(Posts: 303; Member since: 02 Nov 2010)
Sounds like a legit excuse.
(Posts: 417; Member since: 15 Apr 2010)
"...might just be a coverup..."...you guys kill me. A company with a reputation about being completely OCD about battery life and performance with its core products issues a statement so obvious, you guys are doubting it? It's okay to be cynical, but at least let it be a two way street - Wall Street analysts have been making all sorts of left-field guesses in the wireless sector for years with a not-so-stellar record for being correct, yet the entire blogosphere repeats that trash without a second's thought.
These analysts that are "industry experts" are so good that, "battery life is so bad [on a beta unit] that they might have to re-engineer it" ??? ...analysts so good they don't know how to account for units in T-E-S-T-I-N-G versus production ready? In fact, they barely account for such a possibility...*facepalm*
But on the same front, RIM was also OCD about making pretty solid phones that rarely crashed or had problems...up until the Blackberry Storm, Storm 2, Tour, and Torch came out. Then all of a sudden, there were battery issues and even software and hardware issues with the phone. At this point, I could completely believe that there is a battery issue. But I also don't think the model that developers have is the final model. There is something in either building stuff or software design that says the last 5% of work is the toughest and most important. So don't blast PhoneArena for not taking EITHER side. They said it sounds legit to them, but it could also be an excuse.
And people have got to get it in their heads. PhoneArena is here to report rumors, news, and reviews of the cellular industry. They are not a tabloid that reports rumors as true. Most of the time, they are bringing news that they've found from multiple sources so that you, the reader, don't have to go out and look for them yourself. What I like about PhonArena is that if I ever thought something they said was BS, they always provide a link to the source they are quoting from.
If you don't like rumors, that's fine. Ignore them. PhoneArena isn't saying that it's truth. But it's still part of this site's function and mission. I almost feel like there should be a news and rumor second separately since folks make a big deal about the all-in-one way the site does stuff.
(Posts: 417; Member since: 15 Apr 2010)
You are misconstruing my "critique" of PhoneArena. PA time, and time again, editorializes and provides conjecture where none is warranted, especially where RIM and Apple are concerned. I have no issue with "rumors" but to so obviously overlook the cornerstone cultural reality (e.g. RIM's legendary power efficiency) is...well, I can't put it to words.
Your example of the Storm and Storm2 is not fully applicable. First, we know that VZW pushed the introduction in 2008. Second, BlackBerry fans got to see first hand that a touch-screen device is NOT as energy efficient because the screen must respond to everything the device does (and we saw wildly different power management schemes that were implemented with all the leaked OS builds out there, take your pick). Third, while riddled with problems, they were overcome, and the two devices were hugely successful, developing a loyal following (the TruePress click screen thing won a lot of people over to the touch-screen segment).
Back to context - The original "battery life" post, echoes quotes that are not even in the BusinessWeek article, which is cited as the sole source of the post. It also ignores a significant part of that article about that Wall Street analyst, who looks at reports, supply channels (the ilk that have been clamoring over a CDMA iPhone since fall of 2007), says, with no substantiation to BusinessWeek, that there may be battery issues, and he expects a sales volume of 700,000 units, which others in the field expect healthy sales of 1M-8M units. Of course, Wu, who claims to know of these hardware issues also issued a "hold" recommendation for RIM (RIMM) stock the day before.
The "cover up" line is not well played, the comment about "comparable battery life" is indeed well played.
(Posts: 8; Member since: 20 Dec 2010)
Engadget also made a big deal about the "comparable battery life" statement. Am I the only one who read it as "superior performance with comparably superior battery life"?