Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

nickvsnetworking.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 184 posts

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#31

Post by saghm »

godelski wrote: post #24
alberth wrote: post #7

I wonder if it’s more intuitive that way. Like what Apple does with stopwatch. https://lukashermann.dev/writing/why-the-iphone-timer-displa...

It seems easier to use the ceiling

From looking at the bottom of the linked post (which says it was edited, not sure when in relation to your comment), it sounds like they wanted something that worked across arbitrary times split across units (hour/minute/seconds) without having to handle carry-over. I'm not sure I would choose to alter the times themselves over making the math a bit more complex, but the author has obviously thought about this a lot more than me, and it's nice that they at least considered that alternative.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#32

Post by userbinator »

TheDong wrote: post #15
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #8

How can one hide from git blame?

You can't hide from the pickaxe $ git log --oneline -SKEY_INFLATE_SIGNAL_STRENGTH_BOOL | tail gets us the commit [0] from 2020 where config_inflateSignalStrength was renamed to KEY_INFLATE_SIGNAL_STRENGTH_BOOL $ git log --oneline -Sconfig_inflateSignalStrength | tail gets us this commit [1] from 2017 where it was originally added: 43c14d198479 Add config to artificially inflate number of bars [0]: https://android.goo…

I'm surprised they even display the name and email of the person responsible for doing it. If I were forced to make such a change that I knew would be publicly displayed, I'd do everything possible to disclaim it (such as mentioning the one who actually requested it.)

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#33

Post by 3eb7988a1663 »

metadat wrote: post #2

You know, I don't recall ever seeing 1 bar of signal strength on a smartphone. And once it's down to 2 bars, it barely works, if at all. Human brains: wow, what a bunch of suckers. Damn. By the way, is it legal to be deceptive in this way?

Heh, my phone consistently reports 1 bar inside my apartment within a major metropolitan area. Indeed binary, because it works enough for the few times I actually take calls not on wifi.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#34

Post by instagib »

I would rather see a live speed test number, emoji, or something. The signal frequency or strength doesn’t matter if the tower equipment is overloaded with users and running at dialup speeds.

I’ve been in bad tower areas where the solution is to drive to the next town or tower along the highway.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#35

Post by _carbyau_ »

samplatt wrote: post #22
eqvinox wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know, I don't recall ever seeing 1 bar of signal strength on a smartphone. I do. I'm from Germany, land of perpetual EDGEing. Highest total GDP in the EU but can't build a mobile network for the life of it. Then again we somehow forgot how to run trains and build cars without cheating, so I guess it fits. Want to see a single bar? Come visit, our carriers aren't on the list with that inflate flag enabled. I gue…

I also do, I'm Australian. I regularly experience both congestion caused by tower over-subscription as well as traveling waaaay out into the country where there's no reception, even on the Telstra network that boasts better coverage than everyone else by a mile.

Better coverage may be claimed. But as you know, Australia is a big place.

The few farmers I know have a rough idea of the on-the-ground cell coverage. They say things like "this side of the hill/town" usually. I've seen them deliberately walk to the other side of a silo to make a call.

I assume that the coverage maps are assumed cell-tower-coverage-if-shit-is-not-in-the-way. No surprise radios are common.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#37

Post by jmspring »

metadat wrote: post #2

You know, I don't recall ever seeing 1 bar of signal strength on a smartphone. And once it's down to 2 bars, it barely works, if at all. Human brains: wow, what a bunch of suckers. Damn. By the way, is it legal to be deceptive in this way?

spend some time in rural areas, you will see a one or two bar here and there and sometimes it works, sometimes it is not.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#38

Post by lifestyleguru »

Towaway69 wrote: post #26

Don’t worry the camera is only on when the green light is on.

In AirBnB and Booking.com apartments the camera is off when the owner says "don't worry, it's turned off". The camera is turned off even harder when English is not the main language of the country.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#39

Post by zabumafu »

I implemented the same behavior in a different Google product.

I remember the PM working on this feature showing us their research on how iPhones rendered bars across different versions.

They had different spectrum ranges, one for each of maybe the last 3 iPhone versions at the time. And overlayed were lines that indicated the "breakpoints" where iPhones would show more bars.

And you could clearly see that on every release, iPhones were shifting the all the breakpoints more and more into the left, rendering more bars with less signal strength.

We tried to implement something that matched the most recent iPhone version.

Re: Simple trick to increase coverage: Lying to users about signal strength

#40

Post by alexanderjchun »

kouteiheika wrote: post #19
NoPicklez wrote: post #3

There's a part of me that thinks there's perhaps a logical and reasonable explanation, I just can't think of one.

> a logical and reasonable explanation There is a logical and reasonable explanation. These companies are run by a bunch of sociopathic, unethical people who won't hesitate to lie and cheat if it gets them more money. It's as simple as that.

Sure, but what was the seemingly plausible reason those sociopaths came up with to get people onboard?
Post reply on HN