Every iPhone X Is Not Created Equal (pcmag.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Every iPhone X Is Not Created Equal (pcmag.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday December 1, 2017 @01:10PM from the luck-of-the-draw dept.

According to a PC Magazine report that uses data from Cellular Insights, the Qualcomm-powered iPhone X has better LTE performance than the Intel-powered model. From the report: There are three iPhone X models sold globally. Using lab equipment, Cellular Insights tested two of them: the Qualcomm-powered A1865, sold by Sprint, Verizon, and U.S. Cellular and in Australia, China, and India; and the Intel-powered A1901, sold by most other global carriers including AT&T and T-Mobile. (The third model, A1902, is only sold in Japan.) Here in the U.S., we anticipate that the SIM-free model sold directly by Apple will be the A1865, as that's the model that supports all four U.S. carriers. For this test, Cellular Insights looked at performance on LTE Band 4, which is used by every major U.S. carrier except Sprint, as well as in Canada and parts of Latin America. Cellular Insights attenuated an LTE signal from a strong -85dBm until the modems showed no performance. While both modems started out with 195Mbps of download throughput on a 20MHz carrier, the Qualcomm difference appeared quickly, as the Intel modem dropped to 169Mbps at -87dBm. The Qualcomm modem took an additional -6dBm of attenuation to get to that speed. Most consumers will feel the difference in very weak signal conditions, where every dBm of signal matters, so we zoomed in on that in the chart below. At very weak signal strength, below -120dBm, the Qualcomm modem got speeds on average 67 percent faster than the Intel modem. The Intel modem finally died at -129dBm and the Qualcomm modem died at -130dBm, so we didn't find a lot of difference in when the modems finally gave out.

74 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Range issues by Falconhell · 2017-12-01 13:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

Was staying out in the bush this week, both of my companions had service on their cheapo Android phone, my iphone did not, very poor reception at fringes indeed.
1. Re:Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a "known issue" - every iPhone with an Intel modem has the same problem. It's why - if you have the choice - you want the model with the Qualcomm modem.
  Apple is trying to make Intel modems "a thing" because they want to ditch Qualcomm. (See their recent feuding with Qualcomm.) But Intel modems are terrible. They're slower than Qualcomm's modem (so Apple artificially caps Qualcomm's modems in firmware) and - as you noticed and this article mentions again - they don't work at all at lower signal to noise ratios. They basically only work if you're close to the tower - as soon as you start to move away, they stop working.
  This isn't really news - everyone knows the Intel modems are terrible - but Apple uses them anyway because they don't want to have to pay Qualcomm full price for a modem that works.
2. Re:Range issues by hcs_$reboot · 2017-12-01 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  And what's your iPhone?
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
3. Re:Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  "You're holding it wrong".
4. Re:Range issues by tlhIngan · 2017-12-01 22:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's a "known issue" - every iPhone with an Intel modem has the same problem. It's why - if you have the choice - you want the model with the Qualcomm modem.
  Apple is trying to make Intel modems "a thing" because they want to ditch Qualcomm. (See their recent feuding with Qualcomm.) But Intel modems are terrible. They're slower than Qualcomm's modem (so Apple artificially caps Qualcomm's modems in firmware) and - as you noticed and this article mentions again - they don't work at all at lower signal to noise ratios. They basically only work if you're close to the tower - as soon as you start to move away, they stop working.
  This isn't really news - everyone knows the Intel modems are terrible - but Apple uses them anyway because they don't want to have to pay Qualcomm full price for a modem that works.
  It's actually the problem. Qualcomm is using their secret sauce of patented tricks to keep working good and fast, because that secret sauce is what keeps people using Qualcomm.
  It's why Qualcomm has the monopoly it does and why everyone is trying to ditch them. There aren't many modem manufacturers, and Apple making Intel "a thing" goes way back to the original iPhone (Apple chose Infineon for the modem provider, now owned by Intel).
  Performance wise, you're right, Qualcomm rules. It's why Qualcomm charges what they charge for the chips, because they perform great. Power wise is a whole different issue altogether - Apple chose Infineon for the original iPhone because it was very aggressive at saving power - so much so that well, it took down the AT&T network. (At the time, Cingular/AT&T was begging Apple to use Qualcomm modems, the European Infineon ones saved lots of power but were adapted to the European networks that had expanded control channels. Apple felt that the power savings were worth it, and with initial projections of maybe a marketshare of 1% after 5 years, surely one phone can't take down the network...).
  Apple is pissed off at Qualcomm because Qualcomm's fees are based on the retail price of the phone - if you make a $500 smartphone and a $1000 smartphone, use the exact same chip, the $1000 phone will cost you double in Qualcomm fees even though it's the same, and that's where Apple disagrees. Qualcomm knows they can charge it because they are performant, and they are pissed Apple cripples Qualcomm chips to Intel performance.
  In short, yes Qualcomm are faster. Why, it's because Qualcomm has secret patent stuff they either are not sharing (or don't have to share) in order to make LTE faster. Apple is trying to get Intel going - either because their chips have better battery performance, or more importantly, trying to get a viable alternative to Qualcomm on the market and break the Qualcomm monopoly. There are few modem manufacturers out there - Qualcomm owned basically the lion's share of modem chipsets, then there's Intel and I think MediaTek.
  Anyhow, of any cellphone manufacture rout there, perhaps Apple is the only one that could make a viable alternative to Qualcomm, which is why companies like Samsung are cooperating with Apple. (Qualcomm is also why Samsung phones in the US don't use Samsung processors, but instead use Qualcomm processors)
5. Re:Range issues by AmiMoJo · 2017-12-01 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  The lack of performance from Intel might just be incompetence. Their cable modem chips have issues with latency too. They just don't seem to be very good at this.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:Range issues by misnohmer · 2017-12-02 01:43 · Score: 2
  
