🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:08:44 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:49:06 -0700, in
><j79146hj6d7rn586gis8ant7n0ucku9p04@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:48:14 -0700, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>In other words, how do you
>>>know Apple hasn't throttled sales while it investigates the problem?

>>Like most big manufacturers, Apple orders parts and finished units
>>well in advance of any anticipated demand, along with a well
>>controlled delivery rate.  I'm not sure they could throttle sales as
>>delivery rates are probably contractually negotiated well in advance,
>>with penalties attached.

>My experience is quite different.  It's not uncommon to restrict
>deliveries when a problem is found that might require an engineering
>change, and standard sales contracts generally don't have any sort of
>delivery penalties -- the risk is losing sales against the risk of
>delivering products with defects.

True.  The standard sales contract does not have delivery penalties.
The standard manufacturing contract does.  The iPhone is made built
and assembled by contract manufacturers in China.  They all have a
delivery schedule and a draconian list of prophetic disasters itemized
in excruciating detail, should they fail to deliver or to deliver
late.  If Apple wants product cheap and on time product, they have to
accept their own delivery schedule for no better reason than the
general lack of warehouse space in China.  In my limited experience,
doing anything to derail manufacturing and delivery usually created
havoc, especially with JIT (just in time) manufacturing.  2 million
phones in 3 weeks is going to take some careful planning and
logistics.

>>If Apple was restricting deliveries, it would be much like admitting
>>that there is a real problem.
>
>It's pretty much already done that, and restricting deliveries isn't
>something likely to get out.

As I read the various reports from the "We're not perfect" press
conference, Apple never admitted that there was something actually
wrong. 
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704913304575371131458273498.html>
All that Jobs did was claim that other phones have "similar" problems.
A -24dB worst case drop in signal strength for the iPhone 4, compared
to maybe a -10dB drop for the others is not my idea of similar.
Claiming that it was impossible to make a phone that doesn't have a
weak spot, is not admitting that there's a problem.  It's the degree
of the weak spot that's important.  A -10dB drop is a 90.0% loss in
signal, which is drastic, but usually not a problem unless in a weak
signal area.  A -24dB is a 99.995% drop, which is a problem.  If Jobs
had indicated that everyone else as a similar effect, and that the
iPhone 4 is far worse, it would have been closer to the truth.  

Then, there's the allegedly glitchy proximity sensor issue which
wasn't even mentioned at the press conference:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/200024/another_apple_iphone_4_flaw_a_glitchy_proximity_sensor.html>
At lunch on Thurs, one of those attending received a call on his
iPhone 4.  It was interesting to watch the display ocassionally flash
during the call.  

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558