And when you get to the part about actual use, the rest of the story comes out:
"From my day of testing, I've determined that the iPhone 4 performs much better than the 3GS in situations where signal is very low, at -113 dBm (1 bar). Previously, dropping this low all but guaranteed that calls would drop, fail to be placed, and data would no longer be transacted at all. I can honestly say that I've never held onto so many calls and data simultaneously on 1 bar at -113 dBm as I have with the iPhone 4, so it's readily apparent that the new baseband hardware is much more sensitive compared to what was in the 3GS. The difference is that reception is massively better on the iPhone 4 in actual use."
If you want to be thorough you'd have to include these quotes from Anandtech too:
"The original iPhone 4 design was flawed. Although Apple downplayed the issue publicly, it solved the deathgrip antenna problem with the CDMA iPhone 4."
Along with this one:
"When we reviewed the GSM/UMTS iPhone 4, we investigated and explained why its design made it especially prone to unintended attenuation when held a certain way. Apple remedied the situation somewhat by giving away free cases, but only in the case of the CDMA iPhone 4 was the fundamental design issue remedied by adding receive diversity with a second cellular antenna at the top."
And don't forget this:
"When we reviewed the CDMA iPhone 4, I made mention of the fact that this was the first iPhone 4 I felt comfortable using without a case... unlike the GSM/UMTS iPhone 4."
Marketing 101 - Never bring up your competitors, it only takes the spotlight off of your product, and could back fire depending on the consumer. Especially when the competitive issue is two years old and has since been resolved. Nokia has not only ignored those principles, but actually paying someone to do it. I will enjoy seeing them crash and burn.
They'd all kill to get a fraction of Apple's free press, even if it's bad!
This is ridiculous. The market has spoken on the antenna issue. The verdict: what issue?
Maybe they can make an ad showing the MS iPhone funeral parade.
From my day of testing, I've determined that the iPhone 4 performs much better than the 3GS in situations where signal is very low, at -113 dBm (1 bar). Previously, dropping this low all but guaranteed that calls would drop, fail to be placed, and data would no longer be transacted at all. I can honestly say that I've never held onto so many calls and data simultaneously on 1 bar at -113 dBm as I have with the iPhone 4, so it's readily apparent that the new baseband hardware is much more sensitive compared to what was in the 3GS. The difference is that reception is massively better on the iPhone 4 in actual use.
What this boils down to is Apple should have adjusted the signal bars to represent a lower dB before the iPhone 4 release because their clearly superior design of the iPhone 4 antennas allowed for connections that were not previously common with cellphones. They failed to account for this change and so people saw a drop in bars and thought this represented a lack of connectivity when the number of bars and the dB level are not static indications of the ability to make and receive calls and data across all phones.
Solip, you're already aware that reported signal strength, a non-issue, and antenna attenuation, the real issue, are two different things . We went over the same territory recently. No need to rehash it unless you're confused still. I suspect you aren't.
What do you mean doing it correctly? The message of those ads are exactly the same as what Apple tried with their ones, they are claiming their devices are better than their competitors.
Apple's ads were actually successful, and Apple had the goods to back them up. Duh.
They weren't desperate attempts to slander a far superior competitor with obvious lameness.
So Nokia is pretty much going on record as claiming their phone will never drop calls, can be dropped without damage, and that its screen is easy to see in direct sunlight? Because if you're going to be snotty about those things, you'd better have a pretty compelling case to make that you've solved those problems.
Thing is, we know they haven't.
Signal strength is out of the handset makers hands, and as we know from "Antennagate", it was the edge case where anyone had a problem. Will no one ever use a Nokia Windows phone where their hand is somewhat attenuating reception and the signal strength is already marginal?
Can I drop my Nokia Windows phone from standing height onto concrete without fear of damage? Have they managed to engineer completely shock proof casing and glass? Will Nokia astonish the world with a new LCD technology that can overwhelm direct sunlight? Wow!
Yes, of course, it's all a matter of degrees (a good quality LCD is more legible than OLED in sunlight, I wouldn't be surprised if a slab of polycarbonate case is pretty robust), but that's not how they're playing it. They're implying those problems are on account of the "Beta" status of current cellphone design, and that they'll be the one to fix it.
