Apple letter about iPhone 4 • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#11

Post by bugmenot » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:11 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #7

This doesn't seem to jive with AnandTech's testing which ignored the bars completely and installed some software to read the signal strength directly. Their conclusion was that the iPhone 4 had better reception overall than the 3GS for various reasons, (a fact which Apple seem to be clinging to like a life raft) but that the external antennae was still faulty even when held "normally" and if fixed would make a major…

Wasn't his conclusion that the iPhone 4 had worse reception overall that the 3Gs, but better reception in areas of poor reception?

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#12

Post by agotterer » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:12 PM UTC

So you're also telling me that my 3G reception is actually worse then I had previous thought? All those places I get 4 bars are really 2? I guess this explains why I often got dropped calls when I have "full reception".

Wonder why they didn't mention the proximity problem. From what I have heard that's actually more annoying then the signal issue.

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#13

Post by ritonlajoie » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:13 PM UTC

man ! they are good at that...

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#14

Post by alttab » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:13 PM UTC

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1477924

jobs did exactly what I thought they would do. Change perception, not reception.

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#15

Post by mbreese » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:13 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #3

Oops, our phone isn't broken, we just "mistakenly" said the network didn't suck when it did.

Agreed. They are really just punting the problem to AT&T at this point. At least we all expect/have gotten used to them sucking.

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#16

Post by jrockway » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:13 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #3

Oops, our phone isn't broken, we just "mistakenly" said the network didn't suck when it did.

When Apple was writing the signal strength algorithm, they forgot to account for the reality distortion field.

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#17

Post by hackermom » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:13 PM UTC

mbreese wrote: post #4

kilian wrote: post #2

" This is true of iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, as well as many Droid[sic], Nokia and RIM phones. " Droid phones?

Does the Droid have an antenna? Edit: I didn't understand your original comment. Rereading it, yeah, that doesn't make much sense. Perhaps the dear leader only cares about the Droid family on Verizon. Well, more likely they just didn't want to acknowledge the existence of Android in a press release where they are delivering a mea culpa.

It's got two! http://www.gomonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/android-l...

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#18

Post by linhat » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:13 PM UTC

Apple should have said: "Since AT&T has such a crappy reception in most places, we now give you the illusion of having an improved connection!" instead of "We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see."

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#19

Post by est » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:13 PM UTC

it will be a costly lie.

Re: Apple letter about iPhone 4

#20

Post by jrockway » Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 1:14 PM UTC

mbreese wrote: post #4

kilian wrote: post #2

" This is true of iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, as well as many Droid[sic], Nokia and RIM phones. " Droid phones?

Does the Droid have an antenna? Edit: I didn't understand your original comment. Rereading it, yeah, that doesn't make much sense. Perhaps the dear leader only cares about the Droid family on Verizon. Well, more likely they just didn't want to acknowledge the existence of Android in a press release where they are delivering a mea culpa.

No. Android phones receive radio signals with linux kernels, very small ponies, and magic instead of antennas.