* Posts by DZ-Jay

938 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Apr 2007

Page:

Apple coughs to iPhone 3G IOS 4 upgrade problems

DZ-Jay

To be fair

Recent analysis shows that the accelerator problem could have occurred mostly due to driver error:

http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/07/13/breaking-data-says-toyota-recalls-could-have-been-due-to-driver-error/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703834604575364871534435744.html?mod=WSJ_business_LeadStoryCollection

This is not to say there were no flaws, but that their guilt and intentions were perhaps grossly misrepresented. Once again this shows that mass-hysteria, and a gullible media fond of reading Internet blogs, are a recipe for misinformation and exaggeration.

-dZ.

UK privacy watchdog clears Google Wi-Fi slurp

DZ-Jay

Not easily linked to an individual?

As I understand it, based on the published analysis of the code, the payload data was tied to the GPS coordinates, which was also tied to the MAC address and SSID of such payload. How is this not "easily linked to an individual"?

-dZ.

Apple posts Magic Trackpad drivers for Windows

DZ-Jay

Re: Not that I want one of these

I suspect that Apple is not so much limiting its use to Mac hardware only, as they are just implementing drivers for the only hardware platform for which they have control and interest.

That is, someone *could* make drivers for other computers, Apple just doesn't care too much to do so.

-dZ.

Location-based Web2.0rhea not an epidemic

DZ-Jay

I've never heard of them either...

I guess I'm too old (in the 35-40 years-old range).

Well, actually, I heard a friend mention "Foursquare" in relation to a dinner date, though I never quite understood what he meant. He said something about "checking in at your destination" and I asked, "why?" to which he responded with a blank stare.

He's not so much into the Web-Two-Point-Oh-Social-Networking-And-Badgers clan, as he is into the Lets-Get-Rich-Quick-By-Making-A-Web-Site-That-Exploits-All-The-Latest-Buzz-So-That-It'll-Be-Eventually-Bought-By-Google-Yay! crowd.

-dZ.

The Wrath of Jobs' latest victim: Motorola

DZ-Jay

Re: Well

@Vitty P.

Yes, because my comment is overflowing with Apple praise and not contempt for Kode's comment.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@kode

Really? Wow.

Read the comments in this forum. There's only ONE SINGLE comment out of 11 (so far) that does not insult Apple. And that AC is not so much defending Apple but just pointing out the pettiness of the articles accusations in a dismissive way.

In Ars Technica, Slashdot, and other tech sites I see the same thing: most are commentards insulting Apple and saying how evil they are, the rest is a mish-mash of comments like yours along the lines of "cue the fanbois".

Where exactly are all these "devote followers" that "see it like a reason to act the same in the forums and in the comments, repeating Apple's PR and lies"?

-dZ.

Mozilla tames Firefox tab monster with Candy

DZ-Jay

*whoosh*

Das ist alles.

38 states grill Google on three-year Wi-Fi slurp

DZ-Jay

@jtaylor

>> "Is there a "data is good" kind of pack-rat culture that just retains any data as long as possible, without any specific intention?"

I think this is the most likely scenario. I can say from experience that once an organization discovers how to monetize information previously thought useless (e.g. customer shopping habits, names, e-mail addresses, etc.), they suddenly become obsessed with storing every single piece of data that can be collected, "just in case" it can be utilized in the future.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@AC

You obviously do not know how Wi-Fi networks work and what "broadcast" means.

Let's simplify things a bit:

- In order for a Wi-Fi network to communicate, it must send a signal over the air.

- This exposes the signal to any device around.

- If you do not want to broadcast the signal to devices outside your network, you cannot stop broadcasting the signal, for this will prevent your own network from receiving it.

So what happens when you do not want uninvited devices to participate in your network?

- The 802.11 protocol provides for this by allowing the router to mark communication packets with a "broadcast flag" indicating the intention.

- All devices listening in are expected to discard communications that has the broadcast flag set to "do not broadcast", unless the destination address (also contained in the packet header) is its own.

What about secure networks?

- Since the information necessary to understand and decrypt the communications needs to be seen before decrypting, all packet headers are not encrypted.

- The packet headers of communications intended to be encrypted, include a "secure flag" indicating this intention.

- All other information commonly in the header (including sender, destination, SSID, MAC address, and broadcast flag) is still available there, unencrypted.

So what did Google do then?

