"Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in message
news:5rb9gnF13diecU1@mid.individual.net...
> Scott Lawson wrote:
>> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:IoY3j.27591$lD6.3103@newssvr27.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one
>>> was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no
>>> battery life. Maybe there going to make a battery access door.
>>
>> Battery life was _never_ the reason for the lack of 3G on the first
>> version of the iPhone. If battery life was a concern then they
>> wouldn't have included 802.11g either. Battery life was a
>> rationalization used by Apple when they were criticized for the lack
>> of 3G.
>
> Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box that
> does nothing at all.
>
> I am amused over how some of the iPhone-haters believe they "know" what
> Apple's true intentions were. Hysterical.
>
> There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys (especially
> in the logic department).
>
>
> --
> Mike
>
>
No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks. By
apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. But send it in
to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$ rolling in.