I inherently think of 2x and 100% more in the same way because I deal with percentages frequently, but I do agree that many people would look at 2 versus 100 and freak out more at the bigger (50x bigger
) number.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 4 may be dropping as many as 100% more calls than iPhone 3GS
- Thread starter solarein
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
) number.
I read well enough to know when someone has an agenda to pursue and is shielding themselves with weasel words like "may be." Absolutely. I stand by my assertions.
I'm going to agree with the OP. It appears you haven't read or comprehended what is written at all. Your post here is way off the mark. The op went to a lot of trouble to base his post in fact and even highlighted the fact that he was being conservative with his assumptions.
Well then, I'll enjoy seeing your accusation fail in the court of public opinion.
/thread
A 100% increase is definitely 2x.
Take 5 for example. Start out with 5. A 100% increase is 10.
5 x 2 = 10.
A 200% increase on the 5 would be 15 = 3x.
Lets put it another way.
I have owned a 3G for a year zero dropped calls.
I have owned an iP4 since launch zero dropped calls.
I'm not on at&t.
You do the maths.
I have owned a 3G for a year zero dropped calls.
I have owned an iP4 since launch zero dropped calls.
I'm not on at&t.
You do the maths.
Reading this thread though, it is very clear that the less than 1% figure quoted by Steve Jobs not only applies to the iPhone 4, but the percentage of people that understand statistics...or basic percent math.
My guess is that information is propietary only in the time-sensitive manner. They wouldn't want their competitors running commercials the next day claiming they drop more calls right now with whatever new products they have, but financial statements are usually 6 months to over 1 year old and pose no threat to newly released products that they have to get off the ground.
The conspiracy is not telling us what X is. He deliberately gave us half the puzzle, withholding the other half which is the key to solving the puzzle. If this is not deliberate deception, I don't know what is.
Remember he said that the reason he can't tell us X is because AT&T won't let them disclose dropped call data. But guess what? AT&T's dropped call data is there for everyone to read in their financial reports.
We'll see about that.
How? The OP is asserting - without hard technical data - that the iPhone 4 drops twice as many calls. And then in his subject line he puts the scare phrase: As much as 100% more calls dropped!! OMG! And then, after he lays out flawed data, he puts in all these weasel words and qualifiers at the end of his post.
What can one gather is the purpose of this?
The OP wants to make a splash and spread FUD. 100 is a huge number! But 2 dropped calls out of every 100 calls placed isn't so huge. And when you want people to take notice and make your position seem more powerful than it is, you always go for plastering the bigger, amplified numbers where everyone can see them, and then post your fine print and qualifications down at the bottom, AFTER you've gotten enough people's attention with the big numbers. It's classic scaremongering and data manipulation, and I'm calling the OP out on it.
/thread
A 100% increase is definitely 2x.
Take 5 for example. Start out with 5. A 100% increase is 10.
5 x 2 = 10.
A 200% increase on the 5 would be 15 = 3x.
What you missed is the difference between "2 times as many" versus "2 times more".
"2 times more" is the same as "3 times as many".
Yes, iP4 drops Y times as many calls as 3GS, or iP4 drops Z% more calls than the 3GS.
Even if you don't buy that this is a better way to express the statistic (which it obviously is, given that he wouldn't tell you what X is), there's still the fact that he claimed X was a confidential number even though it is evidently public information as identified by the OP.
I've never seen so many people need remedial math.
% increase does not indicate comparative percent
An increase of 1/100 IS and INCREASE of 1%, ergo 2/200, 3/300, etc.
Multiply the total # calls by 1.01 and you have the number.
If you only drop on average 1 call/year, statistically speaking you'll drop 1.01 calls/year
Now whether the iPhone 3GS is a reliable phone compared with competitors is up for debate since we don't know raw numbers across carriers and phones.
And really, the increase in dropped calls is due to the hundreds of fools on YouTube deliberately trying to reproduce the issue.
% increase does not indicate comparative percent
An increase of 1/100 IS and INCREASE of 1%, ergo 2/200, 3/300, etc.
Multiply the total # calls by 1.01 and you have the number.
If you only drop on average 1 call/year, statistically speaking you'll drop 1.01 calls/year
Now whether the iPhone 3GS is a reliable phone compared with competitors is up for debate since we don't know raw numbers across carriers and phones.
And really, the increase in dropped calls is due to the hundreds of fools on YouTube deliberately trying to reproduce the issue.
All of that is nothing but effective writing. I'm not using any weasel words, because I clearly state my assumptions, then try to justify my assumptions, then offer alternative assumptions. This is how one can make a sound argument.
The fine print, as you call it, is in the second paragraph, out of a total of two paragraphs that I wrote. If you don't have the attention span to read to the second paragraph, that's your problem, that is not an excuse to accuse me of FUD.
Fair enough, so lets assume that he could have told us that number but chose not to for the sake of looking bad. I can't remember now and I don't feel like watching again, but did he use a percentage when talking about the dropped calls, or was it just the <1 ?
Alright OP let's look at it this way.
If ATT's drop rate is 1/100 = 1%
Then the 99% of these millions of daily phone calls are not being dropped.
The iPhone 4, taking a worst case scenario of being a full percentage point less reliable means:
On an iPhone 4, 98% of all these millions of phone calls are successful.
Most people would be lucky if they could lead their lives with such a success rate. Or score so high on a math exam.
If ATT's drop rate is 1/100 = 1%
Then the 99% of these millions of daily phone calls are not being dropped.
The iPhone 4, taking a worst case scenario of being a full percentage point less reliable means:
On an iPhone 4, 98% of all these millions of phone calls are successful.
Most people would be lucky if they could lead their lives with such a success rate. Or score so high on a math exam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
"Weasel words is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. For example, an advertisement may use a weasel phrase such as "up to 50% off on all products": this is misleading because the audience is invited to imagine many items reduced by as much as the proclaimed 50%, but the words taken literally mean only that no discount will exceed 50%, and in practice the vendor is free to not reduce any prices and still remain faithful to the wording of the advertisement.
Weasel words can imply meaning far beyond the claim actually being made. Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement, for example using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most respects"."
"Up to 50% on all products..."
"Dropping as many as 100% more calls..."
The definition fits your post to a tee.
Also, using percentages can make a small increase seem way more than it actually is...I know I'm stating the obvious, but think about it...
The town I live in had one homicide in 2009 but has had 2 in 2010. At the end of the year would a fair headline in the paper be "_____ experiences 100% increase in murder rate"?
The town I live in had one homicide in 2009 but has had 2 in 2010. At the end of the year would a fair headline in the paper be "_____ experiences 100% increase in murder rate"?
No it does not. You fail to distinguish something very basic: weasel words are meant to get you to believe something deceptively. If I had used my "up to 100%" number with no further explanation then I indeed would be guilty of using a weasel word. My post does not deceive you because I take great pains to clearly state which assumptions I made to arrive at that number. I explain clearly what the "up to" in "up to 100%" means, rather than leaving it for you to guess.