“Phones supplied by Apple...” Right there I don’t trust these new findings. Apple could have tampered with the phones it supplied. I would like to see a random phone off the street tested with the original firmware. After the VW diesel scandal - I don’t put anything past MN Corporations.
You missed the rest of the sentence
The retest, conducted by the FCC, included a mix of devices supplied by Apple and Samsung, as well as others purchased by the FCC.
Chicago Tribune should be fined/sued for publish unsubstantiated information.
It's one thing to find a legitimate problem and have it worked-out properly, than to do what the Tribune did was to splash click-bait that Apple is killing brain cells without any proof. It did it knowing it would get ad-revenue.
The same thing should have been done with Bloomberg after publishing that nonsense Chinese-tracking article about SuperMicro.
wondering which test lab the press used - FCC test is std test that certify lab should be familiar with it and execute without such an error. 2nd question, why the press select a lab that appear to be non-std.... especially with non-compliance result, usually you immediately asking for 3rd party validation of the result - such as authority Lab of FCC, rather than go to public directly. Something are out of normalty here... IMHO. (try to catch eye balls? etc.etc.)
The Chicago Trib used an independent lab and published the results and the protocol used as well as the lab's name. How would you claim that their information is unsubstantiated, slanderous or libelous? unless you have evidence that either the paper or the lab intentionally manipulated the results I can't see any basis.
If the protocol is standardized, the results should be reproducible. It's common practice to have an independent lab verify data, so the real question is why the results are so disparate.
Chicago Tribune should be fined/sued for publish unsubstantiated information.
It's one thing to find a legitimate problem and have it worked-out properly, than to do what the Tribune did was to splash click-bait that Apple is killing brain cells without any proof. It did it knowing it would get ad-revenue.
The same thing should have been done with Bloomberg after publishing that nonsense Chinese-tracking article about SuperMicro.
wondering which test lab the press used - FCC test is std test that certify lab should be familiar with it and execute without such an error. 2nd question, why the press select a lab that appear to be non-std.... especially with non-compliance result, usually you immediately asking for 3rd party validation of the result - such as authority Lab of FCC, rather than go to public directly. Something are out of normalty here... IMHO. (try to catch eye balls? etc.etc.)
The Chicago Trib used an independent lab and published the results and the protocol used as well as the lab's name. How would you claim that their information is unsubstantiated, slanderous or libelous? unless you have evidence that either the paper or the lab intentionally manipulated the results I can't see any basis.
If the protocol is standardized, the results should be reproducible. It's common practice to have an independent lab verify data, so the real question is why the results are so disparate.
Chicago Tribune should be fined/sued for publish unsubstantiated information.
It's one thing to find a legitimate problem and have it worked-out properly, than to do what the Tribune did was to splash click-bait that Apple is killing brain cells without any proof. It did it knowing it would get ad-revenue.
The same thing should have been done with Bloomberg after publishing that nonsense Chinese-tracking article about SuperMicro.
wondering which test lab the press used - FCC test is std test that certify lab should be familiar with it and execute without such an error. 2nd question, why the press select a lab that appear to be non-std.... especially with non-compliance result, usually you immediately asking for 3rd party validation of the result - such as authority Lab of FCC, rather than go to public directly. Something are out of normalty here... IMHO. (try to catch eye balls? etc.etc.)
The Chicago Trib used an independent lab and published the results and the protocol used as well as the lab's name. How would you claim that their information is unsubstantiated, slanderous or libelous? unless you have evidence that either the paper or the lab intentionally manipulated the results I can't see any basis.
If the protocol is standardized, the results should be reproducible. It's common practice to have an independent lab verify data, so the real question is why the results are so disparate.
the question is why publish it without authority lab validation, such as FCC - for such a non compliance, especialy related to public safety, the notification of FCC would be the 1st step, - knowing the company and carrier can't sell the product without pass the test (at least in north america) at 1st place. that means the product passed test before hit to the market, but somehow those handsets press got failed the test in 3rd party lab. immediately, as logic step would be contact FCC to validate the test results with the handset used rather than rush to printing press. what ever done in windy city is out of normal, knowing there are capable lab within the city - such as motorola. to easily validate data prior to alart FCC.
“Phones supplied by Apple...” Right there I don’t trust these new findings. Apple could have tampered with the phones it supplied. I would like to see a random phone off the street tested with the original firmware. After the VW diesel scandal - I don’t put anything past MN Corporations.
FTA: "The retest, conducted by the FCC, included a mix of devices supplied by Apple and Samsung, as well as others purchased by the FCC."
Maybe Apple would have a slander case against the newspaper. I would not take too kindly an article which was false and could lead to scarring my reputation and possibly resulting in lost income.
Probably not against the newspaper. Freedom of speech and the press would likely quash that. But if someone brought the story to the paper’s attention I suppose Apple might be able to go after them. What I mean is if John Doe concocts the bogus tests for whatever reason (to get his name out as a researcher, to promote his lab, to lay groundwork for a suit against Apple, etc.,) and gives the story to the paper then he, rather than the paper, might be on the hook. But it would be hard to prove.
The press has no freedom from slander. They never have.
First of all, slander is spoken. Libel is printed. And there are rules — knowingly publishing false statements makes one guilty of libel. National Enquirer has been sued before, and paid.
As Flydog notes, the Chicago Tribute itself did not do the testing -- an independent lab did. Thus, Apple literally can't sue the Tribune over it. It could, conceivably, sue the independent lab which -- clearly -- did not do the testing correctly.
Maybe Apple would have a slander case against the newspaper. I would not take too kindly an article which was false and could lead to scarring my reputation and possibly resulting in lost income.
Probably not against the newspaper. Freedom of speech and the press would likely quash that. But if someone brought the story to the paper’s attention I suppose Apple might be able to go after them. What I mean is if John Doe concocts the bogus tests for whatever reason (to get his name out as a researcher, to promote his lab, to lay groundwork for a suit against Apple, etc.,) and gives the story to the paper then he, rather than the paper, might be on the hook. But it would be hard to prove.
The press has no freedom from slander. They never have.
In this case would be very hard to prove. For slander you need to show that they did that on purpose, rather than it just being "sloppy job" as one famous dude recently put it.
That’s all fine and understood. But freedom of the press doesn’t protect the press from being sued for slander as the poster I was responding to insinuated.
Comments
No chance of Apple or Samsung faking those.
In a long, long ago, far, far away life I did this. Common practice, maybe it still is, maybe not.