3 ms·
The difference here is that the guys at Princeton weren't clueless linkbaiters, or folks who think that the fundamental unit of RF signal strength is "the bar".
by mechanical_fish 16y ago
The difference here is that the guys at Princeton weren't clueless linkbaiters, or folks who think that the fundamental unit of RF signal strength is "the bar". The Princeton physicists were physicists. They did science. They took actual data, made actual scientific arguments backed by that data, and published them.
The subtext of Apple's PR here is: You want to have an argument about RF engineering and the complexities and tradeoffs involved? Bring it. Apple's engineering team stands by its work. But you better be prepared to argue like an engineer, not a gossip columnist.
- jarek 16y agoOf course, then Apple responded like the PR specialists they are, presenting everything in The Bar (even going as far as to directly compare different manufacturers' bars!) rather than using a proper unit and risk confusing people with scary numbers. I was half-hoping they wouldn't, but alas.
- thefool 16y agoI think you missed my point. First off what I'm saying is that while fancy pictures of high end lab equipment might look impressive, it doesn't mean that it is the best way to design things, even when the people doing it are really good. Secondly, while I understand that the intent of this is to tell people something along the lines of, "We didn't give you a defective device, we really did a great job testing it first, look at our facility", it can easily be spun as, "well you can't have done that good a job because even with all this fancy equipment you still released a product that has a design issue"