View Single Post
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2019-04-02, 03:25

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
What basis do you have to say that?
It's kind of a toss-up for me. He either would have shipped it, been annoyed by the feedback, then canned it, or we would have looked at internal prototypes, been annoyed by the project setbacks, and canned it before it's ever even announced.

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses View Post
Revision A’s were typically bare bones in terms of features but they were not subpar. They usually were outclassed by revision b because a had been in development so much longer and had a more difficult time balancing trade offs to hit a pricepoint and release date.
That's not my recollection of the Rev A stereotype. It was something like "they got the basic design right, but there are some kinks to work out, and we won't see the result of that for another 6-12 months". One can quibble over whether that made them subpar, or whether Rev A was even a real thing at all*, but I do think the idea of "Rev A" was to criticize that Apple would ship a design that showed a promise, but didn't quite yet deliver on it.

*) How many people can even answer this one, though? It's not like you'd typically buy both Rev A and Rev B and be able to judge differences. We're not all the Grubers and Arments of this world who spend their money on every single iPhone revision. I spaced out Mac purchases to three to five years, so I never really got two Macs of the same larger generation. White iBook, Alu MBP, unibody MBP, Retina MBP, … — never twice of those.

Even if you're a reviewer, you only get a fairly distorted view — you get the first few days of weeks of the product, not its long-term reliability.