I wonder if there will be a class action suit for misleading advertising the first time someone drops their Nokia screen first onto pavement?
In tech industries like cell phones, TVs, computers, operating systems, etc there is usually only room for 2 maybe 3 max top tier manufacturers. So if you look at providers of mobile OS, we have iOS, Android, WinPhone and Blackberry (not counting Symbian). Even if Android eventually becomes the clear majority in popularity, WinPhone and Blackberry will just be squabbling for table scraps until one gives up. HP was probably smart to bail on Palm even though they were dumb to buy it in the first place.
Actually I don't even see Android (proper smartphones) catching iOS simply because of Apple's ecosystem. Even Android users have iTunes installed on their computer and most likely have an iPod as well.
What do you mean doing it correctly? The message of those ads are exactly the same as what Apple tried with their ones, they are claiming their devices are better than their competitors.
It has become status quo to use lies and deception in advertising products. The Nokia ad campaign should be exposed by everyone who knows the truth. Since the government isn't going to fix the problem of false advertising to more like it was in the 60s & 70s, we the consumer will have to fight for honesty in the marketplace. \
If you want to be thorough you'd have to include these quotes from Anandtech too:
"The original iPhone 4 design was flawed. Although Apple downplayed the issue publicly, it solved the deathgrip antenna problem with the CDMA iPhone 4."
Along with this one:
"When we reviewed the GSM/UMTS iPhone 4, we investigated and explained why its design made it especially prone to unintended attenuation when held a certain way. Apple remedied the situation somewhat by giving away free cases, but only in the case of the CDMA iPhone 4 was the fundamental design issue remedied by adding receive diversity with a second cellular antenna at the top."
And don't forget this:
"When we reviewed the CDMA iPhone 4, I made mention of the fact that this was the first iPhone 4 I felt comfortable using without a case... unlike the GSM/UMTS iPhone 4."
Yup, all from Anandtech.
Most of the antenna problem is actually mitigated in the CDMA iPhone 4. How? Antenna diversity.
Antenna diversity can be implemented a few different ways. You can switch between two different antennas quickly depending on which is experiencing temporary fade (from a hand touching it), or you can do some averaging and hope that even with significant fade on one antenna, there's still enough signal to keep you above cutoff. It's not clear what Apple has implemented on the CDMA iPhone 4, but as we'll show later, it definitely mitigates the problem in most cases. Diversity won't magically give you better signal strength (nor will it save you if you cover both), but it will help keep SNR and overall link quality high. The MDM6600 has full CDMA and WCDMA RF receive diversity support with the inclusion of an external switch. It's not entirely certain what part is the switch, but it's definitely there.
How else do we know that the CDMA iPhone 4 has diversity? It's part of Verizon's own specifications for what devices need to have to attach to their network. Buried in the required open alliance spec datasheets is the following:
There we have it, if you want a device approved for Verizon's EVDO network, you need receive diversity.
So we have the antenna design being improved, which was required, but we still have trolling comments that Apple improving something with subsequent releases means that it was inherently flawed despite nearly everything being improved YoY.
We even have the same GSM-based iPhone 4 still being sold throughout the world for nearly 2 years and yet there was no massive recall. There was no continued giving away of the Bumpers because it was impossible to use without one. There was no change from an external to an internal antenna with the two subsequent releases as claimed would happen because Apple was stupid for putting the antenna on the outside.
Apple has done something brilliant and two years later you're still trying to say they failed.
I still have the first iPhone 4 and I have never, ever had a dropped call from the so called death grip. And why now. Why bring up this old issue nearly two damn years later?
Pathetic. Pathetic nokia.
Why? Because when you have a product you need to market that CAN'T stand on its own merits, you need to try to take down the competition a notch or two. Even if those antenna problems were fixed two years ago.
What do you mean doing it correctly? The message of those ads are exactly the same as what Apple tried with their ones, they are claiming their devices are better than their competitors.
That's pointlessly reductive. If the only metric for "exactly the same" is "claiming their devices are better than their competition", then all advertising is the same.
