iPhone-haters believe they "know"
>> what Apple's true intentions were. Hysterical.
>
> There's no need to speculate, as the actual reasons for the lack of
> 3G on rev 1 were never a secret, and they had nothing to do with
> battery life.
Prove it.
>
>> There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys
>> (especially in the logic department).
>
> I am neither an iPhone hater nor a fanboy. Just someone that happens
> to know that battery life had nothing to do with Apple's decision to
> not include 3G on rev 1.
>
Uh huh. Right, Tom... err, Scott...
> Next time do at least a little research before making a fool of
> yourself. Oxford provides enough idiocy for the entire group, and we
> don't need another one.
Bullshit. Let's see, Oxford changes posting names and who else does that. Oh
yea, you just did that too.
"Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in message
news:5rb9gnF13diecU1@mid.individual.net...
> Scott Lawson wrote:
>> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:IoY3j.27591$lD6.3103@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one
>>> was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no
>>> battery life. Maybe there going to make a battery access door.
>>
>> Battery life was _never_ the reason for the lack of 3G on the first
>> version of the iPhone. If battery life was a concern then they
>> wouldn't have included 802.11g either. Battery life was a
>> rationalization used by Apple when they were criticized for the lack
>> of 3G.
>
> Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box that
> does nothing at all.
>
> I am amused over how some of the iPhone-haters believe they "know" what
> Apple's true intentions were. Hysterical.
>
> There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys (especially
> in the logic department).
>
>
> --
> Mike
>
>
No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks. By
apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. But send it in
to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$ rolling in.
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:13l0t0isbt8p650@news.supernews.com...
> It seems they could have set up the iPhone so this sort of change could be
> done with a software update.
Even if they could, which I doubt. Apple wants the $$$
> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks.
> By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. But
> send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$ rolling
> in.
If the battery burns up in your pocket at least you will know who to sue.
And luckily that will be Apple and they have the $$$ as you so thoughtfully
wrote.
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:13l0vvveo2hn337@news.supernews.com...
> Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
>> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks.
>> By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. But
>> send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$ rolling
>> in.
>
> If the battery burns up in your pocket at least you will know who to sue.
> And luckily that will be Apple and they have the $$$ as you so
> thoughtfully wrote.
>
> Now go away AssHat
Go ahead and give apple $$$ I was being fair at $$
Another fanboi defending the iphone. (Must be another AKA Oxturd)
At 30 Nov 2007 21:12:24 +0000 Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks.
Frankly, compared to many other smartphones, including mine (an HTC Wizard)
the iPhone has a phenominal battery lie. I'd willingly weld my phone's
battery door shut in exchange for the iPhone's per-charge life!
> By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad.
> But send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$
> rolling in.
I wouldn't be happy with that either, although if you're not afraid of a
soldering iron, I don't expect it to be a problem. Considering how much
volume of my phone is wasted by the plastic walls of the battery
compartment that could've been used by more battery volume, I'm not sure I
completely disagree with their decision.
Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent
five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have
made it too bulky and power consuming!
> Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box
> that does nothing at all.
I just bought one of those from Duracell. It's a clear blister pack
apparently powered by the 4 AA batteries inside, that says it's good until
Dec. 2013. ;-)
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:5%04j.6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com:
> At 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500 ned beaty wrote:
>> The iPhone just got even better!
>>
>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>
>
>
> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's
> spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and
> would have made it too bulky and power consuming!
>
>
>
In article <elmop-0B66DC.17541630112007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>, "Elmo
P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <fipqaf$1kk$1@aioe.org>,
> "Scott Lawson" <scottlawson@linuxmail.nospam,org> wrote:
>
> > Apple had no choice but to pre-announce 3G,
>
> 1) there is no such thing as "pre-announce"--it was simply announced, as
> opposed to shipped
>
> 2) Apple did no such thing. AT&T announced it. Apple remained mute on
> the subject, and expressed a 'we don't comment on product development'
> response when asked.
Almost, but not quite true. Steve Jobs has a few times reportedly said
that a 3G iPhone is in the works ...
