RIM, Nokia respond to Apple's "Antennagate" press conference - Page 14

Originally Posted by st3v3

It is, but RIM was right in what they said. Apple used other examples to divert attention to their specific problem, which is signal decrease higher than the norm in terms of dbm. There was no need to draw them into this, especially if they weren't going to be thorough in the style of anandtech and show exactly how this counts in terms of dbm and how it affects the performance of the phones.

Originally Posted by hezetation

I keep looking at the antenna design on the iPhone 4 and wondering why they didn't reverse the framing so that the bottom antenna for wifi was up at the top where few people grab the phone. It is like they put it in the worst possible spot for how people grab it.

Maybe I'm misguided on which pieces serve as what antenna, just was under the impression that the bottom piece of the frame was wifi and left piece was cell, thus bridging them causes an issue. Anyone know more about this?

Originally Posted by davesw

ftc requires the antenna be as far away from the head as possible.

cancer, etc. concerns.

Originally Posted by hezetation

I keep looking at the antenna design on the iPhone 4 and wondering why they didn't reverse the framing so that the bottom antenna for wifi was up at the top where few people grab the phone. It is like they put it in the worst possible spot for how people grab it.

Maybe I'm misguided on which pieces serve as what antenna, just was under the impression that the bottom piece of the frame was wifi and left piece was cell, thus bridging them causes an issue. Anyone know more about this?

Originally Posted by RollinRiver

Oh contraire. The reception of the iPhone 4 is better than others ONLY when it is not held in one's hand. Hold it in your hand and the reception is poor. ...

Originally Posted by anonymouse

No, that's not what testing and reviews showed.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

.

Without getting into signal strength, attenuation, etc. for the moment, I'd like to understand something about the use of phone cases, in general.

We have a total of 6 iPhones-- two are used as phones, the others are SIMless and are used for development and/or as iPod Touches for the grandkids:

SIM - iP4
SIM - 3GS
DEV - 3G
DEV - original iPhone-- 3 of them

As we moved through the generations, whenever we used an iPhone as a phone it was used with a case. In fact, all of the six iPhones we have, only one, an original doesn't have a case.

The usual reason for buying a case was to protect the device from being scratched or breaking if dropped.

With the 3G and the 3GS we got Mophie JuicePack Air cases because they added external battery power to the protective case. Very important during soccer season (Jul-Nov) where we can be out and about for as long as 12 hours.

I had hoped to buy a Mophie-like case/battery for the iP4, but none can be found. So, I bought an Incipio dermaSHOT for $20, to provide device protection until a case/battery becomes available.

So, we have 2 adults with encased iPhones and 3 encased iPhones used as iPods

The 3 grandkids, each has a (non-Apple) phone, and each is encased and 2 have insurance.

In summary of all the cell phones this family has owned (even back before the iPhone) has been used with a case-- with 1 exception: an original iPhone bought in 2007 for development -- so I could JailBreak it without fear of bricking it (which I did).

So, the phones we use as phones and any expensive iPods have always included a case.

Is this normal or unusual?

Does anyone have any citations or estimates of the number of smart phones, iPhones or any brands, that are used with cases?

25%? 50%? 75%?

.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Though it looks like there are 3 segments, the black line on the lower right (apparently) is for cosmetic reasons.

I can't really answer which is which, but I have a picture and some possible ways Apple could modify future antennas to mitigate the problem:

Edit: I suspect that the right antenna, Antenna B, is the cell antenna because the SIM card is located on the right side???

Originally Posted by lilgto64

these folks are working on an iPhone 4 case with built in battery - http://www.ivyskin.com/iphone-battery-smartcase.html

Originally Posted by JupiterOne

Why isn't there a dead spot on the top also? If you bridge the two antenna with your finger at the spot on the top, do you get the same deadening as some people do on the "3G spot"?

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

The top 2 are really bulky and ugly. The 3rd may be OK.

Here's the Mophie JuicePack Air. It is thin (not hunchback) and attractive. The only downside is a microUSB connector that, with repeated use, breaks free from the circuit board-- I gave up after 3 replacements.

.

Originally Posted by davesw

ftc requires the antenna be as far away from the head as possible.

cancer, etc. concerns.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Damned if I know! Before the 4.0.1 fix, I got 5 bars and no drops naked (the iP4) sitting at my computer.

Now, I get 3-4 bars.

I just turned my iP4 on, waited and got 3 bars. I touched and held the top bridge for 30 seconds-- no effect!

Then, I touched the 3G Spot and it went up to 4 bars... go figure!


that that is is that that is not is not is not that it that it is

That, that is, is! That, that is not, is not! Is not that it? That it is!

.

Originally Posted by solipsism

1) You didnt supply a link.

2) Yeah, I was on my 2nd one. Not a fan of that connector type.

3) Apple licenses the male part of the 30-pin connector, not the female part so we wont see a great solution from anyone until that changes.

Originally Posted by RollinRiver

First off, I am a strong supporter of Apple and I have owned an iPhone 4 since the day of its release. As I've navigated through all the news about the reception problem, the point I keep returning to is that I find it absolutely unfathomable that no one (including the 18 PhDs on staff to which Mr. Jobs alluded) recognized that exposing a bare metal antenna was risky. Those of us who grew up with 'rabbit ears' and the days of pull-up antennas on radios can clearly remember that touching the antenna would always change the characteristics of reception -- sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Having an exposed metal antenna wrap around the perimeter of the phone means that it will be touched by conductive human skin any time the phone is not in a case. And that means its reception characteristics will be significantly altered. An internal (not exposed) antenna is subject to a different problem. Rather than having its characteristics altered by conductive skin, it's ability to receive a signal is negatively impacted by the insulating characteristics of the phone's chassis and the human hand. The net effect of this, however, is much less dramatic than being touched directly by something conductive. It is also much easier to compensate for with the software's reception algorithm because it is predictable. The conductivity of the human hand, though, is not predictable. Moisture, size, salt content, etc. all vary conductivity.