- They ignored the "broadcast flag" of all packet headers and analysed and catalogued their information, and linked it to the current GPS coordinates of the StreetView car.

- They ignored the "secure flag" of all packet headers, and did the same thing to headers intended for secure networks.

- They furthermore stored the payload of packets not marked with the secure flag, while discarding those which were encrypted.

As you can see, it is not true that "people obviously wanted anyone within 100 feet or so to have that information", because even when people clearly *DID NOT* want to--by setting the broadcast flag to "do not broadcast"--Google still scanned and stored the MAC address, the SSIDs, and all header information.

Hopefully this will clear things up.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@Steven Knox

It is just an assumption, based on what is know so far: Google themselves have acknowledged that their StreetView car scanned airways for *all* SSID and MAC addresses in order to map their global Wi-Fi network. This was never in dispute by anybody. Furthermore, this was confirmed by the research that explained what the scanning code actually did. I'm not referring specifically to the current scandal of storing unencrypted packet payloads; the storing of all packet headers--for secure networks or not--indisputably occurred.

So, the implication is that if the StreetView car mapped your location, and your Wi-Fi signal extended beyond your physical walls, your network information was tracked and linked to your GPS coordinates by Google.

I found a picture of my house in Google Maps, therefore I can conclude that their StreetView car already passed by my neighborhood, and thus scanned the airways around here.

I did not consent to this. I have written to them and have yet to receive a response.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@deive

I have a real issue with #1: I set my wireless router to *not* announce my SSID, and to transmit in a secure network. This unambiguously expresses my desire to *not* broadcast and my expectations of privacy.

The 802.11 protocol works in such a way that the broadcast flag is to be used as an indication to acknowledge broadcast or not--it cannot actually prevent broadcast, or else you won't be able to establish communications within your network. Therefore, the packet headers always contain this information, but they are marked so as routers outside the intended destinations ignore it. That is the nature of the technology.

To abuse this by saying "well, we found it over the air, it means that it was 'broadcast', so its public and it must be OK," is just wrong.

How can you not understand that this is a reasonable objection?

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@OmniCitadel

That is very true. However, the iPhone and iPod Touch will *only* gather your SSID and MAC address and add it to the database if you consent to using "Location Based Services."

In the case of Google, I did not consent to anything. I do not use Google's services either. Moreover, I set my base station to *not* broadcast the SSID and to use a secure network, both explicitly indicating my expectation of privacy, and yet I still was catalogued in Google's database.

-dZ.

PARIS skins up with Rizlas and dope

DZ-Jay

Printer paper?

Won't it add too much weight to the air(paper)craft? My guess is that you already took this into consideration, so I'm curious to know how are you managing the design trade-offs (if any) to account for the paper and glue covering?

-dZ.

Nokia latest to feel wrath of Jobs

DZ-Jay

Re: Not convinced

>> "The problem is not dropping bars, although that can happen with other phones, it's dropping calls and connecting two antennas together by holding the phone normally."

True, very true. But as AnandTech and others have pointed out, the iPhone 4 is able to *maintain* or at least support reasonable call quality even at very low power levels.

So, the problem, as you suggest, is the dropping of the calls. However, it is not necessarily bridging the two antennae together, unless this causes the signal to drop to a point where communication cannot be maintained--which in most cases the iPhone 4 seems to *not* do.

In such light, a phone which goes into power-saving mode when signal strength goes very low and cuts communication would not be better than a phone which can maintain communications at such power levels (and lower)--even if inducing the signal attenuation is easier.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Third party to carry out these tests

Sure. How about the myriad bloggers and YouTubers out there posting comments and videos with the same results?

Surely these are as legitimate now as others were when the media used them as undeniable "proof" of an iPhone 4 problem?

-dZ.

Apple 'stunned' by iProduct demand

DZ-Jay

Right.

Jobs: "I have an idea on how to make more money... Let's, you know, *not* sell anything!!!"

"It'll be great, I tell you! People will line out to, er, *not* buy our products! And the demand will be so large, and the less we sell, the more demand there will be! So, let's NOT SELL ANYTHING! Woo-hoo! Moneh!!"

-dZ.

Apple iPad – the 'Tickle Me Elmo' of 2010

DZ-Jay

@I ain't Spartacus

Sorry for saying "mind-share" comment; I've been too long surrounded by corporate wienies.

