Comments on: Motorola Resolves Export Question by Blaming Its Advertising Department

By: bill

bill — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:37:42 +0000

I almost forgot, if it was going to be built for milatary field use, i dont think it would have any shiny or reflective surfaces on it.

By: bill

bill — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:34:45 +0000

I’ve done a little homework on this subject and when motorolla says the phone is “built to mil spec 810f” it only means that the phone passes the same series of tests (done by indapendantcontractors such as evironlab.) that military and aircraft equipment are subjected to, however the phone is not subjected to all of the tests just 3 that i am aware of, MIL-STD 810F Method 506.4 rain,MIL-STD 810F Method 516.5 shock, MIL-STD 810F Method 510.4 sand and dust,there are 18 differant tests total for mil spec 810 f.

By: ET

ET — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:05:42 +0000

Oh, absolutely. The difference is almost entirely a semantic one.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:16:35 +0000

I agree with ET as to the operative distinction between building to milspec and building specifically for military use. But it’s not a sensible policy distinction since the milspec item is equally useful to the bad guys whether or not it was actually built for a specific military use and actually sold to the military.

By: ET

ET — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:09:04 +0000

I was always told that MilSpec is just a standard, and building something “to MilSpec” is not the same thing as building something specifically for military use.