I suppose it's possible that an updated software algorithm can improve the stability of iPhone 4 reception, but ultimately, the only way to "fix" it is to insulate the bare metal antenna from the conductivity of the human hand. Again, I can't believe that this wasn't realized in development. Unless, of course, the designers were so smitten with the "cool" look of the stainless steel band.

In either case, I think it is unfortunate that Apple didn't admit this mistake and not just dismiss it with a simple "if they want bumpers, we'll give them bumpers."

Originally Posted by joseph_went_south


Put another way, it seems from the videos that to avoid the signal drop, you need a complete reorganization of your grip on the competitors' phones, while you may or may not just need to move a solitary finger to alleviate the issue on the iPhone.

Originally Posted by shadash

The problem with Apple "defenders" is they will (rightly) jump down somebody's throat when they post some numbers about high iPhone 4 defect rate, low satisfaction rates, etc. But if someone (that's you, davesw) posts some numbers, which indeed he did pull out of his ass, that happen to flatter Apple, or in this case attack Apple's competitors, nothing is said.

Nokia:
This post just says 20%, as if that's all Nokia phones. Then if you go to the poster's original posting (as his link just goes to a previous post of his), you find that this is really only about the N97. Then if we click on the link, we get taken to the "reputable" hotmobilebuzz.com. There we find that these return rates are 1. sourced to "Mobile News." Can either davesw or solipsism tell me who the hell they are? 2. only apply to one carrier in the UK.

Blackberry:
This post says 35%-50%. One would think such an imprecise percentage would have aroused somebody's suspicions. I know that stuck out to me when I read it. Are these all Blackberrys? We don't know from this post. So we click through to davesw's original post, where it states that the Tour had a 50% return rate and the Storm was 35%-50%.

On the Tour, the actual headline is: "Blackberry Tour facing 50% return rate?" Note the question mark. The articles source for this information is "an analyst." Who is he? What are his credentials? He is not identified in the article.

On the Storm, the source of the original link is boygeniusreport.com. Yes, that's right, BGR. This is the same website that Apple fans are now attacking for paying money to some guy who supposedly had an e-mail conversation with Steve Jobs, but it now looks like he made all or part of it up - at least Apple is emphatically denying it. The article says that 3 "credible" (and this is BGR, so you can take that to the bank) sources of theirs claim the return rate is 35%-50%. Verizon (analagous to Apple in that they have the real numbers, not random speculation), claim in the article: "Verizon Wireless hit us up and heres what a Verizon Wireless official had to say: The Storm has the lowest return rate of any of our PDAs and at this point in its life cycle, it has the lowest return rate of any PDA we currently sell. Would davesw, solipsism, and jragosta be ticked if somebody attacking Apple ignored what Apple had to say? Of course. Did davesw include this information in his post? Of course not.

I am willing to bet that return rates for the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 are much lower than these phones. I think Apple makes the best computers and phones on the market. I was an original iPhone owner in 2007 and then got the 3G. I switched to a Droid Incredible a few weeks ago ONLY because I could not stand another day with AT&T. I miss a ton about my iPhone.

But, with all due respect, you guys are no better than the so-called "trolls" that you try and shut up wtih your half truths and attacks. Again I say, you are not helping Apple with these methods.

Originally Posted by SendMe

So you don't own an iPhone. Problem solved. Now STFU.

Originally Posted by shadash

Another pathetic response from a typical Apple fanboy. I won't be shutting up, but I will be ignoring you.

Originally Posted by radster360

This is what this all adds up to -

Consumer Report - 0
Media - 0
RIM, Nokia, HTC, Samsung and all SmartPhone markers - 0
iPhone 4 Customer - 1
Apple - 1

Excellent job by Steve - Apple was pushed into this by Media and when Steve came back with a solid comeback everyone is now complaining that he isn't playing fair! Everyone go back to what you were doing - The show is over! Move along!

Originally Posted by nikon133

Well you can't expect much better from site like this. Number of people around here seem to be existing only to worship Apple and The Leader. I said time ago there are more extremists here than fans...

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton

False analogy, and hopefully you see that. You're just looking at the numbers and not the performance. Even Anandtech, which is credited for publishing dBm numbers as reported by the phone has said that iPhone 4 is able to perform better and hang on to calls at much weaker signals. They also said that just measuring signal strength from the tower's output is not that meaningful because it isn't the only factor that affects real world performance. It doesn't show how well the tower receives the phone, nor the signal-to-noise ratio.

In car brakes, stopping distance is the main performance metric that matters, but in cell phones, it's perhaps more useful to measure the frequency of call drops, and the frequency of being able to place and hold calls. Unfortunately, you give people this little bar graph and on iOS4, Apple's signal formulas were screwed up, and the next thing you know, Consumer Reports is screaming, "The sky is falling!" there must be a defect in Apple's design, and we know better cuz the bar graph goes from 5 bars to 1 bar! Never mind that the phone works in places that a 3GS would fail to place a call.

So, when you say "Problem Solved?" which problem are you referring to? The problem that the iPhone 4 antenna performs better than the 3GS and Nexus One in more real world low signal situations? Or the perception problem caused by the miscalculated bar graph?

Originally Posted by shadash

I am sure the irony of SendMe proving the point about the rabid, mindless fanboyism on this site with his post is lost on him. Oh well.