Well, so much for DMIESSLER's credibility. If you have to stoop to this level and then post it to DIGG just to get a rise out of people there's really no reason to believe anything else you ever report.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
I'm not trying to get a rise; I'm trying to encourage conversation on the subject as it seems many have accepted that the iPhone will have a full 8 hours of talk time.
Also, keep in mind that I'm getting an iPhone on the day it gets released. ;)
CarlM
· 2 years ago
You're accusing Apple of lying about a product spec. If they did that they'd lose all credibility. They are not stupid and I too am stunned that you would give a rumor like that one thecredibility you're giving it.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
Ok, maybe I'm wacko. That's a possibility. All I'm saying is that I smell something foul. I hope I'm wrong, but I was wondering if anyone else had similar feelings.
Evidently not. :)
Tim F.
· 2 years ago
Jesus Christ! Note to self: don't ever second-guess the almighty Apple Inc. on your blog. Stick with Microsoft. People hate Microsoft.
CarlM
· 2 years ago
That wasn't my point! If he had taken a Microsoft press release that said that they were improving the battery life of something to X hours and somehow concluded that something was fishy, I'd have celled him on that too.
I'd not have commented if he had said "hmm .. their original surface must have been awful prone to scratches for them to suddenly switch to high quality glass this close to the release date." That seems to me to be a plausible reading of the press release. Or even "hmm .. perhaps there was something to the rumors that the battery life wasn't all that great .. I'm glad to see that they've decided to address the problem BEFORE releasing the thing."
I just don't understand how one can take a press release listing improvements in a product as somehow being evidence that something is fishy. That's the part I find puzzling. I realized after I hit "Submit" that it sounded like I was being overprotective of Apple. I'd have said the same about ANY company with a good reputation. When a (reasonably trustworthy) company issues a press release listing a set of improved specs for a product, I don't see any way that this can be taken as evidence that the product will be significantly worse than the specs claim. Again, in this case -- since they are improving a product that hadn't even been released yet, one COULD take it as meaning that there were issues that needed to be addressed immediately: that is, before version 2 of the product. Actually, Daniel, as I reread your post, I think that perhaps this is what you were trying to say .. but used "it's" to mean "it WAS" when we poor readers read it as "it IS." If you meant "it WAS insanely short" then .. well .. NEVERMIND. :) (Though in that case you can take this as an object lesson in the use of ambiguous contractions.)
... speaking of blogs ... I wonder if I could get a blog attached to my personal web page at school .. and have it conform to the style of the university pages. If only I had a workshop/lab to attend on Thursday afternoon.
CarlM
· 2 years ago
arrrrgh ... "called him ..."
Tyler
· 2 years ago
was the mispelling of "mierda del toro" on purpose?
No, it was not. And I'm nearly fluent in Spanish, too. :(
John A
· 2 years ago
I have had an iphone since it came out and I can tell you it is going back because of the battery life. I turned my phone on at 7:30 AM and was scrambling for a charger by 4:00 PM and that was very light use.
All Comments
Also, keep in mind that I'm getting an iPhone on the day it gets released. ;)
Evidently not. :)
I'd not have commented if he had said "hmm .. their original surface must have been awful prone to scratches for them to suddenly switch to high quality glass this close to the release date." That seems to me to be a plausible reading of the press release. Or even "hmm .. perhaps there was something to the rumors that the battery life wasn't all that great .. I'm glad to see that they've decided to address the problem BEFORE releasing the thing."
I just don't understand how one can take a press release listing improvements in a product as somehow being evidence that something is fishy. That's the part I find puzzling. I realized after I hit "Submit" that it sounded like I was being overprotective of Apple. I'd have said the same about ANY company with a good reputation. When a (reasonably trustworthy) company issues a press release listing a set of improved specs for a product, I don't see any way that this can be taken as evidence that the product will be significantly worse than the specs claim. Again, in this case -- since they are improving a product that hadn't even been released yet, one COULD take it as meaning that there were issues that needed to be addressed immediately: that is, before version 2 of the product. Actually, Daniel, as I reread your post, I think that perhaps this is what you were trying to say .. but used "it's" to mean "it WAS" when we poor readers read it as "it IS." If you meant "it WAS insanely short" then .. well .. NEVERMIND. :) (Though in that case you can take this as an object lesson in the use of ambiguous contractions.)
... speaking of blogs ... I wonder if I could get a blog attached to my personal web page at school .. and have it conform to the style of the university pages. If only I had a workshop/lab to attend on Thursday afternoon.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mierda del torro&btnG=Google Search