  What is "secret patent stuff"? In the US and most if not all other countries,all patents are publicly available to anyone who want to read them.
7. Re: Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  So in short, Apple is pissed if a competitor or supplier charges exorbitant prices but them taking big cuts on App store items is fine?
8. Re: Range issues by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  No. Apple is pissed that a supplier charges a variable exorbitant price for a part. The part should have a fixed price, independent of the price of the final product.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
9. Re: Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Why should it have a fixed price? Because you said so? Why don't iPhones have a fixed price?
10. Re: Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  âApple is pissed off at Qualcomm because Qualcomm's fees are based on the retail price of the phone - if you make a $500 smartphone and a $1000 smartphone, use the exact same chip, the $1000 phone will cost you double in Qualcomm fees even though it's the sameâ
  Yet Apple has no problem charging the same amount for the inferior intel chip...
11. Re: Range issues by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same part that goes different models of iPhones.
  It should have a fixed price determined by Qualcomm, not determined by the price of the iPhones sold by Apple.
  That's how the market works and it's Qualcomm that are in the wrong here. They can charge $50 per chip if they want to, but not "$25 per chip if it goes into an iPhone 8 but $50 if it goes into an iPhone X". Once the chips are sold to Apple they're no longer Qualcomm's property and they have no rights to tell Apple how to use them or change the price after the sale.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
12. Re: Range issues by Richard_at_work · 2017-12-02 05:27 · Score: 2
  
  Ironic considering Apple charge app developers a variable exorbitant fee for a fixed cost service for each app sale...
13. Re: Range issues by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know the details of what you said, it's probable Apple are doing exactly what Qualcomm are doing.
  Assuming Apple are doing it too, if this the Apple-Qualcomm case goes to court, either Qualcomm will win this making it legal for Apple to screw their developers in the same way, or Apple will win and have to change the fee they ask from developers.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
14. Re: Range issues by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  All I can find is that Apple charges a different fixed rate for two categories of developers:
  Pricing. The Apple Developer Program annual fee is 99 USD and the Apple Developer Enterprise Program annual fee is 299 USD, in local currency where available. Prices may vary by region and are listed in local currency during the enrollment process.
  Other than that, there's the fixed 30% fee per app sold.
  I don't see any "variable exorbitant fee" anywhere.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
15. Re: Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Do you work for apple or verizon? a thirty percent fee isn't fixed. It's a variable fee that is a function of the app's price:
  f(p) = 30*p/100
16. Re: Range issues by Brockmire · 2017-12-02 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of industries have variable pricing based on final product pricing and/or intended customer. From medicines to subscriptions to electronic components. Microsoft gives education discounts and have programs for free or highly discounted software for years for new businesses. They may choose to offer a lower price for a lower end product for long term mass adoption. Why you think the seller can't sell their product on their terms makes no sense to me. They hate each other and Apple demands shit all the time. They're not best buddies, they are ruthless businesses.
17. Re: Range issues by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's a FIXED PERCENTAGE that does not vary with the price of the application being sold.
  It would be variable if there was different percentages applied depending on the type of application, the cost of the application, etc.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
18. Re:Range issues by chihowa · 2017-12-02 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  As a customer, and not a manufacturer, I'm not sympathetic with Apple in this situation at all.
  Even with Qualcomm's pricing tricks, there is no difference at all in the price that a customer pays (as is demonstrated by both of these models costing the same) and the unit cost of the modem is minuscule when compared to the profit margin on the device. If Qualcomm closed up shop or gave the modems away for free, the cost that customers pay for the phone wouldn't change a cent. Delivering an inferior product because they want to quibble over a tiny fraction of the cost of the phone is bullshit.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
19. Re: Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  So why does Apple charge the same price for phones with the Qualcomm chip and the Intel chip, when they cost different amounts and perform differently?
20. Re: Range issues by chihowa · 2017-12-02 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  - Apple charges fixed 30% fee of the retail price of the app for providing a fixed cost service (hosting, etc).
  - Qualcomm is charging a fixed percentage of the price of the retail phone for providing a fixed cost component.
  Why does one of these strike you as an abomination, while the other is perfectly fine? The fee is "variable" because it's tied to the retail price of the final product (determined to maximize profits) and not the actual cost of the service/component.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
21. Re: Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  There you go. Someone defends variable pricing by asking why Apple charges a fixed price. Wow.
22. Re:Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  Then Intel can invent their own secret sauce. Qualcomm doesn't have a patent that covers all ways to maintain good performance.
23. Re:Range issues by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 16:53 · Score: 0
  