The difference here is that the I'm a Mac apps were relatively humorous, portrayed the PC character is basically well intentioned and likable but hamstrung by the limitations of the Windows OS, and stopped airing, you know, years ago. At this point we're heading towards "But they stole everything from Xerox!" territory, that is a go-to cliche for the desperate.
Whereas these Nokia ads portray the unnamed perpetrators behind the terrible phones to date as callous assholes, brushing off criticism with snide remarks and "blame the user" rhetoric.
That would be called a striking difference in tone and intent. However, I guess when all you have is an Apple hammer, the whole world looks like an Apple nail, so whatever.....
All this shows is Nokia is desperate. Instead of innovating like Apple and other companies they just rode the wave until it crashed. Microsoft is not much different. I have never seen such BS marketing in the electronics market. Apple gives people what they want! They build integrated products that just work.
First let me say that Windows Phone 7 is a good OS, in many ways it appears superior to iOS, and I have had the ability to hold and use a production Lumia 900 and it is fantastic, far more comfortable in my huge hands than the dainty little iPhone, but that said, this is embarrassing, MS/Nokia have a great product, they dont need to waste peoples time telling them why "apple sucks" particularly on a 2 year old flaw that was addressed in manufacturing revisions!
Nokia and MS could be a serious contender, I could see it taking a large bite out of android and a smaller but still significant bite out of iPhone, but they have to show how the OS is better, not how the competition screwed up 2 years ago...
All this shows is Nokia is desperate. Instead of innovating like Apple and other companies they just rode the wave until it crashed. Microsoft is not much different. I have never seen such BS marketing in the electronics market. Apple gives people what they want! They build integrated products that just work.
have you USED windows phone 7.5? it was good enough to get me to give up iPhone, and I was there in 2007 baby! The apps are lacking, but that will come. Android is a hot mess, and Apple iOS is sitting on their success of 2007-2009, not innovating a bit, its like the Mac in the early 90s, it started as teh king of the hill, but Amega, BeOS, Windows, OS/2 and such were competing, and Apple just sat smugly until Windows 95 came out and wiped the floor with Macs of the day.
footnote, I should get the Lumia 900 Friday to replace my iPhone4
Most of the antenna problem is actually mitigated in the CDMA iPhone 4. How? Antenna diversity.
Antenna diversity can be implemented a few different ways. You can switch between two different antennas quickly depending on which is experiencing temporary fade (from a hand touching it), or you can do some averaging and hope that even with significant fade on one antenna, there's still enough signal to keep you above cutoff. It's not clear what Apple has implemented on the CDMA iPhone 4, but as we'll show later, it definitely mitigates the problem in most cases. Diversity won't magically give you better signal strength (nor will it save you if you cover both), but it will help keep SNR and overall link quality high. The MDM6600 has full CDMA and WCDMA RF receive diversity support with the inclusion of an external switch. It's not entirely certain what part is the switch, but it's definitely there.
How else do we know that the CDMA iPhone 4 has diversity? It's part of Verizon's own specifications for what devices need to have to attach to their network. Buried in the required open alliance spec datasheets is the following:
There we have it, if you want a device approved for Verizon's EVDO network, you need receive diversity.
So we have the antenna design being improved, which was required, but we still have trolling comments that Apple improving something with subsequent releases means that it was inherently flawed despite nearly everything being improved YoY.
We even have the same GSM-based iPhone 4 still being sold throughout the world for nearly 2 years and yet there was no massive recall. There was no continued giving away of the Bumpers because it was impossible to use without one.
Apple has done something brilliant and two years later you're still trying to say they failed.
No sir, all the data was posted by Anandtech. If there was a failure claimed it was by them, not me.
Are they lying about the results, or their comments can't be trusted since they're anti-Apple? What would be your explanation for their stated opinion based on their test results?
FWIW you have no idea if some change was made to the newer GSM iPhone sometime after the issues first arose. There was a question about that raised by iFixit, with the results inconclusive. You're assuming Apple made no changes since since Apple didn't mention it. Would you really expect them to acknowledge a flaw by announcing a change?
