This would have been well kept if all the carriers kept their mouths shut about everything. Steve is either A) trying to create massive hype or VERY ANGRY at the Telcos. Probably varies between different telcos.
From what we've seen from Steve he's probably planned this to create hype and he's angry at teh telcos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey
Hey, whatever happened to the line of thought: "The iPhone can't be coming out because they would have to file with the FCC and then word would get out."
This line of thought was popular two months ago when some speculated a surprise iPhone update earlier than expected. Now, however, when everyone KNOWS that the iPhone is coming I don't hear it anymore...
In recent months it seems to have become canon that the FCC only publicly releases approvals. The independent testing by certified organizations, the submission and review by the FCC are clandestine. It also appears that a company can have the FCC postpone the approval date to coincide with the launch date.
(This is just speculation based on available data, if someone has more then please post. Eitehr way, we'll know more after it is publicly released as all the dates will be clearly known.)
In recent months it seems to have become canon that the FCC only publicly releases approvals. The independent testing by certified organizations, the submission and review by the FCC are clandestine. It also appears that a company can have the FCC postpone the approval date to coincide with the launch date.
Yes, I believe this to be the case as well. And there were several (probably including you) who posted to this effect months ago. But that didn't seem to bother those who decided the FCC would broadcast everything months in advance...
Apple actually found that they could get the FCC to shut up for a certain time on the original iPhone, until proposed by Jobs that the info got released. At that, not all of it was, some is still kept confidential.
Apple was covering its bases with the first release, as the FCC has the right to turn Apple down on that. They didn't, so it seems Apple is willing to play ball with them I suggest.
Apple actually found that they could get the FCC to shut up for a certain time on the original iPhone, until proposed by Jobs that the info got released. At that, not all of it was, some is still kept confidential.
Apple was covering its bases with the first release, as the FCC has the right to turn Apple down on that. They didn't, so it seems Apple is willing to play ball with them I suggest.
When Jobs first announced the iPhone in January 2007 he stated that they wanted to announce it before the FCC. That does have a grain of truth to it, but I believe the real reason for the 6 month advance notice was to give those under contract a heads up about the forthcoming iPhone.
Sunday Morning Research:
I'm surprised the information below was divulged a year ago. I had assumed that the the FCC badge number is only given when the FCC approves a device, but if you look at the 08-MAR-2007 cover letter submission and he earlier Cetecom testing the FCC ID is listed as early as 06-FEB-2007. That is more than a month before Apple field for the FCC submission and the less than a month after the iPhone reveal at MacWorld.
• 06-FEB-2007 — Cetecom creates report of RF testing
• 06-FEB-2007 — Earliest report date showing FCC ID BCGA1203
• 08-MAR-2007 — Apple submits application to FCC
• 09-MAR-2007 — FCC receives Apple's application
• 18-APR-2007 — Cetecom starts RF retests*
• 19-APR-2007 — Cetecom finishes RF retests*
• 19-APR-2007 — Cetecom creates 2nd report of RF testing
* I suspect that the FCC requested retesting of the original 29-JAN-2007 tests. Perhaps this is common; I have no idea. This does account for the discrepancy between the FCC submission date and and the later dates in the submitted forms if we assume that the FCC replaces the original documents with the new, updated documents but doesn't alter the original submission dates.
Yeah, I am just suggesting that Apple didn't want to risk it with the first time (a government agency has the right to blab if they want to!) so he made sure he announced before the FCC.
But I also agree that it was for contract reasons, as well. It is a very good point. That makes two reasons why Apple wouldn't announce like last time. 1. No similar contract issue, at least in the states, and 2. The FCC is willing to play ball with Apple now, that has been shown.
The FCC held quite a bit of detail back under Apples request - we didn't find out publically a LOT of stuff that you find out about other products, and the FCC's report noted there was information "kept private" at "the request of Apple".
Just trying to follow Apple's naming protocal. It seems that the "i" has been reserved for the consumer (not pro) version.
Y'know, iMac Vs. MacPro.
Of course this logic took a hit when they rechristened the iBook line as MacBook, but I don't expect them to drop iPhone all together after all the trouble they went through to get it--besides it seems to have achieved some level of name recognition over the past year or two...
Given that they say that the iPhone runs "OS X" and not "Mac OS X", I doubt there would be a "Mac" in the name, consumer or pro, all their computers run "Mac OS X".
Anyway, do we really know whether or not AT&T, Cingular or its predecessor companies, have a track record of calling in mid-summer help? I think it's entirely possible that they've done it often but none of us nor the Mac blogs like this would have noticed because Cingular really wasn't really watched by Mac blogs before the iPhone.
Apple seems to be very particular about its naming, making it very relevant as to whether an Apple phone has "Mac" in its name. As such, it shouldn't be waved off as irrelevant.
The same goes with:
Quote:
Second: No fun to consider
An unwillingness to consider the possible truth in something just because you don't want to be true is not a good thing. It's called denial.
Comments
This would have been well kept if all the carriers kept their mouths shut about everything. Steve is either A) trying to create massive hype or
From what we've seen from Steve he's probably planned this to create hype and he's angry at teh telcos.
Hey, whatever happened to the line of thought: "The iPhone can't be coming out because they would have to file with the FCC and then word would get out."
This line of thought was popular two months ago when some speculated a surprise iPhone update earlier than expected. Now, however, when everyone KNOWS that the iPhone is coming I don't hear it anymore...
In recent months it seems to have become canon that the FCC only publicly releases approvals. The independent testing by certified organizations, the submission and review by the FCC are clandestine. It also appears that a company can have the FCC postpone the approval date to coincide with the launch date.
(This is just speculation based on available data, if someone has more then please post. Eitehr way, we'll know more after it is publicly released as all the dates will be clearly known.)
In recent months it seems to have become canon that the FCC only publicly releases approvals. The independent testing by certified organizations, the submission and review by the FCC are clandestine. It also appears that a company can have the FCC postpone the approval date to coincide with the launch date.
Yes, I believe this to be the case as well. And there were several (probably including you) who posted to this effect months ago. But that didn't seem to bother those who decided the FCC would broadcast everything months in advance...
Apple was covering its bases with the first release, as the FCC has the right to turn Apple down on that. They didn't, so it seems Apple is willing to play ball with them I suggest.
Apple actually found that they could get the FCC to shut up for a certain time on the original iPhone, until proposed by Jobs that the info got released. At that, not all of it was, some is still kept confidential.
Apple was covering its bases with the first release, as the FCC has the right to turn Apple down on that. They didn't, so it seems Apple is willing to play ball with them I suggest.
When Jobs first announced the iPhone in January 2007 he stated that they wanted to announce it before the FCC. That does have a grain of truth to it, but I believe the real reason for the 6 month advance notice was to give those under contract a heads up about the forthcoming iPhone.
Sunday Morning Research:
I'm surprised the information below was divulged a year ago. I had assumed that the the FCC badge number is only given when the FCC approves a device, but if you look at the 08-MAR-2007 cover letter submission and he earlier Cetecom testing the FCC ID is listed as early as 06-FEB-2007. That is more than a month before Apple field for the FCC submission and the less than a month after the iPhone reveal at MacWorld. * I suspect that the FCC requested retesting of the original 29-JAN-2007 tests. Perhaps this is common; I have no idea. This does account for the discrepancy between the FCC submission date and and the later dates in the submitted forms if we assume that the FCC replaces the original documents with the new, updated documents but doesn't alter the original submission dates.
But I also agree that it was for contract reasons, as well. It is a very good point. That makes two reasons why Apple wouldn't announce like last time. 1. No similar contract issue, at least in the states, and 2. The FCC is willing to play ball with Apple now, that has been shown.
The FCC held quite a bit of detail back under Apples request - we didn't find out publically a LOT of stuff that you find out about other products, and the FCC's report noted there was information "kept private" at "the request of Apple".
The AT&T hiring is for the new RIM Blackberry.
Most likely, the hiring is for both the Blackberry Bold as well as the iPhone refresh...
I can't tell you the number of people in my office who would never get an iPhone, but would wait in line for hours for a 3G blackberry
It looks like the Blackberry Bold is still online for a June release, and the only real possibility for a Telcom is ATT.
Just trying to follow Apple's naming protocal. It seems that the "i" has been reserved for the consumer (not pro) version.
Y'know, iMac Vs. MacPro.
Of course this logic took a hit when they rechristened the iBook line as MacBook, but I don't expect them to drop iPhone all together after all the trouble they went through to get it--besides it seems to have achieved some level of name recognition over the past year or two...
Given that they say that the iPhone runs "OS X" and not "Mac OS X", I doubt there would be a "Mac" in the name, consumer or pro, all their computers run "Mac OS X".
Anyway, do we really know whether or not AT&T, Cingular or its predecessor companies, have a track record of calling in mid-summer help? I think it's entirely possible that they've done it often but none of us nor the Mac blogs like this would have noticed because Cingular really wasn't really watched by Mac blogs before the iPhone.
Second: good question
Second: No fun to consider
First: Irrelevant
Apple seems to be very particular about its naming, making it very relevant as to whether an Apple phone has "Mac" in its name. As such, it shouldn't be waved off as irrelevant.
The same goes with:
Second: No fun to consider
An unwillingness to consider the possible truth in something just because you don't want to be true is not a good thing. It's called denial.