Live data from Hacker News

Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

macrumors.com

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#31
post #3

I'm 90% sure it's coincidence, but the fact that Apple decided to release their first iPhone bumper/case, and in iOS4 removed the field test mode that showed numeric signal strength, does make me wonder. It's going to be interesting to see how this all turns out, but I'm disappointed in many of the news sites who are now badging it as an issue with displayed strength. I have an iPhone 4, live in an area with good sig…

So data throughput is still 90%? That's not too bad

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#32
post #29
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bug, it's a feature?

More like: it's a drawback. I have a hard time believing the shorting-the-antennas issue was unforeseen by Apple. I give a company that just pulled in a $63.5B year a little more credit.

Huge companies can still make huge mistakes. Ask BP and their $250B in revenue.

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#33
post #3

I'm 90% sure it's coincidence, but the fact that Apple decided to release their first iPhone bumper/case, and in iOS4 removed the field test mode that showed numeric signal strength, does make me wonder. It's going to be interesting to see how this all turns out, but I'm disappointed in many of the news sites who are now badging it as an issue with displayed strength. I have an iPhone 4, live in an area with good sig…

So data throughput is still 90%? That's not too bad

Explanation: "decimate" is to strike down one in ten. To decimate 100% signal strength would be to reduce it by 10%. Hence the lovely pedantic comment above. :-)

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#35
post #32
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like: it's a drawback. I have a hard time believing the shorting-the-antennas issue was unforeseen by Apple. I give a company that just pulled in a $63.5B year a little more credit.

Huge companies can still make huge mistakes. Ask BP and their $250B in revenue.

BP's business model is based around taking calculated risks.

Apple's is based around creating beautiful products with innovative new features. They have definitely done it again... but whether or not the external antenna feature in particular will be seen as innovative.. I guess we will have to "stay tuned".

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#36
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a great little app for my Android G1 that shows your location on a google map (GPS) as well as the location of the cell tower you're connected to. I suspect Apple don't provide an API for this sort of stuff..

What is that app named? I want it!

I use cellmapper.

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, your works fine? In that case, everyone else who has an anecdote about theirs not working fine doesn't really matter. Because if yours works fine, it must not be a problem. I'm not sure why everyone is complaining about this BP oil spill, I don't see any oil washing up on the beaches near me in the northeast, so it can't be THAT big of a problem, right?

By observing the fluidity of Long Island Sound, though, you can be sure that no one has dumped ice-nine into the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly the existence of a single functioning production iPhone 4 proves that there's no fundamental design flaw in the frame-as-antenna idea. I've also had no reception problems with my iPhone 4, despite trying everything I've read about or can think of to provoke them. Licking fingertip…

If you can't even reproduce the problems that people have apparently found in the Nexus One and iPhone 3GS and basically every other phone by holding their phone (in)correctly and shielding the antennae, then why would you further conclude that your failure to replicate an issue specific to the iPhone 4 means it doesn't exist?

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So data throughput is still 90%? That's not too bad

Explanation: "decimate" is to strike down one in ten. To decimate 100% signal strength would be to reduce it by 10%. Hence the lovely pedantic comment above. :-)

Your "explanation" is wrong, even if you have more upvotes than philwelch. Decimation was a form of military punishment in the roman army where one soldier on ten was killed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) )

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#39
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explanation: "decimate" is to strike down one in ten. To decimate 100% signal strength would be to reduce it by 10%. Hence the lovely pedantic comment above. :-)

Your "explanation" is wrong, even if you have more upvotes than philwelch. Decimation was a form of military punishment in the roman army where one soldier on ten was killed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) )

No, you should re-read my comment, since my "incorrect" statement says exactly the same thing that you said. Or do you feel that there is a substantive difference between what I said ("strike down 1 in 10" and "reduces it by 10%") and what you said ("one soldier on [sic] ten was killed").

My guess is that you misread my statement and thought I said that it reduces the signal to 10%. But I didn't say that, and in fact I gave the correct explanation in two ways to make sure I would be interpreted clearly.

Re: Steve Jobs on iPhone 4 Signal Issue: 'There are no reception issues'

#40
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explanation: "decimate" is to strike down one in ten. To decimate 100% signal strength would be to reduce it by 10%. Hence the lovely pedantic comment above. :-)

Your "explanation" is wrong, even if you have more upvotes than philwelch. Decimation was a form of military punishment in the roman army where one soldier on ten was killed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) )

Just because he gave the definition as it is applicable rather than the historical etymology doesn't make it wrong...
Post reply on HN