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: GVTucker who wrote (68795)	9/18/2007 9:42:34 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

shall we believe they went with it because it was the best , more profitable deal for them. like % of telephone income?

To: GVTucker who wrote (68795)	9/18/2007 1:26:32 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213177

>>The excuse Apple gave here stateside was that they didn't use 3G because it wasn't widely deployed. The excuse they gave in the UK is that they didn't use 3G because it is a power hog. They couldn't use the "widely deployed" excuse over there because EDGE is the technology that isn't widely deployed.<< GVT - That just isn't true. In interviews around the time the iPhone was released here, Steve Jobs said power consumption was the main problem with 3G. Your take on this is rather funny to me. Do you think Apple doesn't want to make a 3G iPhone? Don't you think they'd do it if it were feasible at all? What possible reason would they have to just make excuses instead? Yes, I do realize that other companies are making 3G phones, but they aren't making ones that also have large, power hungry touch-screen displays and very fast processors. Engineering always involves trade-offs. In the case of the iPhone, Apple has had to trade 3G for longer battery life. - Allen