it's official: iPhone 3G is defective

T-Mobile in Germany joined AT&T and other mobile phone companies in saying
that the connective problems with iPhone 3G are due to the iPhone and not
their network. This is the latest of a string of bad news for Apple: the
flop of MobileMe, overheating iPods in Japan, and the recall of the iPhone
3G power adapters.

Now we know what is broken: a chip made by Infineon Technologies (IFX)
that is incapable of handling the load placed on it by the iPhone.

Apple's recent software upgrade is an attempt to work around the problem.
However the problems won't be solved by anything short of replacing the
chip, meaning an upgrade to the iPhone 3G hardware.

The silver lining on the cloud is that the rest of iPhone 3G's design
seems to be sound, and that once the faulty chip is replaced iPhone 3G
should have comparable performance to other 3G phones.

Meanwhile, iPhone 3G connectivity continues to lag behind competing 3G
phones. Verizon Wireless is delightedly beating up on both AT&T and
iPhone 3G, with scores of emails to journalists with subjects such as
"AT&T's network still suspect" and "iPhone Reception on AT&T's `3G'
Network: Static".

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

---

› See More: it's official: iPhone 3G is defective

Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Apple's recent software upgrade is an attempt to work around the
> problem. However the problems won't be solved by anything short of
> replacing the chip, meaning an upgrade to the iPhone 3G hardware.
>
>

You forgot misc.phone.mobile.iphone so I took it upon myself to repost this
important news item to there, too.

Nothing short of a massive recall of the defective equipment will correct
the problem. It's only fair, to the customers and the carriers who are
suffering from the data retries over and over.

Apple needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the
problem....insufficient beta testing and error correction.




Could this be a factor in the stock continuing to drop far more in
percentage than the overall market? Could this be why INSIDERS have dumped
over 14% of the insider-held stocks in the last few months?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=AAPL

Insider Purchases - Last 6 Months
Shares Trans
Purchases 0
Sales 1,062,040 13
Net Shares Purchased
(Sold) (1,062,040) 13
Total Insider Shares Held 6.20M N/A
% Net Shares Purchased
(Sold) (14.6%) N/A

Why would you dump your shares in a company doing so well? Mac sales are
up 30%!

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:15:24 -0700, Mark Crispin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>T-Mobile in Germany joined AT&T and other mobile phone companies in saying

Would you mind providing a source? Cursory search didn't turn
this up for me.

Thanks, DGI

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:02:33 -0400, David G. Imber
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:15:24 -0700, Mark Crispin <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>T-Mobile in Germany joined AT&T and other mobile phone companies in saying
>
> Would you mind providing a source? Cursory search didn't turn
>this up for me.

Sorry to trouble you. Found this:

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/33779.php

Although I haven't seen any follow up yet.

DGI

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:04:39 -0400, David G. Imber
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:02:33 -0400, David G. Imber
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:15:24 -0700, Mark Crispin <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>T-Mobile in Germany joined AT&T and other mobile phone companies in saying
>>
>> Would you mind providing a source? Cursory search didn't turn
>>this up for me.
>
> Sorry to trouble you. Found this:
>
>http://www.cellular-news.com/story/33779.php
>
> Although I haven't seen any follow up yet.
>
> DGI


Actually, please forgive me for following my own post twice,
but I hope that you actually do have a bona fide source because the
article I cite above is just journalistic dreck. It says it has at
least two contributors, but even so it turns up nothing technically
factual. It even hedges its very first line: "Connectivity issues with
Apple's popular iPhone 3G LIKELY stem from the device, not the
wireless carriers that support it..." (Emphasis mine). The rest of the
article is just anonymous opinions.

The only thing that comes near to an assertion fact from which
one could draw the conclusion stated in the headline is near the very
bottom where it once again quotes that Nomura Securities guy, Windsor,
but that was old a month ago, and he never followed up his speculation
with proof.

Perhaps you have a more concrete source?

Thanks again, DGI

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:17:25 -0400, David G. Imber
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
> Perhaps you have a more concrete source?


Here, on the other hand is DOCUMENTED evidence of AT&T taking
responsibility for the early poor performance:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itune...pe=allchandate

David G. Imber <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Connectivity issues with
> Apple's popular iPhone 3G LIKELY stem from the device, not the
> wireless carriers that support it..."

Being in denial is normal when it costs the company millions.

All the carriers, not just ATT, have connectivity issues with iphone 3G.
It doesn't take an extensive research program to figure out where the
finger should be pointed, seeing as how other devices from other
manufacturers don't exhibit the same connectivity issues.

