Post by David G. Imber Post by News
So, if I may paraphrase slightly, you perfume pigs for a living and that
is why you choose to characterize these reviews in this manner?
I'm sorry, but I do not understand what appears to be your
criticism at all.
Oh? Must be all that perfume you've been using...
"The Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg, The New York Times' David
Pogue, and USA Today's Edward Baig got their hands on the new iPhone 3G
and have published reviews that gives us more reasons to wait than to
A few things have improved in this model, but all three reviewers
complained about the iPhone's lack of video recording, MMS, AT&T's 3G
coverage, and extra costs associated with AT&T's 3G service contract. As
a matter of fact, their complaints far outweigh any "improvements" made
on this iPhone 3G version.
Many have anticipated an iPhone that would support AT&T's 3G network,
yet both Mossberg and Baig seemed annoyed by the lack of 3G coverage in
Mossberg says that the iPhone 3G registered strong coverage in his
neighborhood, but found that calls regularly broke up on some major
streets, and even had to borrow a cheap Verizon phone to complete an
important call that was dropped three times on the new iPhone.
Baig, on the other hand, couldn't access the 3G network in parts of his
neighborhood. He writes, "Meanwhile, for all the hoopla involving AT&T's
speedier, third-generation network, I couldn't access 3G in parts of my
northern New Jersey neighborhood and elsewhere. When the fast network
isn't available, the phone automatically reverts to the pokier and
oft-maligned Edge network."
They all agree that websites loaded faster on the 3G network than on
EDGE, but Wi-Fi is "still the the fastest method for downloads." Baig
says it took 10 to 30 seconds to load popular websites through 3G, and
Mossberg found that checking email and surfing the Web on the 3G network
was three to five times faster—but we already knew that.
It may be easier and faster to access websites or check email on the new
iPhone 3G, but for how long?
Mossberg thought the iPhone 3G's battery drained much faster on a
typical day than the battery on the original iPhone, while Baig found
quite the opposite, yet admitted to getting low battery warnings towards
the end of day. Either way, it looks like you'll need to charge your
phone every night.
Aside from all the 3G network issues, which is the touted feature on
this new model, some minor improvements on the phone itself gave
reviewers something to be happy about. For example, all three agree that
the audio quality improved, the GPS feature was very accurate, and the
curvier design felt better in your hand.
Software improvements include a scientific calculator, an address book
search box, parental controls, and instant language switching.
Multitasking will be easier now that you can delete multiple emails,
save photo attachments, and open PowerPoint files, although that may
crash your iPhone as Mossberg found out.
The GPS feature, while better than the pseudo GPS feature on its
predecessor, is useless according to Pogue because "the antenna is much
too small to emulate the turn-by-turn navigation of a G.P.S. unit for a
None of the reviewers were able to test the App Store, but all three
seem to agree that the biggest attraction will probably be the
third-party applications, not the 3G functionality, which is what many
have been anticipating.
So should you upgrade?
Pogue says the iPhone 3G is a nice upgrade, "But it’s not so much better
that it turns all those original iPhones into has-beens. Indeed, the
really big deal is the iPhone 2.0 software and the App Store, neither of
which requires buying a new iPhone."
Mossberg agrees, and suggests iPhone owner who are ok with using Wi-Fi
for data should "hold off and get the free software upgrade before
deciding whether it’s worth getting the new hardware.""
If you can make "fabulous" out of that review, then as I said, you are
in the business of perfuming pigs.