Plans for using the faster 3G data connection in the iPhone
have not been secret. Steve Jobs has stated that a 3G iPhone
is coming, but that the delay is due to excessive battery
life consumption with existing 3G chipsets. The iPhone
presently uses the EDGE network for its data connectivity.
In reality his actual comment, back in September, was ..
"Our phone has a talk time of 8 hours and that's really
important when you want to use your phone for internet
and music. 3G needs to get back up to 5+ hours, something
we think well see later next year."
Steve Jobs stated during the iPhone's Macworld San
Francisco 2007 keynote that they are planning on making
"3g phones and all sorts of other amazing things in the
future"
QuickTime clip (1.7M: http://images.macrumors.com/article/...iphoneplan.mov
I am waiting to see them at 100x the speed of the old 3G when the new
4G technology is rolled out. Did you see that Verizon is throwing in
the towel and planing to switch to GSM?
Sprint and all the rest of Qualcom 's remaining customers just got ...
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 30 Nov 2007 13:18:30 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>> Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box
>> that does nothing at all.
>
>
> I just bought one of those from Duracell. It's a clear blister pack
> apparently powered by the 4 AA batteries inside, that says it's good
> until Dec. 2013. ;-)
See what I'm talking about??!! Now *that's* good battery life.
Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> ned beaty wrote:
>
> > The iPhone just got even better!
>
> >http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>
> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent
> five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have
> made it too bulky and power consuming!
I've not been following your pissing contest, but my recollection is
that Jobs said something to the effect that 3G would eventually arrive
once various issues (I recall power consumption) were resolved,
correct?
As such, this press release isn't really newsworthy, particularly
since it didn't mention when this incremental improvement will become
available: I.E. "It has been announced that a product will eventually
be made better". Whoopie doo.
In the meantime, our downtown already has free WiFi, plus a "free for
our customers" WiFi from one of the two local major broadband
providers. There's two Starbuck's for the iPhones, plus there's a few
"we freely give out our WiFi's passwords to our customers" local
businesses. YMMV.
In article <elmop-5B19F3.21190230112007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>, "Elmo
P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <5%04j.6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
> > At 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500 ned beaty wrote:
> > > The iPhone just got even better!
> > >
> > > http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
> >
> >
> >
> > Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent
> > five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have
> > made it too bulky and power consuming!
>
> No, wait--complete the story.
>
> Steve Jobs can do no wrong and knows everything, and he knew for a fact
> that 3G was an unnecessary waste of battery power because everyone had
> constant access to WiFi.
>
> Steve Jobs is never wrong, therefore this "rumor" that AT&T put out must
> be nothing but bullshit. Proof of that: Apple hasn't confirmed this
> "rumor".
>
> Since Steve Jobs has already spoken on how 3G isn't necessary, the
> circle is closed. 3G isn't necessary, will only weaken the battery
> unnecessarily, and therefore won't ever be provided.
>
> And the iPhone will be the only phone on the market in a few years.
Nope. Microsloth will make one and it'll sell only about 30,000 in two
years (with 39,999 of those "sold" to staff as Christmas bonuses). ;-)
> Did you see that Verizon is throwing in
> the towel and planing to switch to GSM?
Gee, from your understanding of cellular, I'm guessing you must be another
"pen name" of our pal Oxford.
No, Verizon isn't "switching to GSM." They are planning to use the same 4G
system as Vodaphone, the European GSM carrier that owns 45% of Verizon
Wireless. The goa I assume, will be to allow data/voice interoperability
between future US CDMA 4G phones and European GSM 4G phones, similar to how
current Japanese wireless companies use WCDMA 3G data at 2100MHz on their
non-GSM system, allowing GSM interoperability with GSM 3G phones (at least
on that one band.)
Old news if you read the trades- this plan was leaked by Voda a month or so
ago, IIRC.
At 30 Nov 2007 14:37:39 -0600 Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> It seems they could have set up the iPhone so this sort of change could
be
> done with a software update.
3G requires 3G hardware.
If Apple could do that with a software update, maybe they could also
download a little printer into it, too!
> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent
> five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have
> made it too bulky and power consuming!
this is old news, apple will use 3G/4G/??, but they are working hard to
fix the current 3G chip design first, then helping AT&T build out the
network if Steve gives the go ahead.
Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may go
with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so the
Cell Companies have to wait on Steve to show his hand until they can
move forward.
Hopefully that will be known Tuesday morning / Jan 15th in San Fran,
this is the same event that totally upstaged CES last year, so it's
going to be an impressive morning.
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's
>> spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and
>> would have made it too bulky and power consuming!
>
> this is old news, apple will use 3G/4G/??,
You said they would never use 3g.
> but they are working hard
> to fix the current 3G chip design first,
No they're not- a real technology comapny will be providing the chip.
> then helping AT&T build out
> the network if Steve gives the go ahead.
False.
>
> Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may go
> with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so the
> Cell Companies have to wait on Steve to show his hand until they can
> move forward.
Wait a minute- I don't see your free wifi on that list. Are you saying
that wifi will be dead soon?
> >> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's
> >> spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and
> >> would have made it too bulky and power consuming!
> >
> > this is old news, apple will use 3G/4G/??,
>
> You said they would never use 3g.
yes, not in its current form. it's abundantly clear the current 3G
chipset isn't up to Apple's engineering standards so they can't use it.
> > but they are working hard
> > to fix the current 3G chip design first,
>
> No they're not- a real technology comapny will be providing the chip.
Apple is one of the top engineering firms in the world. Remember when
they had to go into Intel and clean up their design processes? Apple is
the primary master of small electronics in the world. Nobody in the PC
side, MP3 side or Phone side can measure up to their level of skills
with chip design. If 3G is fixable, only Apple has the ability to do it.
If not, 4G or WiMax will be used.
> > then helping AT&T build out
> > the network if Steve gives the go ahead.
>
> False.
You have no clue do you Cozmic, quick talking out your ass and deal with
the facts.
> > Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may go
> > with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so the
> > Cell Companies have to wait on Steve to show his hand until they can
> > move forward.
>
> Wait a minute- I don't see your free wifi on that list. Are you saying
> that wifi will be dead soon?
WiFi remains the primary data access method for iPhone users since it's
around twice as fast as 3G. Stick with facts Cozmic.
In article <w074j.1376$CS4.840@fe111.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> No, Verizon isn't "switching to GSM." They are planning to use the same 4G
> system as Vodaphone, the European GSM carrier that owns 45% of Verizon
> Wireless. The goa I assume, will be to allow data/voice interoperability
> between future US CDMA 4G phones and European GSM 4G phones, similar to how
> current Japanese wireless companies use WCDMA 3G data at 2100MHz on their
> non-GSM system, allowing GSM interoperability with GSM 3G phones (at least
> on that one band.)
They are going to LTE for 4G which is the GSM upgrade to 4G, not the US
CDMA upgrade to 4G. You might not want to call it switching to GSM,
maybe evolving to the future GSM would be the way to put it, but in the
end Verizon will be on GSM.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > > You said they would never use 3g.
> >
> > yes, not in its current form.
>
> Wait a minute.
>
> Please place the goalposts in one place.
the goal posts are solid... i've been quite careful to never say apple
wouldn't use 3G, it's just in its current form it's unworkable for a
quality based product.
> You never qualified it when you said that "Apple will never use 3G".
> Therefore, you can't qualify it now.
oh, but i can since its well documented that the problems with 3G are
coverage area & poor battery life. if/when those are resolved, 3G can be
used in a quality based product. that has never been a secret, except
perhaps to you.
> But Apple is going to use 3G. The cat's out of the bag. And you are
> outed as being the ignorant asshole you are.
And exactly when did Apple say they weren't? You just like to twist
facts, I do not.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > oh, but i can since its well documented that the problems with 3G are
> > coverage area & poor battery life. if/when those are resolved, 3G can be
> > used in a quality based product.
>
> Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're
> functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment.
not entirely, it's currently poor chip engineering.
> You said the iPhone would never do 3G. You are now trying to backtrack.
okay, please post a link where i said "the iPhone will never do 3G", i
never even said anything remotely close to that.
> You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you?
ah, and you do know you have to provide evidence if you make such a
claim, don't you?
New iPhones to use 3G network 
:
Linear Mode
