I hope that this puts to rest any ideas of the New York Times having any journalistic integrity whatsoever. Anybody who believes the New York Times believes fiction that is just made up.
ala' Judith Miller and the run-up to the Iraq War. Perhaps, it's not as far fetched as you might think.
Okay, let's go with the idea that those who phoned in represent the tip of the iceberg and that the true picture is made up of huge numbers of people who just could not be bothered, whose calls were dropped or who believed that there was going to be a fix so why bother. If the reported percentage of people returning the IP4 was 1.7 and the percentage of people returning the 3GS was 6%, you can see where this is going, perhaps 50% of 3GS buyers were truly pissed at apple and wanted to return their phones but did not, could not or would not.
It's called tall poppy syndrome and we here in New Zealand are the masters of it. It's the only thing I hate about New Zealand. ...
Pretty common in Oz as well. Though I think many tall-poppy Kiwis end up here because there's more opportunities and wages are over 30% higher in most fields.
Steve J. really let rip on the dumb-arses in the media, eh? That's my kind of CEO!
Actually, I wasn't. But I has mistakenly assumed he had finally won that battle. Apparently he settled on the WSJ purchase that you mentioned. He has steadily attacked the Times, from a business point, for the last three years in an attempt to still force a bargain basement sale.
Either way, once he owns anything, it may be highly profitable, but morally it turns to crap.
2 things:
1)You *were* wrong, you said that Murdoch owned the Times ∴ the Times cannot be trusted. But Murdoch doesn't own the Times.
2)The Wall Street journal, which you were actually thinking of, has retained more editorial control than any other Murdoch acquisition and it still actually produces quality stories (and is recognized as such internationally), which makes your point *doubly* wrong!
Also, you may not agree with NYT's editorial position on some things, but to claim they fabricated a story is another level entirely. Like them or hate them, the NYT's is one of the most reputable paper's in the world and they're not about to risk that status (not to mention they're stock price) on a story that in the scheme of things is so much breeze in the grass. They are a major newspaper of record, and one of the few true independent news sources left, attacking them because you don't like that they didn't pander to Apple is slavish and foolish.
Jobs has a legitimate beef if the NYT's source was wrong -- but if the article was wrong it was a bad source I guarantee, not the evil Editor-in-Chief going "::heheheh:: I want to run an anti-apple story today! Now where are those children I was going to roast and devour...". Honestly though, when Bloomberg and the NYT, both known for their accuracy, independently run stories about it I tend to believe them over Job's spin
How many of those scientists to too scared to tell Steve anything other than what he wants to hear?
Worst case from this is that if iPhone problems persist, Steve...and Apple could loose credibility with consumers.
It's easy for a competitor to dispute Apple's claims with their own tests. And Apple would be in violation of SEC regulations if it didn't tell the truth.
But conspiracy theorists will believe what they will believe.
No, Murdoch will just starve them out by offering cheaper advertising in the WSJ and then when the Times is at it's weakest come in for the kill.
They breed them pretty tough in Australia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek3r
2 things:
1)You *were* wrong, you said that Murdoch owned the Times ∴ the Times cannot be trusted. But Murdoch doesn't own the Times.
2)The Wall Street journal, which you were actually thinking of, has retained more editorial control than any other Murdoch acquisition and it still actually produces quality stories (and is recognized as such internationally), which makes your point *doubly* wrong!
Also, you may not agree with NYT's editorial position on some things, but to claim they fabricated a story is another level entirely. Like them or hate them, the NYT's is one of the most reputable paper's in the world and they're not about to risk that status (not to mention they're stock price) on a story that in the scheme of things is so much breeze in the grass. They are a major newspaper of record, and one of the few true independent news sources left, attacking them because you don't like that they didn't pander to Apple is slavish and foolish.
Jobs has a legitimate beef if the NYT's source was wrong -- but if the article was wrong it was a bad source I guarantee, not the evil Editor-in-Chief going "::heheheh:: I want to run an anti-apple story today! Now where are those children I was going to roast and devour...". Honestly though, when Bloomberg and the NYT, both known for their accuracy, independently run stories about it I tend to believe them over Job's spin
No --- you are misinterpreting. Some people are saying the antenna problem is not a serious issue and are parroting some numbers to support the point. I am just saying, don't take those numbers at face value; explore and extrapolate, add values to find some meaning in them.