"Place one of these denial suppressant suppositories up your rectum and
recall and replace all the defective units, immediately. You'll feel
much better and sleep well, again, Apple."



To help Apple get this ball rolling in the right direction, they need to
go here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?
act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=221&modelid=8776

....and use this advisory as a template for the right thing to do,
replacing Canon with Apple, replacing the bad cameras with iPhone 3G,
and replacing the CCD Imager with the bad IC in the iPhone. Don't
change any of the other wording at all.

I just bought a wonderful Canon A70 from a thrift shop for $10 because
it didn't work...wouldn't take the picture on the defective imager. I
found this advisory at Canon's website. (Note to Apple, don't try to
hide the notice but leave it where anyone can find it, easily.)

I sent an email to Canon tech support about the problem, admitting I was
not the original owner and bought the camera used. Canon support
immediately emailed me back with instructions to try to display a
picture off the camera's Compact Flash memory card. I did what they
said and replied so to their email. They returned email with an
attached UPS pre-paid shipping label and instructions how to pack the
camera for UPS shipment. I shipped the camera back.

2 days after they received it, I got an email saying they had inspected
my camera and found the CCD imager covered under the repair plan was, in
fact, the problem and I would be getting it repaired free of charge,
even though I wasn't the original owner. 3 days after that, I got an
email that they had repaired my camera, tested all functions, performed
cleaning and alignment maintenance on it free of charge and were
shipping it back to me 2-day FEDEX at their expense with the tracking
number.

The repaired camera is flawless. I'm having a great time taking
pictures with it. My problem is I have a Private Pilot's License for
single engine Cessnas and the A70 is a Boeing 747-300 with all the
latest modifications. I'm working on turning off the autopilot and
taking the controls, myself. It's a very complex camera that has had
rave reviews from the professional photographer reviewers on the net.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/A70A.HTM
The $349 camera was a good investment at $10. I have twice that much in
the CF 2GB memory card I bought for it plus a $5 carrying lanyard....(c;

1/2000th of a second fastest shutter speed will stop a waterfall dead in
its tracks with absolutely no blurring of the water droplets...amazing.

Guess which camera company I highly recommend for cameras, printers,
copiers, digital imaging, now. NOONE is better than Canon in treating
even its used customers like royalty...NOONE.

Apple simply needs to step up to the plate like this and become the
finest company in the personal electronics business, standing out from
the crowd. With their high profit margins, they can afford it......It's
easy to forget this one-PC-board product of off-the-shelf parts sells
for $600, $400 from ATT, $200 from you...on the time payment plan.

David G. Imber <[email protected]> wrote in
news:e***[email protected]:

> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:17:25 -0400, David G. Imber
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps you have a more concrete source?
>
>
> Here, on the other hand is DOCUMENTED evidence of AT&T taking
> responsibility for the early poor performance:
>
> http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itune...id=22876&pagty
> pe=allchandate
>

And you don't think ATT and Apple are in bed with each other trying to
deflect users from a full blown recall, the proper conduct, saving the
company millions?

ATT stands to gain because if they take the heat with a "we're working on
the network" excuse, as carriers always do, they don't have to pay out
millions for Apple and handle piles of defective product THEY sold to
consumers, as per Magnusson-Moss Warranty Protection Act 15USC50-2300.

Apple stands to gain millions from not having to replace the defective
product with new product out of the cash drawer COD.

So, in collusion, they both gain by this deflection that "it's the network,
stupid."

Stupid, indeed, if consumers let them get away with it.

.....so, we do it the hard way with lawyers and class actions wasting
millions more for the same results....recalling defective product as per
Federal law.

(sigh)

On 9/24/08 7:20 AM, in article [email protected],
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote:

> David G. Imber <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:e***[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:17:25 -0400, David G. Imber
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you have a more concrete source?
>>
>>
>> Here, on the other hand is DOCUMENTED evidence of AT&T taking
>> responsibility for the early poor performance:
>>
>> http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itune...id=22876&pagty
>> pe=allchandate
>>
>
> And you don't think ATT and Apple are in bed with each other trying to
> deflect users from a full blown recall, the proper conduct, saving the
> company millions?
>
> ATT stands to gain because if they take the heat with a "we're working on
> the network" excuse, as carriers always do, they don't have to pay out
> millions for Apple and handle piles of defective product THEY sold to
> consumers, as per Magnusson-Moss Warranty Protection Act 15USC50-2300.
>
> Apple stands to gain millions from not having to replace the defective
> product with new product out of the cash drawer COD.
>
> So, in collusion, they both gain by this deflection that "it's the network,
> stupid."
>
> Stupid, indeed, if consumers let them get away with it.
>
> ....so, we do it the hard way with lawyers and class actions wasting
>
> millions more for the same results....recalling defective product as per
> Federal law.
>
> (sigh)
>
Get out yer tinfoil hat, Larro. It's a conspiracy!!!!

