- 07-08-2007, 07:09 PM #51
That would be "frage, bitte" i believe, but my German is a bit rusty.
So, once again: You accused Apple of distorting facts or distorting reality or a little of both. How have they done this, in particular with the iphone? (I only assume you meant the iphone, since you brought it up in a discussion of the iphone.)
By "how have they done this" I mean specific facts.
- 07-08-2007, 07:33 PM #52
Again, it went right past you, and you tried to trump, and ended up emtpy handed.
How about those Apple ads showing the NYT web site, with Flash, even though the iPhone doesn't support it? That was one of the more blatant ones.
But there's a fellow named Surur over on TC that can give you a whole lesson on Apple's RDF.
- 07-08-2007, 09:03 PM #53
Ohhh. I see. You're depending on surur. All becomes clear. Since surur has absolutely zero credibility around these parts, I'll stick to your own contributions:
As for the NYT flash thing: I suppose, though you would also have to agree that Apple was quite forthcoming that the browser doesn't currently support flash. And I highly doubt they were trying to say "we support flash." Most people don't know that the NY Times front page uses flash. On the other hand, the wall street journal says it's coming in the next two months.
However, I'll help you out a bit and suggest that the commercials showing web sites loading reasonably quickly might be misleading, especially given EDGE (and possibly even with wi-fi, though I'm not sure there's a lot of data on that yet).
But, in any event, I gotta again ask: what the heck does this have to do with BATTERIES?? You clearly brought up the RDF in the context of batteries, in a thread dealing strictly with batteries.
- 07-08-2007, 09:53 PM #54
I'll stick to the battery topic, although I agree on the EDGE/Wi-Fi point you mention. (I still say buyer beware...)
Re: batteries - two issues. One - the lack of a removable and user replaceable batter is move to get more money out of buyers, plain and simple. I think it shows contempt for customers; nickel and diming them on the most expense phone/PMP out there.
Two, the page you linked to on Apple shows Apple's view on "charge cycle", but no one else subscribes to that defn. (that using 100% capacity. regardless of charging pattern, is a "cycle".) That was my RDF comment (although, to be honest, Jobs did a lot more in his keynote presentations).
That's it. Agree/Disagree/Ignore.
(in regards to surur, what do you credibility "around here?" In a site that has been up for a week? Before you decide to slander him, post where he has said something false. Just because you disagree does not mean what he posts is not credible.)
- 07-08-2007, 10:26 PM #55
"Two, the page you linked to on Apple shows Apple's view on "charge cycle", but no one else subscribes to that defn. (that using 100% capacity. regardless of charging pattern, is a "cycle".) That was my RDF comment (although, to be honest, Jobs did a lot more in his keynote presentations)."
Um, your own reference (battery university) does describe it in exactly that way. And your contention that running a battery down from 100% to 90% and back to 100% causes the same battery degradation as running from 100% to 0% to 100% is bizarre. (Though there is some number above 0% that constitutes a "deep discharge" which is sufficient to bring about most of the same degradation as 0%. I don't know what this is for lithium-polymer batteries - I assume iphone uses lithium polymer.)
An example paper which analyed li-ion and came to around the same numbers being claimed by apple is: http://atrak.usc.edu/~massoud/Papers...red-date03.pdf (note, however, temperature effects)
As for the lack of removable/user replaceable battery, your opinion is fine, but there is no "reality distortion" involved. Apple never claimed the battery was replaceable. I also don't think apple ever stated a reason for not making the battery replaceable, so it seems unlikely they are distorting the truth about it.
As for your "to get more money out of buyers," I still say that's not true. Although we don't know the capacity of the battery (afaik - if the capacity has been revealed, let me know), based on apparent run time and comparing to phones like the treo, it appears to be at least a 3000mAH design (probably higher, since the processor runs at a higher speed and the display is bigger and probably draws more power). If so, as I showed, the price charged by Apple is, worst case, around $20-$30 more than the equivalent price of an aftermarket palm battery. At best, it's the same price. Since the data is lacking, I can't be sure, but it doesn't look to me like apple considers battery replacements a profit center. Of course, as is the theme of this thread, I provide numbers, references, and data, and you provide generalities and attempts to change the subject.