Oh dear oh dear. First rule of statistics - don't extrapolate, particularly from one data point. Certainly DON'T ADD VALUES. That is, quite literally, making it up. T
he whole bloody point of statistics is you take the data you're given and explore that. You don't then add in your own fantasy numbers. "Don't take those numbers at face value" has to be the dumbest thing I've heard on this thread, and that's really saying something.
This is such bad statistical thinking I'm not even going to bother to explain why.
Okay, let's go with the idea that those who phoned in represent the tip of the iceberg and that the true picture is made up of huge numbers of people who just could not be bothered, whose calls were dropped or who believed that there was going to be a fix so why bother.
Ha. Logic - a rare commodity here.
FWIW I can't remember ever meeting someone who paid several hundred £ or $ for something that didn't work and then sat silent.
And I certainly wouldn't, as someone else seems to think, assume that only 1 in 10 people who buys a phone and can't use it as a phone thinks "ah well, I'll just wait. I'm sure it'll be fixed".
I think there should be a rule on this thread. Only people who can post a copy of their receipt for the iPhone 4 can comment on the iPhone 4 (particularly if their registration for this forum is within the last 3 months). The others can start a new thread.
Looks like Apple has already begun it's much rumoured "cloud" service - it's the la-la land where all the trolls live.
Yeah and instead they whinge and moan about it in forums instead of going to get the issue looked at and then complain that Apple is not doing anything to fix the problem.
I'm going to side with Apple who have tonnes of resources to look into the problem as we've seen than some bloggers too stupid to want to help themselves.
Want something fixed? Log a job. That's what we tell our customers and not because we're trying to pass the buck but it's because we want to find what issues are out there so that we can look at the problem as a collective whole rather than a bunch of one off cases. That's good engineering practice but when Apple does it it's a bad thing?
I guess people really can't help themselves.
truthfully people would rather just stamp their feet and whine about it. Certainly the amount of press will cause many people to give any dropped calls a second look, and there are lots of people who love to look smart on a forum.
The iphone4 hasn't been released here in Canada yet, I'm interested in the response here afterwards. At the beginning of all this, it was pretty hard to discern how much of this was a real issue, or just the let's wipe the smug faces off of the apple crowd nonsense.
Interesting to sit back and watch as people gouge each others eyes out over who's right anyway.
in the meantime, the onion is reporting something rather astounding... (I know, a year old, but funny)
I'm not a fan of everything that Apple does, and in fact it bothers me immensely that there are some very obvious, undeniable problems with how screen text is handled in OS X, and that Apple has yet to acknowledge this obvious problem, much less fix it. You can't disable the font smoothing, and the font size for system fonts as they appear physically on the screen, as measured in absolute distance units, is integrally coupled to the physical screen resolution.
But as for this supposed problem with reception on the new iPhone, I think this is ludicrous.
It is the inherent nature of antennae reception to vary dramatically depending on all sorts of factors. This is true of just about any sort of device that I know of, that depends on reception of electromagnetic waves. It is true of indoor/outdoor radio and television reception. It is true of the reception of GPS satellite signals within the popular GPS devices. I could go on and on. The point is, there is no objective way to define what it even means for a device of this sort to be "broken" or have a "design flaw", etc. I repeat: there simply is no objective way to define what constitutes a failure, when it comes to antenna reception. It is not a black and whit, on or off, works or doesn't work sort of thing. This is just the nature of the beast. It is up to each individual to evaluate such things on their own. This is why you have 30 days to decide if the device works adequately well for you. You have 30 days to figure out whether it works for you. If it doesn't work for you, you take it back. End of story.
The use of the word "defective", and other similar words that imply a definitive failure, just does not make sense, because in this context of antenna performance, there simply is no way to define, in any usefully objective way that might be regarded as meaningful in any court of law, what constitutes, precisely, a "defective" antenna. I defy everyone who has made statements of this sort to come up with a definition, that would stand a chance in hell of not being laughed at in a court of law, of what it means, precisely, for antenna performance to be "defective". Were you to try to pull something of that sort off in a court of law, a bunch of engineers would be put on the stand one after the other, each giving their personal opinion on how the notion of a "defective" antenna might be defined in a way that could be applied consistently for legal purposes. The opinions would likely be all over the place, and the jury and judge would be so confused that they would conclude, rightly, that the notion of "defective" and "non-defective" antenna performance is not a substantive notion.
Absolutely agree with you. There are a few folk here who are easily put off by discussion that does align with their world view. Name calling and offensive language is the last resort of those with no position to defend.