  >It's actually the problem. Qualcomm is using their secret sauce of patented tricks to keep working good and fast, because that secret sauce is what keeps people using Qualcomm.
  >It's why Qualcomm has the monopoly it does and why everyone is trying to ditch them. There aren't many modem manufacturers, and Apple making Intel "a thing" goes way back to the original iPhone (Apple chose Infineon for the modem provider, now owned by Intel).
  Intel, being anti-competed???? Oh the irony.
24. Re:Range issues by Falconhell · 2017-12-03 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Nice screed, pity the iphone in question is Qualcomm.
25. Re:Range issues by Falconhell · 2017-12-03 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Qualcomm
26. Re:Range issues by Falconhell · 2017-12-03 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Except my iphone is Qualcomm.
No Surprise by pubwvj · 2017-12-01 13:15 · Score: 1

Not too surprising, or not surprising at all, since Apple multi-sources components and they're not exactly the same. *shrug*
1. Re: No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  Surely if every single iPhone X device is built differently, as the headline suggests, that defeats any of the benefits of mass production?
2. Re: No Surprise by pubwvj · 2017-12-05 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Apple buys enormous numbers of some components and the suppliers are unable to supply all that is needed or Apple simply doesn't want to be dependent on a single supplier so they multi-source. Manufacturing is complex.
dBm by rfengr · 2017-12-01 13:21 · Score: 1

dBm of attenuation. Someone flunked Microwaves101.
1. Re:dBm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  Was thinking the same thing...
2. Re:dBm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  Also saying "-6dB of attenuation" is a bit iffy.
no two iphones are equal? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

Or do you mean "Not Every iPhone X Is Created Equal"?
1. Re:no two iphones are equal? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-12-01 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Created equal, every iPhone X is not.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:no two iphones are equal? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Created equal, every iPhone X is not.
  They are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
3. Re:no two iphones are equal? by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-01 14:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Created equal, every iPhone X is not.
  Posted to slashdot, Yoda has!
  Cluster Beowulf of Natalie Portman hot grits in Russia Soviet, down pants imagine you, hmm?
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Field Test by JBMcB · 2017-12-01 13:35 · Score: 2

That's interesting. Get them out in the field. Sensitivity is not the only measurement that matters. In some cases, it's the least important measurement. Noise rejection and selectivity are usually more important in urban environments when you get crazy ghosting from signals bouncing off of buildings. Unless you have an insanely expensive RF capture and playback setup, you aren't replicating that in the lab.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
1. Re:Field Test by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  This type of test equipment isn't uncommon - most serious comms labs have access to channel emulators capable of simulating multipath/fading/pretty much any impairment you're likely to encounter. Trying to do this type of testing in the field so that the results are repeatable and robust is hard verging on the impossible,
2. Re:Field Test by JBMcB · 2017-12-01 15:49 · Score: 2
  
  I used to field test satellite radios in vans, it wasn't that difficult. We used a lot of the same gear they use in field testing cell phones. Nowadays they have apps that can do it for you - constantly send SMSes and count the failures, attempt to download something and check throughput, etc... You put three or four of each phone under test in powered cradles in the back of a truck and drive them around running the test apps. The trick is to run the same route over and over again to build up your test data. For control you have another set of phones stationary somewhere along the test route.
  