Solip, you're already aware that reported signal strength, a non-issue, and antenna attenuation, the real issue, are two different things . We went over the same territory recently. No need to rehash it unless you're confused still. I suspect you aren't.
Then why are you rehashing it?
The iPhone 4 series is the best selling phone of all times - and has extremely low return rates. If this problem is so real, why aren't people returning them left and right?
Funny how the people who own the phone don't think it's a problem, but here you are bringing it up years after it was debunked.
So Nokia is pretty much going on record as claiming their phone will never drop calls, can be dropped without damage, and that its screen is easy to see in direct sunlight? Because if you're going to be snotty about those things, you'd better have a pretty compelling case to make that you've solved those problems.
Thing is, we know they haven't.
Yep. I can't wait for the class action suits.
"I dropped my phone and it broke. Nokia said it wouldn't break"
"I was in the middle of the Mojave desert and couldn't get a signal. Nokia said that their phone didn't drop calls"
"I couldn't read my email in the middle of Death Valley at noon in July. Nokia said that wouldn't be a problem."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wellinator
All this shows is Nokia is desperate.
Desperate and stupid. Those ads were among the worst I've ever seen. There's a reason that Nokia's name does not appear on the ads. They don't want anyone to know that the ads are their work.
Comments
And when you get to the part about actual use, the rest of the story comes out:
"From my day of testing, I've determined that the iPhone 4 performs much better than the 3GS in situations where signal is very low, at -113 dBm (1 bar). Previously, dropping this low all but guaranteed that calls would drop, fail to be placed, and data would no longer be transacted at all. I can honestly say that I've never held onto so many calls and data simultaneously on 1 bar at -113 dBm as I have with the iPhone 4, so it's readily apparent that the new baseband hardware is much more sensitive compared to what was in the 3GS. The difference is that reception is massively better on the iPhone 4 in actual use."
If you want to be thorough you'd have to include these quotes from Anandtech too:
"The original iPhone 4 design was flawed. Although Apple downplayed the issue publicly, it solved the deathgrip antenna problem with the CDMA iPhone 4."
Along with this one:
"When we reviewed the GSM/UMTS iPhone 4, we investigated and explained why its design made it especially prone to unintended attenuation when held a certain way. Apple remedied the situation somewhat by giving away free cases, but only in the case of the CDMA iPhone 4 was the fundamental design issue remedied by adding receive diversity with a second cellular antenna at the top."
And don't forget this:
"When we reviewed the CDMA iPhone 4, I made mention of the fact that this was the first iPhone 4 I felt comfortable using without a case... unlike the GSM/UMTS iPhone 4."
Yup, all from Anandtech.
Marketing 101 - Never bring up your competitors, it only takes the spotlight off of your product, and could back fire depending on the consumer. Especially when the competitive issue is two years old and has since been resolved. Nokia has not only ignored those principles, but actually paying someone to do it. I will enjoy seeing them crash and burn.
They'd all kill to get a fraction of Apple's free press, even if it's bad!
This is ridiculous. The market has spoken on the antenna issue. The verdict: what issue?
Maybe they can make an ad showing the MS iPhone funeral parade.
What this boils down to is Apple should have adjusted the signal bars to represent a lower dB before the iPhone 4 release because their clearly superior design of the iPhone 4 antennas allowed for connections that were not previously common with cellphones. They failed to account for this change and so people saw a drop in bars and thought this represented a lack of connectivity when the number of bars and the dB level are not static indications of the ability to make and receive calls and data across all phones.
Solip, you're already aware that reported signal strength, a non-issue, and antenna attenuation, the real issue, are two different things . We went over the same territory recently. No need to rehash it unless you're confused still. I suspect you aren't.
What do you mean doing it correctly? The message of those ads are exactly the same as what Apple tried with their ones, they are claiming their devices are better than their competitors.
Apple's ads were actually successful, and Apple had the goods to back them up. Duh.
They weren't desperate attempts to slander a far superior competitor with obvious lameness.
Thing is, we know they haven't.