Anyway, I don't think the USB port is an issue, specially with the digital camera hook-up kit, which basically allows for any USB device to get connected (but, more importantly, the ever important digital camera).

As for not being able to replace their PC, I know some people for whom the iPad has done just that. Oh, they still own the PC, they just tend to not use it anymore.

My parents are looking to purchase iPads for their grandchildren (my sister's kids). My Mother, specifically, saw one at the Apple store and fell in love with it, yet was confused when she heard comments from friends (non-iPad owners all of them) saying pretty much the same thing you did: It's pretty, but it doesn't do anything that your computer doesn't do already, so it's just a waste of money.

She then called me and I asked her to list the things she uses the computer for: browsing the web (for recipes and online tabloids, of course), online banking, and amazon purchases. That's it. (The grandkids play video games on the computer when they visit, too). I told her that those exact things she can do with an iPad, from the couch, easier and better. Plus e-books (which she was considering looking into), and video games for the grandkids, plus--remember that nifty electronic photo frame you got for Mother's day with the pictures of the kids? that too!

That, and her own experience at the Apple store convinced her. She has a Mac Mini at home, so she's already accustomed to using iTunes, so that won't be a problem.

I hear much the same comments from at least one non-techie lady at the office. She purchased an iPad with trepidation after being told by many people "what's the point? you already have a laptop", and discovered what others have: that it is indeed easier and better than doing those things on the PC, and much more fun. She loves it, and talks to all her friends about it.

Make no mistake, this thing is going to take off, big!

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@digstar

>> "The only thing she can't do on the ipad is watch dvds, everything else and an ipad is perfect."

My wife has an iPad and she uses it for almost everything--except for playing WoW.

Regarding DVDs, we use Netflix and can stream movies from their site. Also, there's a nifty app called "Air Video" which streams anything from your computer through Wi-Fi, including DVDs!

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@I ain't Spartacus

My experience is similar, though with slight differences. My family, friends, and co-workers who have seen an iPad for the first time typically react in much the same way as you described: "ooh, it's so pretty and futuristic! but what can I do with it? Oh, I already have a laptop/computer/pda/phone/etc."

However, in conversations, it comes up that (being laymen) most of what they use a personal computer can be accomplished on the iPad. Indeed, some have even ventured to purchase one only to come back the next week to extol all the wonderful things that they did during the week-end, while sitting on their couch--and didn't even had to boot-up their PC! These comments are bandied around for a few weeks, and eventually others catch on.

So far a handful of them have bought iPads, but they all the device. I hear their stories of how they use it for simple things, like web browsing and photo management, which is exactly what they used their computers for in the past.

I tell you, a few months of these types of comments going around, and most everybody will end up buying one. At first with trepidation, not knowing what it can offer, but as the mind-share expands into the mainstream, people will just check it out.

It will be big, mark my words.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Android Fridge?

It's more like AdMob on your eggs drawer.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@uhuznaa

That's freaking hilarious! And so true.

I tip my hat to you, sir!

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Why yes we do...

One can only hope, right? It must be surreal, to lust so passionately for the downfall of others.

In other news, imminent demise of Apple announced, movie at 11.

-dZ.

1984's MacPaint source code hits web

DZ-Jay

Ah! MacPaint, how I loved thee

The father of one of my neighbors, and best friend of my youth, Dennis, worked as a sales manager for Xerox and always seemed to stay on top of the highest technology. I remember when one fine day Dennis' father came home with the most spectacular and beautiful thing I'd ever seen until then: A Macintosh computer.

Our only experience with computers so far was our very own Commodore 64's, and our various friends' assortment of Apple II's, TRS-80's, and even Dennis' dad's previous IBM Personal Computer.

I remember how I spent hours on that Macintosh, most of the time just staring at it. I did school reports, comic strips, and even an attempt at a nifty looking newsletter.

Of all the things I may have done, I specifically remember MacPaint; how easy, beautiful and fun it was. In retrospect, Dennis' parents must have been very tolerant, for I distinctly remember spending hours without end, even staying late most nights, just playing with that little machine; while Dennis himself was just watching TV, playing with his other toys, or maybe even out of the house!

The one thing that has remained in my mind thereafter, and is as clear today as it was then, was the unyielding and overwhelming feeling that THIS--that seemingly simple and unassuming appliance, with its graphical user interface, strange rodent controller, and beautiful form and function--was, indeed, THE FUTURE.