  --
  My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
db is log scale by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:36 · Score: 0

when you say "only 6db", you can also say it as "only about a 50% stronger signal"
1. Re: db is log scale by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  Not quite. +3dB is 2x the power; +6 dB is 4x the power. -6 dB would be 50% of the signal amplitude (magnitude), but 25% of the power.
2. Re: db is log scale by BronsCon · 2017-12-01 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  The scale for EMF is different than the scale for audio?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
3. Re: db is log scale by BronsCon · 2017-12-01 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  Nevermind, posted before I read your whole post... which is really freaking lazy of me. You are absolutely correct.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Everyone knows.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:40 · Score: 0

Intel is a stupid company. It's the truth. People are just too polite to verbalize it. Until now. I hope they close shop soon enough. It's a reaccionary company, unfit for progress.
1. Re: Everyone knows.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  And yet it is Qualcomm who Apple antagonizes.
2. Re:Everyone knows.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  The irony is strong with this comment.
Learn boolean algebra, dammit by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-01 14:00 · Score: 4, Informative

The correct phrase is "not every iPhone X is created equal." That means some are equal, but not all.
TFH says "every iPhone X is not created equal." That means each and every one is different for all the others. That is incorrect.
Sorry for ranting, but every time I see this mistake, I die a little.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
1. Re:Learn boolean algebra, dammit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  The correct phrase is "not every iPhone X is created equal." That means some are equal...
  Nope!
2. Re:Learn boolean algebra, dammit by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-01 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  The correct phrase is "not every iPhone X is created equal." That means some are equal...
  Nope!
  Fair enough. Some may be equal. Thanks for catching that.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
3. Re:Learn boolean algebra, dammit by msauve · 2017-12-01 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  TFH says "every iPhone X is not created equal." That means each and every one is different for all the others. That is incorrect.
  But, it is correct. In the whole world no two iPhones are identical. They're each unique, just like all the rest.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
4. Re:Learn boolean algebra, dammit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  You are way off on two counts.
  First "created equal" does not definitively imply that the phones are not equal. It just means that the process of creating them is not equal.
  Second, two things can be unique and equal at the same time. They can also be those two things and fundamentally different to boot, all at the same time.
5. Re:Learn boolean algebra, dammit by jez9999 · 2017-12-01 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, this is a special case in English. This is an acceptable form of the phrase. A famous phrase using the same form is "all that glitters is not gold".
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Negation correction by WinstonWolfIT · 2017-12-01 14:00 · Score: 1

Not every iPhone X is created equal.
Don't. Be. That. Guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 14:12 · Score: 0

I bet your fun at partys.
1. Re:Don't. Be. That. Guy. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  No, but you're.
Check your privilege by ourlovecanlastforeve · 2017-12-01 14:21 · Score: 0

oh my god a negligible performance difference release the hounds
Anyone test battery life? by blindseer · 2017-12-01 14:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

I seem to recall this dual sourcing of chips causing a significant difference in battery life in previous iPhone versions. Did anyone test if the batteries last as long on both variants?
I don't care much of the data rates on the phone's modem. WiFi is easy enough to find for when I want to avoid data charges and need speed. All I need the modem for is maps, e-mail, and some web browsing so I'm not concerned if the data is 50Mbit or 150Mbit. What does concern me is if the phone eats up its charge.
This speed testing is still interesting, but not what concerns me much. I'd just think that if they went through this effort of testing that the battery life testing would not have added much to their efforts. Given battery problems in the past I'd think that would be something many others would be curious about as well.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Don't we hear the same story by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-12-01 15:05 · Score: 2

about just about every model? Apple doesn't single-source-source modem chips; as a result, they get minor but measurable differences in performance between manufacturers. Shocking, really.
1. Re:Don't we hear the same story by thegarbz · 2017-12-01 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  about just about every model? Apple doesn't single-source-source modem chips; as a result, they get minor but measurable differences in performance between manufacturers. Shocking, really.
  Not just every model from Apple. The international markets differ. Major handset vendors provide a variety of different models for various companies. Samsung do that too: several models for US carriers, one for South Korea, one for Japan, one for China, and one for Rest of The World. All these phones vary to some extent in the design of their RF components.
  It's the nature of the beast. Hell anyone remember the tri-band mobile phones? The ones you had to own if you wanted your international phone to work in the USA? Remember the big downside there being the ability to "roam" in the USA came at the expense of being able to roam in your own country side due to performance issues.
Who cares? by JustNiz · 2017-12-01 15:12 · Score: 0

At $1100, I just don't care. Its about $500 more than I've ever paid for any phone that I've ever owned, including my Galaxy S8, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything more or better. Actually if anything it seems worse in several areas. https://www.wired.com/story/ha...
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/p...
You are testing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 15:13 · Score: 0

Apple has issued a statement saying that Cellular Insights was testing it wrong. All iPhones are fantastic.
Part routlette by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 15:43 · Score: 0

This is one of many reasons why I refuse to buy Apple products anymore.
They are charging an absurd premium for this equipment, and I can't even get a guarantee that the parts in it will be "good". Their computers are no better, a lot of their laptops have tinting or ghosting issues dependent on the manufacture of the LCD display- and much like the iPhone X, there's no guarantee you'll get a computer with a proper screen.
This sort of behavior is a fucking insult to their customers. They do it because it's good for business- they don't want parts stockpiled sitting around, so they just source from whatever manufacture they can, leading to a situation where one machine P/N has a ton of different parts and at least 2/3rds of them are not ideal.
I wouldn't care as much if they were charging reasonable prices for their equipment, but they're not. They are literally saying "haha you're stupid to pay this much for a shit device" and letting you play parts lottery with the internals. It's just a shame their customers seem unwilling or unable to realize what sort of games Apple is playing and respond accordingly, since it seems like the only thing everyone cares about these days is the Apple logo on the back.
1. Re:Part routlette by Bert64 · 2017-12-01 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  You'll be hard pressed to buy anything then...
  A couple of years ago we were trying to source laptops for pentesting, where they might have to run linux or bsd, might have to do wireless testing (monitor mode, packet injection etc) and would make heavy use of the network card.
  What we found was that for any given model of laptop it could have several different wireless chipsets (intel, atheros, broadcom etc) which had varying levels of linux support and varying support for monitor mode and packet injection (atheros chipsets would do everything, the broadcom ones wouldn't work with linux at all) and there was no way to tell what chipset you'd get short of buying the laptop and booting it up.
  The same was true of ethernet controllers, there were at least 3 different chipsets and while they all nominally worked with linux, the performance varied quite considerably... CPU usage on the lesser chipsets was much higher, and compatibility with various switches was often much worse.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I paid $400 for a MIL-SPEC Kyocera phone by Khyber · 2017-12-01 19:23 · Score: 2

It's a fucking tank on steroids. It may not be as FAST as the latest iPhone (it's a 2016 phone) but it gets signal where the iPhone will not (and on the same carrier - Verizon, out in the Hauser Geode Beds in middle-of-nowhere Imperial County. Closest facility? A state prison almost 20 miles away.) Hell, this phone is designed to withstand solar radiation, which means this thing should fucking work in orbit, and probably even on the moon. Oh, and it works through gloves up to 3mm thick.
Enjoy your shit new hardware that can't even hold a candle to the usability of older hardware.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
1. Re:I paid $400 for a MIL-SPEC Kyocera phone by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  You can't brag like that without telling us the model number.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:I paid $400 for a MIL-SPEC Kyocera phone by Archon · 2017-12-02 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that "mil-spec" is nothing more than a marketing term?
3. Re: I paid $400 for a MIL-SPEC Kyocera phone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Mil spec, lul. That just means you can bury it in dirt.
4. Re:I paid $400 for a MIL-SPEC Kyocera phone by Khyber · 2017-12-02 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  E6810 is the model number for the Kyocera Duraforce Pro.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
5. Re:I paid $400 for a MIL-SPEC Kyocera phone by Khyber · 2017-12-02 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Having had to design lighting systems to military specification, you must not know a whole lot about MIL-SPEC in the first place.
  I've still got MIL-SPEC tubes from the 70s that run like a dream. They operate my hand-rebuilt 1978 Fender Super Reverb. (W tubes FTW baby.)
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
6. Re:I paid $400 for a MIL-SPEC Kyocera phone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-03 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  That's nice. I use my phone in urban areas, not orbit, so for me, the iPhone is a better choice.
I don't care..... by MerlTurkin · 2017-12-02 13:27 · Score: 1

I'll never buy an iPhone.