As for surur, I was referring for his penchant for the generalities of which you are so fond. Things like "The iPhone is all about style over substance" and (I am sure i misquote, but you get the gist) "apple could put their logo on a turd and morons would buy it". Oh, and on that thread you referenced: "some people are easily impressed." And, as for your "has been up for a week" nonsense, as you know this forum was part of treocentral before that, and he's been posting for awhile. In fact, I urge everyone to go look at that thread, and only read surur's little blurbs he adds for each response. You'll get the picture. But I enjoy how you went over there to tattle on me. Maybe you can get him over here to spout some more cliches with you.
- 07-09-2007, 12:14 AM #56
I never made any comment about the non-removable battery being RDF (only that it's a suck move) Again, you are saying things and looking for things which are not there.
They would not have had a "battery replacement program" ready if they knew this wasn't an issue. This is Apple milking the customer, plain and simple (but hey, no one is forcing you to buy the phone). My issue is that the battery can't last all day (at least the way I used a smartphone, and that I have to leave in in a dock to charge (effectively losing use of it) instead of being able to pop an extra battery in.
As for the 3000 mah rating, I will wait for the disectors to figure it out.
As for Apple not seeing as a profit center, don't be fooled - Apple is not dumb and sees profit center in everything.
As for Surur, he can comment if he wants. (he asserts an opinion, just like all the fanboys), As for the "been around for a week", my bad for not clarifying "the week since they moved the subforum".
I'm not tattling - you made the slanderous comment, and there was a comment in the other forum about whether or not he should post here - it was related info.
If you see it as tattling, you have something in common with Napolean.
(If this is your line of reasoning, remind me to never hire you as a lawyer).
- 07-09-2007, 12:40 AM #57
You couldn't afford me as a lawyer.
You don't think they would have a "battery replacement program" simply to satisfy critics who kept asking "what is going to happen when my battery dies?"
"I never said 100% to 90% back to 100% was a cycle (or even the same as 100% to 0%; certain batteries have certain top-off points. I really think you are trying to find something that is not there."
You said: "Remember that every time you plug in the iPhone to a power source, you are charging it. That counts as a recharge cycle."
Also, in post #18 I asked specifically about the 90->100% case, and, yes, you said you weren't sure, but did say 50->80->60 is a cycle, for example (and my point still holds. That is NOT a cycle. That is 2/10ths of a cycle.)
"As for the "been around for a week", my bad for not clarifying "the week since they moved the subforum"."
But you implied Surur had only been posting for a week, and thus he could not have a reputation for bias. My point is only that his track record exceeds a week, since it dates back into the days when this forum existed as part of treocentral.
Tattling: I am not the only one who thinks so. See the "run to mommy" quote in the other forum. That wasn't me.
Slander: First, let's just assume you are using the term in the colloquial rather than the legal sense. It ain't slander if it's true, and I pointed out several comments that clearly indicate his bias (and am happy to point out many many more, if you'd like.) Anytime anyone tries to have a conversation about any problem they may be having, where others are trying to help, Surur makes snide remarks about the intelligence of anyone who buys apple products. Do you really maintain that it is credible to believe that anyone who buys an iphone values form over function, is an ***** about technology, or is trying to impress his or her friends? Because I don't, and I don't think most people don't. (Hence those statements are not credible, and that's all I said about Surur.)
- 07-09-2007, 05:05 PM #58
Again, Apple knew this was an issue way back when they ,made the design decision - the "repalcement program" wasn't whipped up in a couple days - large companies don't move that way. This was all planned (I'm not making a judgement, just stating a fact).
Again, you try to twist words - I mention specifically that I was not sure about the 90%, which you later claimed as fact. (so you are a liar).
I gave my example of a charge cycle. (Remeber, if Apple can define one, so can I). There is some question here about charge cycle vs. used capacity per cycle; maybe this merits clarification. I know mine holds true, as I have seen it in action over the past 10 years.
If Oalveraz is your backup, you are a sad sack indeed. Again Napolean got nothing on you.
Re: Surur, you don't like his style, but again, that has nothing to do with credibility.
Obvious, you don't understand that (why I am I not surprised.
- 07-09-2007, 05:13 PM #59
can't you just go away and post on your happy little iphone-hater thread? You're really not adding anything here, and you keep posting assertions that are obviously false to anyone who reads the rest of this thread, so you're not fooling anyone.