Gosh, what fond memories. Thanks, El Reg, for bringing them back.

-dZ.

Google image search gets facelift

DZ-Jay

Bingle?

So, when the ridicule died down, Google actually is redesigning its site to look more like Bing? First the helper search pane, and now images.

-dZ.

Apple details privacy policies for US Congressmen

DZ-Jay

Re: So opt out yadda yadda...

If by "turn it completely off" you mean "opt out of location-based services for iAds", then you are right. If you mean "turn off location-based services in general for the entire device", then you are wrong.

Apple provides an opt-out mechanism specifically for iAds. No, you may not opt-out from location-tracking for specific ads, just for ads in general.

By the way, when you opt-out of location-based services for iAds, you still get the ads; just not targeted ones.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@Real Name

Wow! That's nice...

I'm very curious to know what the heck that pop-up means. Can anybody elucidate?

-dZ.

Gizmodo editor reunited with seized goods

DZ-Jay

Wait, what??

Are you claiming that the quoted statute is not real? May I remind you that your comment was:

>> >> "Your wrong. California law says you can not sell lost property ."

>>

>> A) Cite me chapter & verse of said law. Seems to me that schools (and police departments!) routinely sell off lost property here in The Golden State ...

And so I did. Your comment was a response to a comment by Kain Preacher who claimed that it was a mere "moral" obligation and not legal.

Here's another "chapter & verse" for you:

California Civil Code § 2080.5. Authority to sell:

"The police department or sheriff's department may sell such property by public auction, in the manner and upon the notice of sale of personal property under execution, if it is a thing which is commonly the subject of sale, when the owner cannot, with reasonable diligence, be found, or, being found, refuses upon demand to pay the lawful charges[...]"

So it is only legal for the police department or the sheriff to sell, not the finder.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

@Jake

Ha! Ha! So easy:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485

CAL. PEN. CODE § 485 : California Code - Section 485:

"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."

I just searched in Google for the following terms, "california law lost goods stolen." The first handful of results gave the proper answer. Idiot.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Yes. Yes theft.

Except that there are specific city ordinances that recognize the areas encompassing Silicon Valley as a place where high-technology is invented and tested, and so it is very susceptible to corporate espionage. Thus, there exists local laws which are very much influenced by corporate entities, not just Apple.

If you followed the story from real journalist, you'd been aware that the search warrant was issued lawfully, even if it were only discussed by a very small group. The police was not doing a favor to Apple so much as they were favouring Tech Corporations in general.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Not stolen property

Actually, it is the law, not just a "moral obligation." If you find someone's dropped wallet in the street, it is up to you whether you do the *legal* thing and give it back or pocket it. If the owner eventually finds out that you kept the wallet even though you knew it did not belong to you, and that you had no intention of returning it, you may get arrested.

You see, you are not obligated to take responsibility of it, but if you do, you must then endeavor in a reasonable manner to find the owner, including reporting the goods to the local police or sheriff.

Here, learn about how we really live in the Human World:

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stuscacivil_2080_2082.htm#s2080

Here are some relevant bits:

"If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it."

"The police department or sheriff's department may sell such property by public auction, in the manner and upon the notice of sale of personal property under execution, if it is a thing which is commonly the subject of sale, when the owner cannot, with reasonable diligence, be found"

Here's another interesting one:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485

CAL. PEN. CODE § 485 : California Code - Section 485:

"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."

Just because something "feels right" in your head does not make it true.

-dZ.

Steve Jobs death-grips iPhone 4 reality

DZ-Jay

@AC

>> "Whilst I can drop a single bar on my non-iPhone there is no way I can drop 80% of the signal with a single poke."

Neither can you in the iPhone 4, or did you not pay attention to the problem calculating the "bars" meter? The drop is for -24dBm, which is significant, but hardly "80% of the signal".

-dZ.

Steve Jobs denies Judas Phone antenna problems

DZ-Jay

Re: yes 1% more calls

Let's, like you did, round the calls dropped by the i4 drops to just 1 more call per 100 than the i3GS:

If i3GS drops 10 calls per 100 (10%), the i4 drops 11 calls per 100 (11%). That's 1% more.

If i3GS drops 5 calls per 100 (5%), the i4 drops 6 calls per 100 (6%). That's 1% more.

