how-to block ads
|
BuriedCaesar
It's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to gust334
Re: Insufficient Data
Yeah - so this means that ALL of the details are suspect and not worth noting and purely speculative and based on hearsay and well, not worth spit at this point.
Kinda like trying to read a book without picking it up and opening the cover and then trying to "guess" how it will end based on the cover title...
"Yup - it's got words - and lots of 'em, but not enough to justify the cost. However, we haven't read it yet, so this is just an estimate."
Bogus.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
gust334
join:2002-05-09
Gilbert, AZ
 ·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
| said by BuriedCaesar  :Yeah - so this means that ALL of the details are suspect and not worth noting and purely speculative and based on hearsay and well, not worth spit at this point. Sorry, I think you're unclear on the concept. No reputable tear-down firm would risk their reputation on making up random internals.
There are lots of avenues for such firms to find out what is inside a device, even one not yet offered for general sale. A great example of a legal one are the public disclosures including internal photos required (?) by the FCC for type approval before a device can be sold or imported in the USA.
Within about two minutes of random clicking on the FCC site, I found photos of the inside of several phones that clearly show individual components (you can almost read the device values). The photos show various stages of assembly/disassembly, front and back, including the PCBs with the RF shields removed.
For a particular Sharp brand phone, they were in convenient PDF form, no less.
Presuming Apple has applied for FCC type approval (not an unreasonable presumption?) then it seems plausible that someone saavy to the FCC type approval process could probably find pictures of the disassembled phone.
Then there's the whole area of industrial spies, etc. Not going to go there.
Without having an exemplar in hand, it is hard to judge things that cannot be easily detected from the picture... for example, how machined a piece of metal is, how many forming operations were required, how many layers in a thin-film connector, etc. Those are good reasons for such a disclaimer by the tear-down firm.
said by BuriedCaesar :Bogus. Not.  | |
BuriedCaesar
It's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Yahoo
| Thanks for the explanation, and I'll retract my "bogus" statement. However, until that "someone" can say they actually tore apart a working model rather than work from photos or making educated guesses as to what's inside, I'll choose to remain highly skeptical of any claims made as to estimated cost of manufacture.
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
BuriedCaesar
It's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to gust334
I know this thread is pretty stale, but just couldn't pass this up... anyone care to take a look?
»www.informationweek.com/news/sho···97001269
Looks to me like things are starting to become more clear, and the original "estimate" might just, in some small way, be, oh, a teensy bit inaccurate, and of course, they can always conveniently fall back on their "disclaimers".
If this is borne out, then I guess I can choose to chalk this report up to the good ol' reliable FUD machine and a desire by an outfit to generate a website hit burst and try to cash in on the early buzz.
(Sometimes getting the scoop mean you might get a scoop of something you didn't intend to pick up, and it turns out to really stink once you get closer to it...)
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? | |
|
