New iPhones to use 3G network

Kevin Weaver wrote:

> 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.

If the battery burns up in your pocket at least you will know who to sue.
And luckily that will be Apple and they have the $$$ as you so thoughtfully
wrote.

Now go away AssHat

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:13l0vvveo2hn337@news.supernews.com...
> Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
>> 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 $$ rolling
>> in.
>
> If the battery burns up in your pocket at least you will know who to sue.
> And luckily that will be Apple and they have the $$$ as you so
> thoughtfully wrote.
>
> Now go away AssHat
Go ahead and give apple $$$ I was being fair at $$
Another fanboi defending the iphone. (Must be another AKA Oxturd)

In article <fipqaf$1kk$1@aioe.org>,
"Scott Lawson" <scottlawson@linuxmail.nospam,org> wrote:

> Apple had no choice but to pre-announce 3G,

1) there is no such thing as "pre-announce"--it was simply announced, as
opposed to shipped

2) Apple did no such thing. AT&T announced it. Apple remained mute on
the subject, and expressed a 'we don't comment on product development'
response when asked.

At 30 Nov 2007 21:12:24 +0000 Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks.

Frankly, compared to many other smartphones, including mine (an HTC Wizard)
the iPhone has a phenominal battery lie. I'd willingly weld my phone's
battery door shut in exchange for the iPhone's per-charge life!

> 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.


I wouldn't be happy with that either, although if you're not afraid of a
soldering iron, I don't expect it to be a problem. Considering how much
volume of my phone is wasted by the plastic walls of the battery
compartment that could've been used by more battery volume, I'm not sure I
completely disagree with their decision.

At 30 Nov 2007 13:18:30 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box
> that does nothing at all.


I just bought one of those from Duracell. It's a clear blister pack
apparently powered by the 4 AA batteries inside, that says it's good until
Dec. 2013. ;-)

At 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500 ned beaty wrote:
> The iPhone just got even better!
>
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866



Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent
five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have
made it too bulky and power consuming!

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:5%04j.6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com:

> At 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500 ned beaty wrote:
>> The iPhone just got even better!
>>
>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>
>
>
> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's
> spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and
> would have made it too bulky and power consuming!
>
>
>

He won't- he'll never acknowledge the thread.

In article <elmop-0B66DC.17541630112007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>, "Elmo
P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <fipqaf$1kk$1@aioe.org>,
> "Scott Lawson" <scottlawson@linuxmail.nospam,org> wrote:
>
> > Apple had no choice but to pre-announce 3G,
>
> 1) there is no such thing as "pre-announce"--it was simply announced, as
> opposed to shipped
>
> 2) Apple did no such thing. AT&T announced it. Apple remained mute on
> the subject, and expressed a 'we don't comment on product development'
> response when asked.

Almost, but not quite true. Steve Jobs has a few times reportedly said
that a 3G iPhone is in the works ...

Plans for using the faster 3G data connection in the iPhone
have not been secret. Steve Jobs has stated that a 3G iPhone
is coming, but that the delay is due to excessive battery
life consumption with existing 3G chipsets. The iPhone
presently uses the EDGE network for its data connectivity.

In reality his actual comment, back in September, was ..

"Our phone has a talk time of 8 hours and that's really
important when you want to use your phone for internet
and music. 3G needs to get back up to 5+ hours, something
we think well see later next year."

http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/19/...-in-the-works/

As well as at the MacWorld San Francisco 2007

Steve Jobs stated during the iPhone's Macworld San
Francisco 2007 keynote that they are planning on making
"3g phones and all sorts of other amazing things in the
future"
QuickTime clip (1.7MB):
http://images.macrumors.com/article/...iphoneplan.mov

In article <5%04j.6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500 ned beaty wrote:
> > The iPhone just got even better!
> >
> > http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>
>
>
> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent
> five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have
> made it too bulky and power consuming!

No, wait--complete the story.

Steve Jobs can do no wrong and knows everything, and he knew for a fact
that 3G was an unnecessary waste of battery power because everyone had
constant access to WiFi.

Steve Jobs is never wrong, therefore this "rumor" that AT&T put out must
be nothing but bullshit. Proof of that: Apple hasn't confirmed this
"rumor".

Since Steve Jobs has already spoken on how 3G isn't necessary, the
circle is closed. 3G isn't necessary, will only weaken the battery
unnecessarily, and therefore won't ever be provided.

And the iPhone will be the only phone on the market in a few years.

In article <elmop-5B19F3.21190230112007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>, "Elmo
P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <5%04j.6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
> > At 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500 ned beaty wrote:
> > > The iPhone just got even better!
> > >
> > > http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
> >
> >
> >
> > Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent
> > five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have
> > made it too bulky and power consuming!
>
> No, wait--complete the story.
>
> Steve Jobs can do no wrong and knows everything, and he knew for a fact
> that 3G was an unnecessary waste of battery power because everyone had
> constant access to WiFi.
>
> Steve Jobs is never wrong, therefore this "rumor" that AT&T put out must
> be nothing but bullshit. Proof of that: Apple hasn't confirmed this
> "rumor".
>
> Since Steve Jobs has already spoken on how 3G isn't necessary, the
> circle is closed. 3G isn't necessary, will only weaken the battery
> unnecessarily, and therefore won't ever be provided.
>
> And the iPhone will be the only phone on the market in a few years.

Nope. Microsloth will make one and it'll sell only about 30,000 in two
years (with 39,999 of those "sold" to staff as Christmas bonuses). ;-)