Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 18 Sep 2008 04:51:25 -0400 Carl wrote:
>> 4phun wrote:
>>> Don't you just love fair and balanced reviews as if they were done
>>> by Fox News? Here is how one such review begins from a Verizon WinMo
>>> fanatic about the iPhone....
>>> http://digg.com/apple/A_Windows_Guy_...plie_iPhone_3G
>>
>>
>> Wow. Apparently you didn't read the ENTIRE review fella. Perhaps
>> it's YOU who should be comparing yourself to Fox news. You posted the
>> attention-grabbing opening paragraphs which merely constitute an
>> attempt by the author to pre-expose his biases. The review itself
>> is, however, well in FAVOR of the iPhone, despite those biases.
>>
>> You should read what you're about to comment on in its entirety next
>> time.
>
>
> I'm sure he did- he was just teasing us.
>
> The only real problem I had with the piece was the author's "fair and
> balanced" apples and oranges comparisons- he compares/complains about
> the cost of smartphone data on Verizon, making it an iPhone
> "advantage" without mentioning any other smartphone on AT&T would be
> the same price.
>
> Then as typical of these sorts of "complaints" after bashing Verizon's
> higher pricing, he then laments AT&T's inferior coverage!
>
Yeah, well. No reviewer gets everything right. But I thought that, after
praising the iPhone in general, it was a "balanced" matter to also talk
about AT&Ts inferior coverage. One point goes to the device itself, which is
close to excellent. The other goes to its true usability, which strays far
from excellent.
By the way, the battery life on my Touch fairly sucks. The non-replaceable
battery matter, which iPhone fans discounted months ago by talking about
Apple's superior power-saving features, is certainly a real issue. Based on
my experience with the Touch, there is no way an iPhone user can go through
an 8 hour workday with this thing, if they're actually USING it that is.