Signal strength is out of the handset makers hands, and as we know from "Antennagate", it was the edge case where anyone had a problem. Will no one ever use a Nokia Windows phone where their hand is somewhat attenuating reception and the signal strength is already marginal?
Can I drop my Nokia Windows phone from standing height onto concrete without fear of damage? Have they managed to engineer completely shock proof casing and glass? Will Nokia astonish the world with a new LCD technology that can overwhelm direct sunlight? Wow!
Yes, of course, it's all a matter of degrees (a good quality LCD is more legible than OLED in sunlight, I wouldn't be surprised if a slab of polycarbonate case is pretty robust), but that's not how they're playing it. They're implying those problems are on account of the "Beta" status of current cellphone design, and that they'll be the one to fix it.
I wonder if there will be a class action suit for misleading advertising the first time someone drops their Nokia screen first onto pavement?
Actually I don't even see Android (proper smartphones) catching iOS simply because of Apple's ecosystem. Even Android users have iTunes installed on their computer and most likely have an iPod as well.
What do you mean doing it correctly? The message of those ads are exactly the same as what Apple tried with their ones, they are claiming their devices are better than their competitors.
Sorry, you're thinking it wrong.
If you want to be thorough you'd have to include these quotes from Anandtech too:
"The original iPhone 4 design was flawed. Although Apple downplayed the issue publicly, it solved the deathgrip antenna problem with the CDMA iPhone 4."
Along with this one:
"When we reviewed the GSM/UMTS iPhone 4, we investigated and explained why its design made it especially prone to unintended attenuation when held a certain way. Apple remedied the situation somewhat by giving away free cases, but only in the case of the CDMA iPhone 4 was the fundamental design issue remedied by adding receive diversity with a second cellular antenna at the top."
And don't forget this:
"When we reviewed the CDMA iPhone 4, I made mention of the fact that this was the first iPhone 4 I felt comfortable using without a case... unlike the GSM/UMTS iPhone 4."
Yup, all from Anandtech.
We even have the same GSM-based iPhone 4 still being sold throughout the world for nearly 2 years and yet there was no massive recall. There was no continued giving away of the Bumpers because it was impossible to use without one. There was no change from an external to an internal antenna with the two subsequent releases as claimed would happen because Apple was stupid for putting the antenna on the outside.
Apple has done something brilliant and two years later you're still trying to say they failed.
I have to ask:
1) What is the purpose of these ads?
2) At whom are they targeted?
3) What are they trying to motivate their target audience to do?
...They certainly aren't "brand promotion/recognition" ads -- more like simple trolling, actually...
1) Bring awareness to the Lumia 900
2) Anyone that wants to listen. And that includes DED and AppleInsider it seems
3) Consider the Lumia 900 when it is time to purchase a new phone
It seems to be working. The phone is not even released and it is in the "Best Sellers" (with 2 SKUs no less) list at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-C..._nav_cps_1_cps
Lame , lame lame.
I still have the first iPhone 4 and I have never, ever had a dropped call from the so called death grip. And why now. Why bring up this old issue nearly two damn years later?
Pathetic. Pathetic nokia.
Why? Because when you have a product you need to market that CAN'T stand on its own merits, you need to try to take down the competition a notch or two. Even if those antenna problems were fixed two years ago.
What do you mean doing it correctly? The message of those ads are exactly the same as what Apple tried with their ones, they are claiming their devices are better than their competitors.
That's pointlessly reductive. If the only metric for "exactly the same" is "claiming their devices are better than their competition", then all advertising is the same.
The difference here is that the I'm a Mac apps were relatively humorous, portrayed the PC character is basically well intentioned and likable but hamstrung by the limitations of the Windows OS, and stopped airing, you know, years ago. At this point we're heading towards "But they stole everything from Xerox!" territory, that is a go-to cliche for the desperate.
Whereas these Nokia ads portray the unnamed perpetrators behind the terrible phones to date as callous assholes, brushing off criticism with snide remarks and "blame the user" rhetoric.
That would be called a striking difference in tone and intent. However, I guess when all you have is an Apple hammer, the whole world looks like an Apple nail, so whatever.....