If i3GS drops 1 calls per 100 (1%), the i4 drops 2 calls per 100 (2%). That's 1% more.

If the i3GS drops .1 calls per 100 (0.10%), the i4 drops 1.1 calls per 100 (1.10%). That's 1% more.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Do you know what "percent" mean?

1 call dropped per 100 = 1% drop rate.

2 call dropped per 100 = 2% drop rate.

One more call dropped per 100 than the previous generation means that the new phone has a drop rate 1% higher.

Yes, 2% is twice as much than 1%, but it is still twice as much of a very low amount. Get some perspective.

So, if the call drop rate of the previous phone is very low (say, 1% or less), then the call drop rate of the new phone is just a tad higher (2%). And if the call drop rate of the previous phone is very high (say, 50%), then the call drop rate of the new phone is just a tag higher (51%).

It all means that the call drop rate of the iPhone 4 is not such a great deviation from the previous one. And even when it is (2% = twice as higher!) it is still pretty low.

>> "Somehow, I suspect the first case is what's happening, or something close, so the rise is dropped calls is probably highly significant."

Right. "I hate Apple so much that the worst case scenario must be the only possible one, even though I had no idea what the real numbers are."

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Brilliant Press yadda yadda

I keep reading these types of comments. Explain to me something, how is "less than one per hundred" different than "less than one percent"?

Do you know that the "cent" in "per cent" means "hundred"?

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Let's get this straight...

Check out the video of the presentation. Jobs doesn't say that the bumper case corrects "the problem". He said something to the effect that, "some people are unhappy because they are experiencing reception problems. They say that a bumper case will fix their problems [he was most likely referring to AnandTech and Consumer Reports]. Great! Have a free bumper case and be happy."

-dZ.

Our Vulture 1 aircraft begins to take shape

DZ-Jay

Amazing!

She's looking very nice, Lester!

I can't wait for the next installment.

-dZ.

iPhone 4 developers get software update, but will it fix death grip?

DZ-Jay

@AC

>> "(one that isn't really the antenna and is fixed by the patch and the death grip which Consumer Reports scientifically proved is a real hardware issue)"

I saw it on the Internetz, so it must be true--and scientific!

-dZ.

Apple iPhone forums gripped by deleted thread paranoia

DZ-Jay

Just curious

How is the CR report related to "support" for Apple, especially on a post supposedly to ask or answer a question?

-dZ.

El Reg marks Steve Jobs for termination

DZ-Jay

Title

Just don't read The Register. It's not a big deal.

Oh, and get a life, mine's fine.

-Steve

--

Sent from my iPhone

New dinosaur dubbed 'Mojoceratops' - 'over a few beers'

DZ-Jay

Oh gawd.

Science, by the Twitter generation.

I weep for the future.

-dZ.

Apple ads to target your iTunes history

DZ-Jay

Re: Non identifiable

To be clear, the information *shared* is "non-identifiable". Apple does *collect* this identifying information and ties it to your account. The issue is with sharing. The difference between this and other "loyalty" cards is that in the latter, *all* information--identifying or not--is shared with advertisers.

This is not to say that collecting such information is good or in the interest of the consumer. I hate that. But its usage is clearly different than the industry standard, which I hate substantially more.

Another thing to note is that the "opt-out" feature of iOS 4 is to opt-out from *receiving* the targeted ads. This says nothing regarding the actual information collected. They may still collect the information (and I'm pretty sure they do), but they will give you generic ads instead.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Jeez

Plus, as someone else mentioned above, you can easily opt out of targeted ads by visiting;

http://oo.apple.com

from your iOS 4 device.

You will still get ads, but not based on your history. How is this any worse than AdMob?

-dZ.

Apple's iPhone 4 denial: insulting or ignorant?

DZ-Jay

Re: Sorry, no again

Attenuation is the effect of lowering signal strength, whether by an expected factor or by a "lossy" condition. You are right, there is a difference between the the latter two, but the effect of both is, indeed, attenuation of the signal.

There is a physical attribute of any material which will result in attenuation, and the magnitude of it can be reliably measured. Just like there is a physical attribute of matter which results in friction. You won't find a physicist claiming that "friction is a physical attribute of matter," but that matter does have a physical attribute, called the coefficient of friction, which results in a measurable magnitude of resistance.