I work in engineering and mass production of consumer services and products. We are often in a situation where it is important to give cost and risk analysis based on limited and insufficient information. The usual method is to make some assumptions and extrapolate to deliver cost estimates. In a formalized response, we vary the assumptions and provide several scenarios. Costs and resultant risks are documented and sent up the line with recommendations for executive types to evaluate. The process usually spins around a few times to deal with associated issues and to factor in new knowledge.
That is all I am trying to do here: show that the antenna problem is/was real and represented a profit risk to Apple and their partners.
Somehow, that kind of analysis is considered a troll. \
No, stupid, uninformed analysis is the sign of a troll.
You took the number of reported problems and multiplied it by 10 in order to get a wild guess of the actual frequency.
Someone else said that if you want to multiply by 10, the reported 50% failure rate for the xBox would be 500%. Your response was that this was wrong, just because (I guess you get to multiply Apple's reported rate by 10, but not anyone else's).
If you really do this for a living and use the same absurd methodology, please tell me who you work for so I can be sure never to buy any of their products.
Agreed 100%. But if you think it's bad here, you should have a look at that Macrumors forum, it's one giant clusterf--k where the mods are like JRagosta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
I'm with you on this. Unfortunately these boards are going downhill and the likes of JRagosta are one of the causes. We used to be able to have some interesting discussions based on hypothesis (that can't always be backed up by hard data) and it was good. People aired their opinions and there were some interesting ideas came up.
Now, people see something they don't like and reply in such an incredibly rude way. Honestly, I think people on the internet really do need to consider, "would I reply this way if I were in the same room as the guy?" I have to admit that if someone spoke to me in the way they reply on here, they'd get a decent smack.
there is no objective way to define what it even means for a device of this sort to be "broken" or have a "design flaw", etc. I repeat: there simply is no objective way to define what constitutes a failure, when it comes to antenna reception. It is not a black and whit, on or off, works or doesn't work sort of thing. This is just the nature of the beast. It is up to each individual to evaluate such things on their own.
I have to disagree with you and I'm not an Apple basher. And I checked with a friend of mine who has the new phone and she hasn't experienced any problems (although she does have a case and is in a presumably strong signal area.)
However, any antenna engineer will tell you that touching an antenna changes its characteristics and that putting the antenna on the outside of the case, was probably a really bad idea. However, Apple might have gotten away with that if they didn't have two antennas on the outside of the case which get shorted together when touched. The sad part is that if they had put this "break" at the top or bottom of the phone, in an area that isn't naturally touched when holding the phone, everything probably would have been fine.
Even though Steve denies it, I don't know whether to believe or not whether Apple knew about this in advance. But one thing I do believe, especially if they didn't know in advance, is that Apple probably performed very limited tests on the phone due to their paranoia about revealing new products and that when it was tested, it was tested in a big case so people wouldn't know it was the new iPhone. In addition, I have no doubt that AT&T "makes sure" that service is good in Cupertino (which it probably would be anyway because it's not an especially dense area as compared say, to New York or Chicago.)
I have worked for companies that have received certain Apple products in advance. Those products have to be held in locked rooms and mounted to a table so they can't be removed. Therefore they aren't tested in real world conditions.
There are so many variables with cell phone usage and reception that I think a device like this needs to be tested by AT LEAST a thousand different people in different locations. While I have no idea how many units were tested by Apple in real world conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if that number turns out to be 15 or less.
The thing that is so ridiculous about all this is while Jobs claims that revealing a new product will kill sales of the current one, Apple has already set the pattern for releasing new iPhones. Everyone knows that new iPhones are released annually at the developer's conference. So I think Apple needs to get over their arrogance and paranoia and figure out that revealing the forthcoming model in advance is not as bad as having a phone that everyone can complain about, even if those complaints aren't all valid. Apple has been promoting themselves for years as the company that makes products that "just work". The problems with past Apple phones, largely due to AT&T, and the supposed problems with this phone, have completely killed a $ billion of "goodwill" that Apple has developed over the years. Apple is no longer the company that makes products that "just work."
And I say that as someone who has used Apple products since the Apple II days, as someone who owns the stock and as someone who might buy this phone. In a way, it might be good for Apple in the long term to have had this "failure". It might bring them back down to earth. A little insecurity on Steve's part might make him a little more open to other people's ideas.
Agreed 100%. But if you think it's bad here, you should have a look at that Macrumors forum, it's one giant clusterf--k where the mods are like JRagosta.