Nokia and MS could be a serious contender, I could see it taking a large bite out of android and a smaller but still significant bite out of iPhone, but they have to show how the OS is better, not how the competition screwed up 2 years ago...
All this shows is Nokia is desperate. Instead of innovating like Apple and other companies they just rode the wave until it crashed. Microsoft is not much different. I have never seen such BS marketing in the electronics market. Apple gives people what they want! They build integrated products that just work.
have you USED windows phone 7.5? it was good enough to get me to give up iPhone, and I was there in 2007 baby! The apps are lacking, but that will come. Android is a hot mess, and Apple iOS is sitting on their success of 2007-2009, not innovating a bit, its like the Mac in the early 90s, it started as teh king of the hill, but Amega, BeOS, Windows, OS/2 and such were competing, and Apple just sat smugly until Windows 95 came out and wiped the floor with Macs of the day.
footnote, I should get the Lumia 900 Friday to replace my iPhone4
So we have the antenna design being improved, which was required, but we still have trolling comments that Apple improving something with subsequent releases means that it was inherently flawed despite nearly everything being improved YoY.
We even have the same GSM-based iPhone 4 still being sold throughout the world for nearly 2 years and yet there was no massive recall. There was no continued giving away of the Bumpers because it was impossible to use without one.
Apple has done something brilliant and two years later you're still trying to say they failed.
No sir, all the data was posted by Anandtech. If there was a failure claimed it was by them, not me.
Are they lying about the results, or their comments can't be trusted since they're anti-Apple? What would be your explanation for their stated opinion based on their test results?
FWIW you have no idea if some change was made to the newer GSM iPhone sometime after the issues first arose. There was a question about that raised by iFixit, with the results inconclusive. You're assuming Apple made no changes since since Apple didn't mention it. Would you really expect them to acknowledge a flaw by announcing a change?
1) Bring awareness to the Lumia 900
2) Anyone that wants to listen. And that includes DED and AppleInsider it seems
3) Consider the Lumia 900 when it is time to purchase a new phone
It seems to be working. The phone is not even released and it is in the "Best Sellers" (with 2 SKUs no less) list at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-C..._nav_cps_1_cps
1) How? They don't mention the Lumina Phone (or any phone) -- just denigrate a phone that strongly resamples an iPhone or a slavish Sammy copy.
3) How do they do that when the Lumina wasn't mentioned -- or even ATT or the promotion/arrival date.
...Friends, Romans, Countrymen... I got sompin' I wanna' tell yus'
Solip, you're already aware that reported signal strength, a non-issue, and antenna attenuation, the real issue, are two different things . We went over the same territory recently. No need to rehash it unless you're confused still. I suspect you aren't.
Then why are you rehashing it?
The iPhone 4 series is the best selling phone of all times - and has extremely low return rates. If this problem is so real, why aren't people returning them left and right?
Funny how the people who own the phone don't think it's a problem, but here you are bringing it up years after it was debunked.
http://www.apple.com/za/antenna/
So Nokia is pretty much going on record as claiming their phone will never drop calls, can be dropped without damage, and that its screen is easy to see in direct sunlight? Because if you're going to be snotty about those things, you'd better have a pretty compelling case to make that you've solved those problems.
Thing is, we know they haven't.
Yep. I can't wait for the class action suits.
"I dropped my phone and it broke. Nokia said it wouldn't break"
"I was in the middle of the Mojave desert and couldn't get a signal. Nokia said that their phone didn't drop calls"
"I couldn't read my email in the middle of Death Valley at noon in July. Nokia said that wouldn't be a problem."
All this shows is Nokia is desperate.
Desperate and stupid. Those ads were among the worst I've ever seen. There's a reason that Nokia's name does not appear on the ads. They don't want anyone to know that the ads are their work.
Yep. I can't wait for the class action suits.
"I dropped my phone and it broke. Nokia said it wouldn't break"
"I was in the middle of the Mojave desert and couldn't get a signal. Nokia said that their phone didn't drop calls"
"I couldn't read my email in the middle of Death Valley at noon in July. Nokia said that wouldn't be a problem."
That won't happen. Nokia simply doesn't have the mindshare.