- 07-09-2007, 05:36 PM #60
I will post wherever I please, whenever I please. You no likely, there's an ignore button.
And who knows, I may crack and get an iPhone and find it's so wonderful and that I was wrong...and I would gladly post my crow pie accordingly.
But until that day, deal with it.
Move to the next topic.
- 07-09-2007, 05:37 PM #61
- 07-09-2007, 05:47 PM #62
- 07-09-2007, 05:51 PM #63
- 07-09-2007, 05:51 PM #64
- 07-09-2007, 05:55 PM #65
- 07-09-2007, 06:03 PM #66
- 07-10-2007, 06:06 PM #67
- 07-10-2007, 07:15 PM #68
And even more audacious, unsupported comments, such as "no other manufacturer that can touch this kind of battery efficiency and battery life that Apple provides in the iPhone"
Sorry to burst your bubble - I've have two Treo batteries that I have run from 100% to empty about 700 times each (at least), and they are still doing the job.
Apple's RDF does not extend to invent new battery technology - they use what is in the market.
- 07-10-2007, 07:33 PM #69
My point is that Apple can make a battery that is a mere one quarter the size of the smallest Treo battery last twice as long as the Treo's line of longest performing battery and be driving more things in that time than any Treo every will.
You can take that to the bank.
Do you not understand what I say? I didn't say anything about battery technology, I said Apple can use batteries far more efficiently than other phone manufacturers.
- 07-10-2007, 07:44 PM #70
"My point is that Apple can make a battery that is a mere one quarter the size of the smallest Treo battery last twice as long as the Treo's line of longest performing battery and be driving more things in that time than any Treo every will. You can take that to the bank."
You say Apple makes batteries...but they don't. (I could ask why you post doo-doo like that, but I already know.)
You then say they use them "more efficiently". Two completely different things, and again, you still need to define it in terms of some baseline.
Is the iPhone the baseline? Which funtion would you like to compare? Phone? (calls/data), Wifi? Ipod? (music/video).
Please pick and let's compare, as you really don't know much about batteries or other devices on the market, as shown by your posts.
Welcome back...l I guess it only took you 11 days to get bored with your iPhone. (I'm assume you bought one, but actually, at this point, I'm not sure you have one.)
- 07-10-2007, 08:10 PM #71
I figure if Archie and you (Mikec) were stuck with me in an elevator, my head might explode.
Archie: you're a little over-the-top on the superlatives. By all accounts it's a pretty decent battery (unless you get a defective one out of the box) , but it's not the best battery ever invented, and I'm sure it's chemistry is not substantially different than any other Li-poly battery. I also don't think the OS is any more efficient than Palm OS, e.g. (and I'm happy to explain why, but no one cares). The chipset may be more power efficient, given that it is more modern, than many other phones. Altogether a nice job of engineering. But I haven't seen anything too astounding other than in comparison to Palm, which seems to have stopped their hardware engineering about 3 years ago.
For example, in my first day of use, using some wi-fi, some edge, making some calls, and generally playing around with it, the battery dropped around 80%. I think my treo would have dropped about the same percentage (but, of course, it doesn't have wi-fi.)
- 07-10-2007, 10:42 PM #72
Treo 680 = 1200mAh battery = 4 hours talk time under the very best conditions
iPhone = 3.7V = 300-400mAh = 8 hours talk time (plus the iPhone has a much larger and brighter screen and wi-fi sensing is active as noted on Apple's website)
This is embarrasing for Palm.
I'll say it again, the iPhone is doubling the length of battery life with only one quarter the battery capacity. God, help Palm.
I'm not making these specs up. They are on the websites, go look.
Soooo, read the reviews. They corroborate with Apple's estimates and some even supersede with better than published specs, like getting a whole extra hour of video playback above what Apple quotes.
True, some are not up to the specs, but those seem to be defective or early samples of the supply. Apple has exchanged them all and these reported occurances of batteries not performing as published are fading away.
- 07-10-2007, 10:54 PM #73
- 07-10-2007, 10:57 PM #74
Now why would you first choose to quote this:
"no other manufacturer that can touch this kind of battery efficiency and battery life that Apple provides in the iPhone"
and then choose to quote the entire sentance?
I have not officially asked that you stop your slandering actions but I am doing so now.
- 07-10-2007, 11:03 PM #75