Agreed. Moderation is never easy, but it fell off a cliff at MR a few years ago, to the clear point of no return. Interest in making improvements appeared to be nil, so I and many others threw in the towel.
Comments
I called his arguments weak in another thread and he said by doing so, I was attacking him.
He takes the internet too personally.
Ohhhh... a tét a tét be between GrooveTube And Chronster... let's all pay attention... we will learn so much!
.
Hey, Sky say hello to Penny for me. How's that Cessna 310 working' out for you?
.
Wow.
I hope that this puts to rest any ideas of the New York Times having any journalistic integrity whatsoever. Anybody who believes the New York Times believes fiction that is just made up.
ala' Judith Miller and the run-up to the Iraq War. Perhaps, it's not as far fetched as you might think.
Go fly a kite!
It's called tall poppy syndrome and we here in New Zealand are the masters of it. It's the only thing I hate about New Zealand. ...
Pretty common in Oz as well. Though I think many tall-poppy Kiwis end up here because there's more opportunities and wages are over 30% higher in most fields.
Steve J. really let rip on the dumb-arses in the media, eh? That's my kind of CEO!
Actually, I wasn't. But I has mistakenly assumed he had finally won that battle. Apparently he settled on the WSJ purchase that you mentioned. He has steadily attacked the Times, from a business point, for the last three years in an attempt to still force a bargain basement sale.
Either way, once he owns anything, it may be highly profitable, but morally it turns to crap.
2 things:
1)You *were* wrong, you said that Murdoch owned the Times ∴ the Times cannot be trusted. But Murdoch doesn't own the Times.
2)The Wall Street journal, which you were actually thinking of, has retained more editorial control than any other Murdoch acquisition and it still actually produces quality stories (and is recognized as such internationally), which makes your point *doubly* wrong!
Also, you may not agree with NYT's editorial position on some things, but to claim they fabricated a story is another level entirely. Like them or hate them, the NYT's is one of the most reputable paper's in the world and they're not about to risk that status (not to mention they're stock price) on a story that in the scheme of things is so much breeze in the grass. They are a major newspaper of record, and one of the few true independent news sources left, attacking them because you don't like that they didn't pander to Apple is slavish and foolish.
Jobs has a legitimate beef if the NYT's source was wrong -- but if the article was wrong it was a bad source I guarantee, not the evil Editor-in-Chief going "::heheheh:: I want to run an anti-apple story today! Now where are those children I was going to roast and devour...". Honestly though, when Bloomberg and the NYT, both known for their accuracy, independently run stories about it I tend to believe them over Job's spin
How many of those scientists to too scared to tell Steve anything other than what he wants to hear?
Worst case from this is that if iPhone problems persist, Steve...and Apple could loose credibility with consumers.
It's easy for a competitor to dispute Apple's claims with their own tests. And Apple would be in violation of SEC regulations if it didn't tell the truth.
But conspiracy theorists will believe what they will believe.
They breed them pretty tough in Australia.
2 things:
1)You *were* wrong, you said that Murdoch owned the Times ∴ the Times cannot be trusted. But Murdoch doesn't own the Times.
2)The Wall Street journal, which you were actually thinking of, has retained more editorial control than any other Murdoch acquisition and it still actually produces quality stories (and is recognized as such internationally), which makes your point *doubly* wrong!
Also, you may not agree with NYT's editorial position on some things, but to claim they fabricated a story is another level entirely. Like them or hate them, the NYT's is one of the most reputable paper's in the world and they're not about to risk that status (not to mention they're stock price) on a story that in the scheme of things is so much breeze in the grass. They are a major newspaper of record, and one of the few true independent news sources left, attacking them because you don't like that they didn't pander to Apple is slavish and foolish.
Jobs has a legitimate beef if the NYT's source was wrong -- but if the article was wrong it was a bad source I guarantee, not the evil Editor-in-Chief going "::heheheh:: I want to run an anti-apple story today! Now where are those children I was going to roast and devour...". Honestly though, when Bloomberg and the NYT, both known for their accuracy, independently run stories about it I tend to believe them over Job's spin
No --- you are misinterpreting. Some people are saying the antenna problem is not a serious issue and are parroting some numbers to support the point. I am just saying, don't take those numbers at face value; explore and extrapolate, add values to find some meaning in them.
Oh dear oh dear. First rule of statistics - don't extrapolate, particularly from one data point. Certainly DON'T ADD VALUES. That is, quite literally, making it up. T
he whole bloody point of statistics is you take the data you're given and explore that. You don't then add in your own fantasy numbers. "Don't take those numbers at face value" has to be the dumbest thing I've heard on this thread, and that's really saying something.