BTW: The previous post about Canon. You should see the horror stories over
at 'rec.photo.digital' about Canon care. And don't get me wrong: I shoot
Canon professionally (EOS-1DsMarkIII and the 40D for backup) and think that
Nikon isn't even close

George Kerby <[email protected]> wrote in
news:C4FFC903.1216A%[email protected]:

> BTW: The previous post about Canon. You should see the horror stories
> over at 'rec.photo.digital' about Canon care. And don't get me wrong:
> I shoot Canon professionally (EOS-1DsMarkIII and the 40D for backup)
> and think that Nikon isn't even close
>
>

Thanks for the pointer to the newsgroup. I'll go have a look. My personal
experience with Canon couldn't have been better....unless they sent a
pretty blonde over to pick it up.

Larry wrote:
> George Kerby <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:C4FFC903.1216A%[email protected]:
>
>> BTW: The previous post about Canon. You should see the horror stories
>> over at 'rec.photo.digital' about Canon care. And don't get me wrong:
>> I shoot Canon professionally (EOS-1DsMarkIII and the 40D for backup)
>> and think that Nikon isn't even close
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for the pointer to the newsgroup. I'll go have a look. My
> personal experience with Canon couldn't have been better....unless
> they sent a pretty blonde over to pick it up.
>
As I'm sure that that would be the "pretty blonde's" dream too Larry.

"Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in news:48da7415$0$4882
[email protected]:

>> Thanks for the pointer to the newsgroup. I'll go have a look. My
>> personal experience with Canon couldn't have been better....unless
>> they sent a pretty blonde over to pick it up.
>>
> As I'm sure that that would be the "pretty blonde's" dream too Larry.
>
>
>

Obviously.....

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:20:09 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>David G. Imber <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:e***[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:17:25 -0400, David G. Imber
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you have a more concrete source?
>>
>>
>> Here, on the other hand is DOCUMENTED evidence of AT&T taking
>> responsibility for the early poor performance:
>>
>> http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itune...id=22876&pagty
>> pe=allchandate
>>
>
>And you don't think ATT and Apple are in bed with each other trying to
>deflect users from a full blown recall, the proper conduct, saving the
>company millions?

Well, yes, this could be a case of collusion. And though it's
more airtight conspiratorially than I think either company is capable
of, there's another problem: It's pretty much the dictionary
definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. They've got a
bunch of G3 phones in their line up iirc. So you're saying they're
going to go to the market with news that they can't support maybe a
half dozen phones and risk a precipitous decline in subscribership
rather than cutting their loss by forcing one unit to fall on its
sword? I don't think so.

Read it again, he's giving a mea culpa for screwing up 3G
deployment. Nothing to do specifically with the iPhone.

DGI

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:13:20 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>David G. Imber <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Connectivity issues with
>> Apple's popular iPhone 3G LIKELY stem from the device, not the
>> wireless carriers that support it..."
>
>Being in denial is normal when it costs the company millions.

Sorry, your moves are so smooth that I'm baffled. Who's in
denial? I was quoting this supposedly authoritative article's first
line. The title implies that it's the device, and the first line says
it's likely the device. I don't know what school of journalism that
guy went to, but...

It reminds me of a clip that I've kept from the August 2004
Int'l. Herald Tribune, just to continually remind myself of the
meaning of journalistic shenanigans. It's by a writer who's still
above the fold quite at the NY Times. I won't give his name because I
don't know the editorial policy of the IHT. It's possible someone else
slapped the headline over a syndicated article.

The headline says: "As countdown quickens, Bush enjoys sizable
lead".

The first line reads: " Washington: President George W. Bush
enters the fall campaign with a modest lead over Senator John
Kerry..."

So sizable or modest. Is it definitely the phone or is it
"likely" the phone. The OP, as you can see, said "It's official".

Pure bs. DGI

Mark Crispin wrote:

> The silver lining on the cloud is that the rest of iPhone 3G's design
> seems to be sound, and that once the faulty chip is replaced iPhone 3G
> should have comparable performance to other 3G phones.

That's the peril of being an early adopter.

Any news about when iPhone's with a new rev of the Infineon chip will
begin shipping or how Apple will handle replacements of existing 3G iPhones?

[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]