or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

We don't know the number, because Apple hasn't released the numbers. You are right, where they are using it is a factor, as the Anand article points out. But, it is simply physics that a contact with an antenna will cause signal degradation and the iPhone 4 is the first iPhone to have an external antenna. How much of a problem it is needs to be determined, but it is a obvious issue. Is too much being made of this? Probably. But for anyone in an area with moderate to low...
That is unfair. The iPhone 4's antenna has been tested externally and shown to have far superior reception to previous models. It has also been shown to be more susceptible to signal loss. They could have stuck the antenna back inside and shielded the shit out of it to prevent any loss from physical contact. That would also have resulted in it having shittier reception. Perhaps they missed the mark on balancing sensitivity and protection, but is dishonest to imply they...
Read. the. article. before. commenting. on. the. article. I could cut and paste it for you, but don't really feel like it. Anyway, he was able to have the phone report the strength numerically instead of with bars. He gives a great explanation.
Yes, you are correct. Anand did confirm what Apple has released. That the antenna is far superior to previous models and that the bars algorithm was flawed. But he also confirm that the industrial design, of exposing the antennas, resulted in greater actual loss of signal when touched. That is the issue that Apple has not addressed.Engineering is always about trade offs. Bringing the antennas to the exterior make them far more sensitive, and so better, than internal...
No, Anand used the actual signal strength reported by the iPhone NOT the bars. The bars, as admitted by Apple, use a flawed algorithm to display the actual signal strength. But the signal strength itself can be accurately reported numerically, which is what Anand did.
...and Anand's report also shows it suffers from GREATER actual signal loss when 'held wrong'. It's only fair not to cherry pick from the analysis. More honest that way. It is a much better antenna than previous models. It is also more susceptible to signal loss. Thankfully, it is so much better an antenna, that even with lower signal strength, it results in better call quality. But, that doesn't change the fact that it's design can result in greater signal loss and so...
And that is exactly what Apple is fixing here; the actual reporting of signal strength. But, in your analogy, if it was not uncommon for some drivers to reproduce a problem where when they pressed the gas not only did the fuel gage show a sudden drop, but the gas tank actually emptied itself. In that case, the fuel gage might be faulty, but there is still no gas in the tank. The iOS might be misreporting the signal strength, but the iPhone 4 design still seems to lead to...
Agreed. I think the exposed antennas result in a more pronounced drop in signal than on earlier versions. This is enough to get the the bars display algorithm to drop to the next level (or two or more, as the lower bars have smaller range). So, while the 3G/3GS may have used the same algorithm, the drop is signal was less and so reflected less of a loss. Of course, the antenna on the 4 is also much better, so it might have enough signal to show 5 bars, where the 3G/3GS...
I think he meant the original decision to ship software that painted a better signal than was actually the case.
It's good to have confirmation from Apple, but it isn't like this isn't exactly what Anand reported. The algorithm for the bars display is weighed to show a better signal than actually existed. The first problem of holding it resulting in the dropping of the number of bars being displayed is mainly a visualization problem..while there is a signal drop, it is not as pronounced as the display indicates. But as Anand also stated, it doesn't change the fact that the actual...
New Posts  All Forums: