Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Done, gone. who wrote (55130)	7/31/2006 6:21:52 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213185

>>Yes, a couple of months passed before the problem was published. Certainly surfaced a while before that. I mean, it had to be going on for a while before its cover was blown, don't you think?<< Michal - Well, given the difficulty of keeping any kind of secret on the Web, I'm not so sure. But I'll give it to you. Maybe "weeks" would be a better choice than "months" in describing the time it took for these batteries to manifest their defects. (Except in my case and yours, apparently.) I do think that if the batteries had been defective right out of the gate, we would have heard about it right away. Remember that battery life was one of the big question marks about these machines. If any early reviewer had found that his or her battery lasted only a few minutes before the machine shut down without warning, we would have heard about that pronto. Thus, I stand by my original point to Orion, that QA testing by Apple would not have revealed this defect. - Allen