51–60 of 145 posts
To phrase that another way, it's not that covering the antennae gives you poor reception, it's that you've always had poor reception but didn't realize it. Doesn't seem right to me, as I thought I had hear complaints about calls being dropped upon covering the antenna - not just fewer bars.
"Probably the biggest thing I’ve taught the team at Apple is that people never know what they’re supposed to think about anything. This is true in Hollywood, in the book business, in the art world, in politics. And especially in technology.
"So we put out a new phone and everyone is sitting there wondering what they should think about it. What I realized many years ago — and honestly, it still amazes me — is that most people are so unsure of themselves that they will think whatever we tell them to think.
"So we tell people that this new phone is not just an incremental upgrade, but rather is the biggest breakthrough since the original iPhone in 2007. We say it’s incredible, amazing, awesome, mind-blowing, overwhelming, magical, revolutionary. We use these words over and over.
"It’s all patently ridiculous, of course. But people believe it."
....
"Which brings me back to iPhone 4 and the antenna issue. Right now you’re confused. You’re worried. You don’t know what to believe. You just wish someone would come along and tell you that everything is squared away and there’s nothing to worry about."
"Well, stay tuned for that. And remember: There is no spoon."
"As a reminder, if you are not fully satisfied, you can return your undamaged iPhone to any Apple Retail Store or the online Apple Store within 30 days of purchase for a full refund." This is more pragmatic than bitching on the Internet (I concede a difference between investing and reporting these problems and merely bitching) or class action lawsuits[1]. Vote with your wallet, eh? [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/ite…
So it seems that in the worst case, holding it across the bottom attenuates the signal by about 10dbm, i.e. by a factor of 10, compared to holding it across the top, which is about the same effect as the relative position of your head vs. the tower.
It's weird, though, that in the best case, holding it by the bottom has no effect at all on signal. You'd naively think that the best case would be when the phone is on the side of your head facing the tower, in which case the hand across the bottom should make maximum difference. I guess this just goes to show how nonintuitive the results are of loading the antenna with a bunch of conductive goo of strange shape...
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…
As for holding the phone, I'm not so troubled by the antennae, could it be better, yes, but is it that terrible, doesn't seem so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that both Apple's letter and AnandTech's review show us that we shouldn't be measuring signal strength (either numerically or with bars). AnandTech said "That brings me to the way that signal quality should really be reported - Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR)." [1] I found a good comment on MeFi that discusses the bars' uselessness for CDMA. [2] [1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2 [2] h…
Anand doesn't mention it explicitly, and neither do you, but I'm assuming that signal to noise ratio drops when you short the iPhone 4 antennae too otherwise his conclusion doesn't make sense: "At the end of the day, Apple should add an insulative coating to the stainless steel band, or subsidize bumper cases. It's that simple."
The iPhone 4 loses 24.6dB of signal strength when cupped at the bottom vs 17.7dB for the Nexus one. If Apple should be required to add an insulative coating to the stainless steel, then shouldn't Google also be required to make their phone thicker (or make other adjustments) until it reaches the 14.3dB reduction of the 3GS?
If Apple is required to subsidize a bumper case, to bring the signal reduction down to 7.2dB, then shouldn't Google also be required to subsidize a case (even with a case, Google's signal reduction would still be 7.7dB).
Also, the iPhone 4 can hold a call quite well at the absolute minimum signal level of -113dBm. If the Nexus One can't do this, then should we demand that Google recall the Nexus one until it can do so?
This whole issue and the hundreds of news stories around it are ridiculous. This is not a black-and-white issue of the antenna working or not. The phone has a weaker signal for some people, and a stronger signal for others, depending on how you hold it and where you are. Take that into consideration when choosing a phone. If it's not working out for you, then just return the phone and buy one you like.
does not jive with my own exp using android, RIM, and Nokia..
Does anyone else feel this letter seems strangely/hastily/poorly written for corporate communication? It uses terms/expressions like "totally wrong", "Their big drop in bars", "the iPhone’s bars", pretty much anything that mentions "bars", etc. Or do you think this is just about keeping it colloquial, so it sounds like a real email from one of your friends?
Their typical customer is a bit of a bohemian bourgeois so they need to adapt their writing to seduce that target.
Ok I'm exaggerating a little bit, but do you get the point?
To phrase that another way, it's not that covering the antennae gives you poor reception, it's that you've always had poor reception but didn't realize it. Doesn't seem right to me, as I thought I had hear complaints about calls being dropped upon covering the antenna - not just fewer bars.