Or maybe Apple knew that pundits would find fault with the device (and battery life and the potential for scratched screens have been at or near the top of the list), so it initially left those issues open and sat back waiting to slap the inevitable criticisms down just before the ship date.

Inevitably, some early buyers will complain that their iPhones don't have anything like the battery life quoted by Apple, completely overlooking the "up to" preceding the company's numbers as well as the observation that "All Battery claims are dependent upon network configuration and many other factors; actual results may vary."

For example, the further you are from a tower when you make calls, the quicker the battery will drain. Likewise, a static web page imposes one load on the battery, while another loaded up with animated GIFs and movies presents quite another. Even the power needed to playback music depends on the codec used, among other factors.

You rarely hear from happy customers who get something close to the battery life predicted by any manufacturer, of course. Conventional thinking holds that if a satisfied customer tells one person about their experience, an unsatisfied customer will tell somewhere between two and ten - and the Internet has greatly extended the reach of those with a (perceived or real) reason to complain. So be prepared for a rash of "iPhone batteries suck" web sites in the coming months.

Still, assuming all manufacturers put their devices in the best light, the iPhone's up to eight hours of talk time compares favourably with the newly-announced Mogul that Sprint claims will give up to four hours.

All this said, there's still one question left to be answered: how hard is it going to be to replace an iPhone battery when it eventually fails to hold a charge?{moscomment}