TurboPGT

gregg thurman said:

mactodd said:

You didn't mention charging while listening.

Yeah, that's a monster deal breaker, for like about 1:1,000,000 people.  Seriously, how often are you walking around, listening to youriPhone while its plugged into a charger?

libertyforall said:

So the AT&T/T-Mobile Intel modem goes only 450/100 vs. Qualcomm version at 600/150.  Sucks to get shafted by Apple's foolish decisions if you're on the Intel modem carriers!  I care nothing about CDMA, but the speed of the Q modems are the REAL story here for me, esp. since the other CDMA carriers can convert.

Will the other models work fin on AT&T/T-Mobile?  

lkrupp said:

I wonder if this will happen with the release, err, I mean re-release of the Note 7? Will fire trucks be on hand just in case?

Apple fan lines are ridiculed by pundits and critics alike. Even some stuffed shirts right here on AI point and laugh while solemnly declaring they would never stand in line for anything. Apple customers who stand in line are denigrated as robot lemmings and “iSheeple.” You know what? That’s pure, unadulterated jealousy. Other smartphone manufacturers would sell their grandmothers into slavery to see lines like that for their products. Of course those other manufacturers don’t have many stores for people to line up in front of do they? The stores themselves are objects of derision and jokes right here on AI too. More evidence of raging jealousy.

pepe779 said:

radarthekat said:

pepe779 said:

fastasleep said:

pepe779 said:

Okay here's a dumb question that has been on my mind (and certainly not just my mind) ever since the iPhone 7 announcement - what prevented Apple from implementing water resistance a year or even two ago? I'm dead serious about this question - was there any design element or anything specific that made it impossible for iPhone 6 or 6S? As elementary as this question is, I haven't seen or heard any rational explanation so far. Personally I could live without this feature, but I don't see why Apple is making such a big deal out of it now that Samsung or Sony have been using it for years (not to mention that the new iPhone still has only IP67 rating and not IP68). And I can't believe Apple was just too lazy to implement it.

Because they were obviously focused on other things? Also, the 6s is fairly water resistant, though they don't broadcast it. Samsung's failed tests btw, so ...

See, this is the problem. I'm looking for a rational explanation and this is what I get. Well guess what, other companies are focusing on many other things as well, yet they still deliver and aren't afraid to even set the trend. Apple has all the money and talent to develop and implement pretty much whatever they want, so saying they had different priorities is a pretty lame excuse. And if that's the case then they should have simply rolled out this feature silently instead of making it look like they just invented something nobody else has. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a strong Apple supporter and own more Apple products than any other brand combined, but if there's any indication Apple is becoming somewhat clueless about where to go next with the iPhone, it must be this year's iPhone 7 event. And this iPhone 7 ad just make matters that much worse imho.

You aren't looking for a rational explanation. You're trolling. If you were looking for a rational explanation. You'd add up the facts that have already been presented here to you, along with a bit of common sense, and you'd understand why water resistance hasn't been claimed until now.

 1. Samsung's phones, which claim an even higher ability to resist water damage, failed at providing even the water resistance now claimed by Apple. This should suggest to you that a phone with a headphone jack, charging port, movable Home button, and other buttons and mute/vibrate switch is not easy to make water resistant.

 2. Apple's iPhone 6S survived, in many tests (you need only access to YouTube) a 30-second full immersion in a bowl of water. So Apple had previously taken steps toward water resistance, but acted conservatively in not claiming so in the previous generation.

3. In what manner was Apple, claiming water resistance as 1 of 10 enhancements to iPhone 7 "making it look like they just invented something nobody else has."

4. How is Apple NOT setting trends with

a) the first 64-bit smartphone (or had you forgotten),

b) the first, and best functioning, fingerprint sensor on a globally shipping smartphone.  Someone else did one prior, but it didn't work well and wasn't widely shipped, and that makes ALL the difference,

c) the whole concept of vertical hardware/software/services integration, which makes iPhone perform better and use less power per unit of computing performance.  That's something important to environmentally aware Apple, but apparently not to other companies, who are happy to just shove a bigger battery in their devices, and then try to charge that bigger battery fast, resulting in a global recall.

I could go on...

Sorry but your long post lacks any substance. So you're claiming iPhone7 is more waterproof than what Apple's competition has been offering for years and is even ranked higher in terms of the waterproof rankings. Well, if that's what you believe in, then I guess the waterproof rankings must be all wrong and you're the expert. Your remaining points only digress from the original topic and you try to explain to me where Apple was first. Sure, I'm well aware of all those, but that's completely unrelated to what we're discussing here. You still haven't answered why Apple wasn't able to implement this technology years ago and why they're only talking so much about waterproofing their new iPhone now and even releasing ads about it. What I'm trying to understand is if there were any limitations preventing them from doing so (although I can't imagine what would it be) or they simply ignored the industry trends for so long.