This is such bad statistical thinking I'm not even going to bother to explain why.
Okay, let's go with the idea that those who phoned in represent the tip of the iceberg and that the true picture is made up of huge numbers of people who just could not be bothered, whose calls were dropped or who believed that there was going to be a fix so why bother.
Ha. Logic - a rare commodity here.
FWIW I can't remember ever meeting someone who paid several hundred £ or $ for something that didn't work and then sat silent.
And I certainly wouldn't, as someone else seems to think, assume that only 1 in 10 people who buys a phone and can't use it as a phone thinks "ah well, I'll just wait. I'm sure it'll be fixed".
I think there should be a rule on this thread. Only people who can post a copy of their receipt for the iPhone 4 can comment on the iPhone 4 (particularly if their registration for this forum is within the last 3 months). The others can start a new thread.
Looks like Apple has already begun it's much rumoured "cloud" service - it's the la-la land where all the trolls live.
Ohhhh... a tét a tét be between GrooveTube And Chronster... let's all pay attention... we will learn so much!
.
oh look out, dick apple balm is on a rampage.
if you find most of jrogostas posts not rude, then that explains everything
Yeah and instead they whinge and moan about it in forums instead of going to get the issue looked at and then complain that Apple is not doing anything to fix the problem.
I'm going to side with Apple who have tonnes of resources to look into the problem as we've seen than some bloggers too stupid to want to help themselves.
Want something fixed? Log a job. That's what we tell our customers and not because we're trying to pass the buck but it's because we want to find what issues are out there so that we can look at the problem as a collective whole rather than a bunch of one off cases. That's good engineering practice but when Apple does it it's a bad thing?
I guess people really can't help themselves.
truthfully people would rather just stamp their feet and whine about it. Certainly the amount of press will cause many people to give any dropped calls a second look, and there are lots of people who love to look smart on a forum.
The iphone4 hasn't been released here in Canada yet, I'm interested in the response here afterwards. At the beginning of all this, it was pretty hard to discern how much of this was a real issue, or just the let's wipe the smug faces off of the apple crowd nonsense.
Interesting to sit back and watch as people gouge each others eyes out over who's right anyway.
in the meantime, the onion is reporting something rather astounding... (I know, a year old, but funny)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/app...st-loyal,2772/
But as for this supposed problem with reception on the new iPhone, I think this is ludicrous.
It is the inherent nature of antennae reception to vary dramatically depending on all sorts of factors. This is true of just about any sort of device that I know of, that depends on reception of electromagnetic waves. It is true of indoor/outdoor radio and television reception. It is true of the reception of GPS satellite signals within the popular GPS devices. I could go on and on. The point is, there is no objective way to define what it even means for a device of this sort to be "broken" or have a "design flaw", etc. I repeat: there simply is no objective way to define what constitutes a failure, when it comes to antenna reception. It is not a black and whit, on or off, works or doesn't work sort of thing. This is just the nature of the beast. It is up to each individual to evaluate such things on their own. This is why you have 30 days to decide if the device works adequately well for you. You have 30 days to figure out whether it works for you. If it doesn't work for you, you take it back. End of story.
The use of the word "defective", and other similar words that imply a definitive failure, just does not make sense, because in this context of antenna performance, there simply is no way to define, in any usefully objective way that might be regarded as meaningful in any court of law, what constitutes, precisely, a "defective" antenna. I defy everyone who has made statements of this sort to come up with a definition, that would stand a chance in hell of not being laughed at in a court of law, of what it means, precisely, for antenna performance to be "defective". Were you to try to pull something of that sort off in a court of law, a bunch of engineers would be put on the stand one after the other, each giving their personal opinion on how the notion of a "defective" antenna might be defined in a way that could be applied consistently for legal purposes. The opinions would likely be all over the place, and the jury and judge would be so confused that they would conclude, rightly, that the notion of "defective" and "non-defective" antenna performance is not a substantive notion.
Absolutely agree with you. There are a few folk here who are easily put off by discussion that does align with their world view. Name calling and offensive language is the last resort of those with no position to defend.
I work in engineering and mass production of consumer services and products. We are often in a situation where it is important to give cost and risk analysis based on limited and insufficient information. The usual method is to make some assumptions and extrapolate to deliver cost estimates. In a formalized response, we vary the assumptions and provide several scenarios. Costs and resultant risks are documented and sent up the line with recommendations for executive types to evaluate. The process usually spins around a few times to deal with associated issues and to factor in new knowledge.