Likewise, "attenuation" is the physical effect of an attribute of a conductive material which measurably reduces signal strength.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Curious

>> "Anyone got an explanation for this phenomenon?"

Yes, it's not true. Read the posts, and count them: the overwhelming majority are just critical bashing. There may be a handful just stating "it works for me," which is hardly "defend[ing] them to the last ditch." Then there's a significant amount of those, like yours, who just like to remark things like "cue the fanbois," in spite of their absence.

This is consistent with any other forum on which Apple products or actions are discussed.

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Really?

"Millions of dollars, a gathering legal storm, and the reputation of Apple, its executives, and its design and engineering teams hang in the balance."

I don't think Jobs nor his engineers are losing any sleep over this.

-dZ.

Apple denies iPhone 4 antenna glitch, blames inaccurate signal bars

DZ-Jay

How?

How are AnandTech's conclusion's different? As far as I can tell, they are the same:

- The "bars" meter is flawed.

- 5 bars encompasses up 40% of signal loss (read: not accurate as "maximum strength" metric).

- Attenuation does occur, like with any other phone, when held in a special way.

- Even when attenuation does occur, and it may be more marked than other phones, signal quality is better than with other phones, and so the net effect is mitigated.

DZ-Jay

Re: Yeah, but butt...

>> "but if you read further you see that they tested the absolute variation in signal strength due to hand contact, and it was worse on this than the competition."

Yes, but AnandTech also said that at lower signal strength (like those experienced after the attenuation provided by bridging the antennae) it performed better than others. That at -113 dBm (one bar) it still was able to maintain calls and data transmissions of acceptable quality, while previous generations would inevitably drop the call.

Here's the relevant passage:

"From my day of testing, I've determined that the iPhone 4 performs much better than the 3GS in situations where signal is very low, at -113 dBm (1 bar). Previously, dropping this low all but guaranteed that calls would drop, fail to be placed, and data would no longer be transacted at all. I can honestly say that I've never held onto so many calls and data simultaneously on 1 bar at -113 dBm as I have with the iPhone 4, so it's readily apparent that the new baseband hardware is much more sensitive compared to what was in the 3GS. The difference is that reception is massively better on the iPhone 4 in actual use."

-dZ.

DZ-Jay

Re: Except...

>> "Except.. that it doesn't explain why the phones actually lose service altogether."

Because, for the majority, they don't. A lot of those "evidence" videos in YouTube show how it goes from 5 to 1 bars when clutched in the special way. Nobody is not disputing that the signal strength is affected, but that the meter makes it seem more dramatic than it really is.

A lot of reviews, including AnandTech, have confirmed that even at lower strength, the iPhone performs better than previous generations. This explains why, even with such a marked attenuation, it still is an improvement.

-dZ.

Apple iPhone 4

DZ-Jay

Great review

Thanks, Mr. Smith, for your fair review. However, I find one thing confusing: You spend six and a half pages of an eight page review extolling the virtues of the iPhone 4, explaining how each of the new features are so well implemented and some an improvement over the previous generation; yet at the end, your verdict throws all that away and seems to focus on all the flaws.

I'm not suggesting that it has no flaws, only that if these flaws are such a deal breaker, why not spend some effort in explaining them in a bit more depth, at least in balance and contrast to the rest of the article.

I'm curious to know, if the new features work so well, and the core functionality is much improved, and if you claim that you haven't experienced call-dropping issues yourself (as also others); why would the vociferous but anecdotal claims of some change the value of the device?

Thank you much for your review,

-dZ.

Mozilla submits browserless Firefox to Jobsian app police

DZ-Jay

@Lionel Baden

>> "But the fact that apple piss on so many developers if they checked their nuts were still attached and not owned by apple by sneak T+C's they would stop developing for them."

That would be true, except that history says differently. Developers, partners, computer manufacturers, media companies, et al have shown a remarkable ability to endure in the face of abuse and oppression from a single company, if that company is perceived to be in control. Case in point, Microsoft and it's previous wont of influencing and controlling the OEM distribution of desktop operating systems.

This happens over and over. There is money to be made, there is an established market, and so, as the saying goes, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Doubly so, if such market is considered a long term strategy for future growth and profit. Apparently, the App Store is regarded as such. Hence, money before principles.

If all this sounds a bit hypocritical, that's not a coincidence.

-dZ.

Page: