Genuine question, no sarcasm tag required: How do those who berate Apple's walled-garden approach feel about games consoles? It genuinely puzzles me why we don't hear nearly so many complaints about the lack of open access to consoles, while a similar (to my mind; feel free to put me right) approach to a phone is evil.
As for the exploit that makes this jailbreaking possible, I sympathize with people who wish to jailbreak their phone, but I hope this particular exploit is closed as soon as possible. I've heard there are some unscrupulous types in tha intarweb who might consider using such a thing for less than altruistic purposes.
OK, maybe a touch of sarcasm after all.
So..let me get this straight,
In order to even *use* an iPad, you're required to have some form of wi-fi or AT&T Wireless service?
No; you need 3G or wi-fi in order to use any of its network features like web-browsing, but you can use it just fine in isolation. I took mine on holiday recently, where the hotel had wi-fi available on a per-hour charge. I used it for e-book reading and watched some pre-loaded films/TV, and periodically logged into the hotel wi-fi for e-mail/news etc. Can't say I've tried dropping mine, but it doesn't seem fragile from the use I've had of it; sometimes you can be unlucky with near any device, in terms of how it falls and if it had a manufacture defect (I had a friend manage to crack the screen on a supposedly unbreakable phone through an innocuous looking fall). It's not a work-device, but I replaced my old knackered laptop for the iPad as I would've spent a similar amount on a new laptop, but decided I really didn't want another work-device; I spend too much of my days working with computers, and a recreational wi-fi based device fits my needs just fine. If you want a more serious device, it's probably not for you. As for the article itself, I don't think I fall neatly into the characterizaton described, but what the hey, a statistical trend isn't the same as a rule.
[...]
I'm not the one purporting to have an experience opposite to what most people are reporting.
[...]
You didn't provide any evidence, what you provided was an anecdote which is contrary to the position of actual evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
Wow - are you aware that you wrote both of those sentences in the same post? Really? And just how long did it take you to read the reports of over 1,500,000 iPhone 4 users?
To be perfectly honest, I don't care what phone you use. In fact, I don't even care much what the (phone) antenna performance on my own iPhone is, since I rarely even use it as a phone, and the wi-fi works just fine. What I do care about is science, and evidence-based conclusions. And frankly people on both sides of the argument have been kicking the crap out of the science, in favour of whatever conclusion they'd prefer to reach. Rarely, though, will you see someone so self-unaware as to preach the importance of evidence while simultaneously paying it no regard, as you managed with this post.
I mean we've even seen Techcrunch run a story from a so-called expert gave a financial justification for predicting that Apple would announce a thin non-conducting coating fix at their press conference! As though the physics of whether or not it would help was unimportant!
This is Slashdot people— we're supposed to be science-geeks; let's start acting like it!
(OK - last sentence was slightly tongue in cheek, but I meant the rest of it)
But nowhere in there have they said they will stop the offer on that date. The offer runs to at least the 30th of September. Anything else is speculation dressed up as fact. If you can't distinguish one from the other, you are in no position to judge.
Put another way, my point is valid regardless of whether I love or hate Apple. It is objectively true and based in fact. Your post is utterly steeped in biased subjectivity and supposition.
Well, a clear epoxy coating on the antenna would have fixed this poor design inexpensively. That's still within the laws of physics, isn't it?
No - that's resistance in a DC circuit that you're thinkng of. On an AC antenna it's impedance you need, and as that varies inversely with frequency, at phone frequencies you'd need a pretty specialist high impedance (low dielectric constant) coating, should a viable such exist (that I don't know; Anandtech tested with a specialist tape, and it helped---perhaps enough to bring it in line with other phones, but didn't eliminate it entirely, even wearing rubber gloves.).
You can read more about it in a post on my own (hobby - I don't stand to gain from hits) blog.
More likely that it was because THIN TRANSPARENT COATING DOESN'T HELP!!!
Sellotape doesn't help. Duct tape doesn't help. Insulating tape helps a little, but not enough to bother with. Impedance != resistance, and impedance varies inversely with frequency.
Apologies for shouting, but it's time this old wives' tale went to bed.
Too much nonsense here to be worth replying to it all, but one sentence jumped out at me while scrolling past: "It's his stated reason for stopping the giveaway of bumpers by 9/30."
You claim people aren't lying about him, while lying right there. He at no time said they were stopping the giveaway by 9/30. He said that they would give them away until that date, at which point they'd re-evaluate. To twist that into your version shows beyond doubt that you are incapable of passing objective comment. If you had any credibility it wenr up in smoke right there.
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.