That is all I am trying to do here: show that the antenna problem is/was real and represented a profit risk to Apple and their partners.
Somehow, that kind of analysis is considered a troll.
No, stupid, uninformed analysis is the sign of a troll.
You took the number of reported problems and multiplied it by 10 in order to get a wild guess of the actual frequency.
Someone else said that if you want to multiply by 10, the reported 50% failure rate for the xBox would be 500%. Your response was that this was wrong, just because (I guess you get to multiply Apple's reported rate by 10, but not anyone else's).
If you really do this for a living and use the same absurd methodology, please tell me who you work for so I can be sure never to buy any of their products.
the ny times said: "dewey wins" "dewey wins"
for the uninitiated, he was running against truman
That was not the New York Times. That was the Chicago Tribune. Maybe you should look stuff up before you post it.
I'm with you on this. Unfortunately these boards are going downhill and the likes of JRagosta are one of the causes. We used to be able to have some interesting discussions based on hypothesis (that can't always be backed up by hard data) and it was good. People aired their opinions and there were some interesting ideas came up.
Now, people see something they don't like and reply in such an incredibly rude way. Honestly, I think people on the internet really do need to consider, "would I reply this way if I were in the same room as the guy?" I have to admit that if someone spoke to me in the way they reply on here, they'd get a decent smack.
there is no objective way to define what it even means for a device of this sort to be "broken" or have a "design flaw", etc. I repeat: there simply is no objective way to define what constitutes a failure, when it comes to antenna reception. It is not a black and whit, on or off, works or doesn't work sort of thing. This is just the nature of the beast. It is up to each individual to evaluate such things on their own.
I have to disagree with you and I'm not an Apple basher. And I checked with a friend of mine who has the new phone and she hasn't experienced any problems (although she does have a case and is in a presumably strong signal area.)
However, any antenna engineer will tell you that touching an antenna changes its characteristics and that putting the antenna on the outside of the case, was probably a really bad idea. However, Apple might have gotten away with that if they didn't have two antennas on the outside of the case which get shorted together when touched. The sad part is that if they had put this "break" at the top or bottom of the phone, in an area that isn't naturally touched when holding the phone, everything probably would have been fine.
Even though Steve denies it, I don't know whether to believe or not whether Apple knew about this in advance. But one thing I do believe, especially if they didn't know in advance, is that Apple probably performed very limited tests on the phone due to their paranoia about revealing new products and that when it was tested, it was tested in a big case so people wouldn't know it was the new iPhone. In addition, I have no doubt that AT&T "makes sure" that service is good in Cupertino (which it probably would be anyway because it's not an especially dense area as compared say, to New York or Chicago.)
I have worked for companies that have received certain Apple products in advance. Those products have to be held in locked rooms and mounted to a table so they can't be removed. Therefore they aren't tested in real world conditions.
There are so many variables with cell phone usage and reception that I think a device like this needs to be tested by AT LEAST a thousand different people in different locations. While I have no idea how many units were tested by Apple in real world conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if that number turns out to be 15 or less.
The thing that is so ridiculous about all this is while Jobs claims that revealing a new product will kill sales of the current one, Apple has already set the pattern for releasing new iPhones. Everyone knows that new iPhones are released annually at the developer's conference. So I think Apple needs to get over their arrogance and paranoia and figure out that revealing the forthcoming model in advance is not as bad as having a phone that everyone can complain about, even if those complaints aren't all valid. Apple has been promoting themselves for years as the company that makes products that "just work". The problems with past Apple phones, largely due to AT&T, and the supposed problems with this phone, have completely killed a $ billion of "goodwill" that Apple has developed over the years. Apple is no longer the company that makes products that "just work."
And I say that as someone who has used Apple products since the Apple II days, as someone who owns the stock and as someone who might buy this phone. In a way, it might be good for Apple in the long term to have had this "failure". It might bring them back down to earth. A little insecurity on Steve's part might make him a little more open to other people's ideas.
Agreed 100%. But if you think it's bad here, you should have a look at that Macrumors forum, it's one giant clusterf--k where the mods are like JRagosta.
Agreed. Moderation is never easy, but it fell off a cliff at MR a few years ago, to the clear point of no return. Interest in making improvements appeared to be nil, so I and many others threw in the towel.