New iPhones to use 3G network

The iPhone just got even better!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866

---

› See More: New iPhones to use 3G network

ned beaty wrote:
> The iPhone just got even better!
>
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866

I recall seeing an article a few days ago saying the iPhone would
eventually get 3g, but I didn't bother to bookmark it.

My personal take on this is that its the customer calling the shots, not
SJ and Apple.

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.

"ned beaty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The iPhone just got even better!
>
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Lawson wrote:
>> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> 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.

It seems they could have set up the iPhone so this sort of change could be
done with a software update.

Tom Delaney wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Scott Lawson wrote:
>>> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> 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.

Bull****. Let's see, Oxford changes posting names and who else does that. Oh
yea, you just did that too.

Looks like I was right on the money.


--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Lawson wrote:
>> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> 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:[email protected]...
> 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 $$$

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

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

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!

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. ;-)