Mossberg reviews Samsung Instinct, accidentally previews iPhone 3G
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Jun 12th 2008 5:40AM
posted Jun 12th 2008 5:40AM
It's a given that Mr. Mossberg has a thing for Apple's gear. In his opinion, it's simply a better choice for his mainstream readership. It's also obvious that Sprint and Samsung are intent on besting the capabilities of the first generation iPhone with their new Instinct. Still, we can't help but to giggle like Japanese school girls when his review of Samsung's Instinct turns into a preview of the iPhone 3G. By our quick count, he mentions "iPhone" 31 times to just 19 mentions of "Instinct." His bottom line as you'd expect is that the "ok" Instinct simply can't compete with the iPhone. Then again, the iPhone 3G can't be used on Sprint's network... or anywhere else until July 11th.
Yawn, I'm so tired of iPhone now, I thought apple stuff was supposed to be high end. Epic fail with the 3G version Stevie.
Reviewing a phone he has only heard of... not used, during a review of a totally different phone... what a douche.
And who said you have to be young in order to be a fanboy?
Jeez, why doesn't he just record a video of himself saying "iPhone iPhone iPhone iPhone iPhone... repeatedly"? There isn't one paragraph in that whole article that does not include mention of the iPhone.
Are all of Mossberg's reviews actually iPhone commercials?
No - some of them are Macbook commercials.
What I want to know is why patents don't protect the iPhone look/function more, or any other device for that matter. That Samsung couldn't look much more like an iPhone, same as several other phones coming out. Seems like people only get busted when they deliberately try to fool people that their product is somebody else's. But why should people be able to make something so similar and benefit from the originator's work?
If this were the case, no one other than Motorola would even be allowed to make cell phones period.
Yeah, people only care when it's the iPhone, which itself is a rip-off of the Prada.
If they could patent a look, we'd have no cellphone industry. There would be One flip phone, One Slider, one candybar, one touch screen phone. And they'd all cost $2000
All I can say is you have no clue about the history of phone design to come out with stupid comment like that. iPhone's design is old. Many others have had similar designs WAY before Apple.
Thanks vanboy. That's helpful. The question, as you might have read, was about Apple or ANY OTHER DEVICE. It was a question about patents, using Apple as the example. It's great that you could chime in just to be ugly though. kthx
@kookoobirdz...do you really think Apple was the first touch screen device with no keyboard and a rectangular design? come on man do your homework before posting. If patents like you wanted were available then the iphone could never have even been built....
seriously he has to be getting cash from Apple under the table, you review a product but you mention Apples more! .........?What new with mossberg? same BS
I could do that guys job and actually be interesting at the same time.
He gets sexy time with steve every time he mentions iphone.
He looks like an old steve jobs wannabe. I didn't even get
to see the actual phone he was reviewing except for those
two shotty photos. Im suprised he didn't have a huge iphone
poster behind him. I think the truth is that he wasnt important
enough to get a trial handset so he tried to make it through
without actually showing the phone in his hand. He used 2
photos he found on a google image search to try to look legit.
What a waste of my time watching that. It was funny though.
BTW...I think hes had one too many "confirmation jolts".
apple was not the first to use this touch stuff, they just in a way packaged it in a nice product before anybody else could, you dudes are crazy if you think apple was the first to come out with this technology
Okay, I'll bite. What was the first mobile phone to offer a multi-touch screen?
It's embarrasing to see a grown (old) man be such an apple fanboy. That's liberal journalism for you.
OMG LOLZ STUPID LIBS!!
Seriously... liberal journalism? You're using that old chestnut against the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal?
"..has some features the Apple product lacks, it's no match for the iPhone"
What? It has features that the iPhone has, and it has features the iPhone does not have. Clearly, the iPhone is still better??? The iPhone is a phenomenal phone, but give the Instinct some respect dude, it's also a pretty good phone as well.
"This second iPhone model corrects some of the first model's main weaknesses, wiping out some advantages Sprint hoped the Instinct would have."
Wiping out advantages? So, somehow 3G is better than EV-DO Rev. A? Both phones have GPS. But the Instinct can record video, has a memory card slot, supports A2DP, MMS, Live TV, and has EV-DO Rev. A, which demolishes 3G.
I'm not trying to be a Instinct fanboy, I'm proving that Walt is an Apple fanboy, with horrible points. He is most likely getting money for this.
Good artcile about the Instinc..... Woops sorry, I meant iPhone 3G.
You could have just mentioned that Sprint's EVDO network is in more places than at&t's HSDPA network. Im one of those spoiled rotten with high speed service, as I have it everywhere in my state, I never resort to using wifi, and its very fast. Its Sprint too by the way. At&t's network here is laughable in comparison.
Whats really funny is that now other fanboys will again quote Mossberg as a credible unbiased news source all over the blog-o-sphere showing that of course there is no other phone to own unless it says Apple...