or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

In my 29/30 years of using and owning Apple products (granted, I started as a child and 'owned' them in the sense that my parents bought them) I have always preferred them and their products. But, this doesn't mean they are above reproach.
It is ignorant to say someone like Anand is an 'ignorant blogger'.
Because it is an improved design. By moving the antenna outside (and improving the baseband) you get much better reception in low signal areas. Moving it outside results in it doing a better job at doing what it does. It makes it a better antenna. It also makes it more susceptible to degradation sue to touch.
Oh, fucking stop with the bullshit lying. I actually quoted that part of the article in another post. Yes, the iPhone 4 antenna and baseband work vastly better in low signal conditions. This doesn't change the fact that it creates conditions for low signal simply by allowing the antenna to be touched by having it on the outside. Again, the 4 uses the signal it gets better and will better reception overall. It will also lose signal more dramatically when touched than...
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...
New Posts  All Forums: