'Minor delays' in iPad production could limit Apple launch to 200K

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post


    Very totally correct - any new module needs to be approved. Have they been changing their WiFi components lately? Is it still called WiFi? I suspect that it's the same as in all the other lumps of WiFi plastic coming out of China no? Or are they using that new Snowflake WiFi I've been hearing about, where no two WiFi are the same. S'true because the way to keep costs down - is to reinvent every component possible.



    That's good business - with laser-cats duct taped to it.



    MEW PEW!



    I'm not following your assumption that WiFi is some standardized module across all devices and has already passed all necessary US testing a long time ago. All current iDevices with WiFi have 802.11b/g, while the iPad uses 802.11a/b/g/n. I doubt that they module is the same as in any Mac product.



    I think every iPhone has had FCC testing and approval on the WIFi chip. If so, then it's either per device type or per module/component. If it's the device type then the iPad will get it for WiFI, too. If it's just the module/component -AND- every WiFi-capabable iDevice has had it so far it's safe to assume that the iPad will have a different 802.11a/b/g/n module than what is found in other Macs.



    Since I'm sure these modules are used in other products outside of Apple but in the US, since they are usually off the shelf components I have to conclude that it's likely for each unique device type.
    PS: Someone with more time than me can Google the other devices to see if the WiFi module is identical across devices and if it's been retested for that new device.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    The amount of people on Macrumors who literally believe these "delays" are due to a camera is staggering



    Denial is a frightening thing.



    2 reasons for camera lacking that haven't been cited yet.



    1- Hospitals and govt sites are prime customer targets for the ipad - and boy - do they hate cameras.



    2- Forget unflattering camera angles - have you heard the screams from people finding crusty snot-bergs and unkempt nose hairs filling their video conferencing screens? "So Bob here has the TPS reports ready to present - GAAAAH!"



    Wall size nose-camera presentations via real-time transglobal internet - this IS the 21 century by god - and why ask shoulda when you're too busy doing coulda.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 55
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    I am beginning to really look forward to the posts of DoctorBenway, and especially his editing notes.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 55
    yesicanyesican Posts: 46member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    I see that Tekstud, even with the most recent "spelling" of his name has been banished into cyberland again .... hopefully never to be heard from again .... all of his previous posts have been erased, ... for the second time .... that must be a record.



    Actually if he were to use the same name twice only and be banished to the land of misfit Applelites yet others have joined multiple times over with different monikers multiplied, how would that be any record whatsoever?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    while the iPad uses 802.11a/b/g/n



    Oh dear lord - I thought we were past the hygiene jokes. Is that anything like 802.11o/b/g/y/n?



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obgyn



    But in your post - you basically nailed it (really) but by contradicting yourself. If they're off-the-shelf - why bug the FCC (again)? I'm not an expert but given the released (in limited amounts) pads, and the date fast-approaching (including packaging and the product's own laser-etched text), I suspect the WiFi is a previously already done-deal. The 3G less-so, but again unless they're using some unknown parts, or we all get instant product development insight (and a big fat pay raise to go with it) then we're all exercising our finger bones.



    Which, as I mentioned earlier - is an occupational hazard on slow-days where I'm surfing my brains out for blog-related inspiration to add to my layouts.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 55
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post


    But in your post - you basically nailed it (really) but by contradicting yourself. If they're off-the-shelf - why bug the FCC (again)?



    Nope, not contradicting myself. I gave an either/or scenario in my post.



    Let's look at this logically, why would a company like Broadcom make a component that wasn't tested by the FCC for use in the US but then require every company to retest it? You'd think that they'd put it through the paces for much cheaper and using "FCC approved" as a marketing strategy to sell more. Same goes with the cellular modules we see in phones and data cards.



    The only likely scenario is the FCC requires additional testing per device. Why? Maybe because it's sending out radio waves, not just occupying a set physical space, which can easily affected by the completed device's power to the component so each device type has to tested individually.



    If that is the reason, but unlikely to be an issue today because it's a rule set up in a different time before advanced integrated circuits and/or a reason for the FCC (read: government) to make more money in unknown, but it looks like it is required.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 55
    isaidsoisaidso Posts: 750member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post


    It's illegal if the rumors are untrue.



    Ha! So is spitting on the sidewalk.

    Ooooh, SEC black-ops are going to swoop in and...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 55
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by isaidso View Post


    Ha! So is spitting on the sidewalk.

    Ooooh, SEC black-ops are going to swoop in and...



    gang-rape all the morons working in that dark office tower putting out Verizon-rumors.



    A man can dream.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 55
    philipmphilipm Posts: 240member
    Who are you going to believe: a couple of analysts you've never heard of, or a trade publication with sources close to the manufacturers?



    Then again, some people believe right wing semi-literature bloggers know more about science than professional scientists, so anything is possible on the net.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 55
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Not everything is a conspiracy.



    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 55
    allblueallblue Posts: 393member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post


    2- Forget unflattering camera angles - have you heard the screams from people finding crusty snot-bergs and unkempt nose hairs filling their video conferencing screens? "So Bob here has the TPS reports ready to present - GAAAAH!"



    Still, what an opportunity for an iPad official accessory - iSnip nasal hair clippers!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 55
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post


    Oh dear lord - I thought we were past the hygiene jokes. Is that anything like 802.11o/b/g/y/n?



    and this

    Quote:

    Last edited by DoctorBenway; Yesterday at 10:33 PM.. Reason: I don't remember maxi-pad gigglers when NASA announced "launch pads" - strange given giant phalluses flew from them



    ...is pretty damn funny stuff! is that you Macalope?



    If not... keep it up. We could use some humor on this site
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 55
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by philipm View Post


    Who are you going to believe: a couple of analysts you've never heard of, or a trade publication with sources close to the manufacturers?



    You mean a trade publication that says they have sources close to the manufacturers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 55
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Really nice to see AAPL get a solid bounce up on Friday. Great conclusion to a week full of negative rumors.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 55
    philipmphilipm Posts: 240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    You mean a trade publication that says they have sources close to the manufacturers.



    The trade publication has at least in business for a while and relies on credibility to stay in business. That's why I am distrustful of some source no one's heard of before. Believe what you like.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.