or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Aussie paper says iPhone 4 antenna is no problem, Kiwi launch hits snag
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aussie paper says iPhone 4 antenna is no problem, Kiwi launch hits snag

post #1 of 133
Thread Starter 
One of the largest publications in Australia has found no major reception problems with Apple's newly released iPhone 4, while the problematic New Zealand launch was delayed a few hours.

Daily Telegraph: No reception issues

Stephen French, national technology writer for Australia's The Daily Telegraph, gave a glowing review to Apple's iPhone 4 on Friday. Using it for nearly a week, he has not dropped calls or noticed any impact on the device's performance.

The writer managed to replicate some of the signal issues experienced by users when covering the bottom left of the iPhone 4. However, it was not enough to hamper his experience with the smartphone.

French tested the Australian version of the iPhone 4 without a case on all of the country's four carriers that offer Apple's handset. The device was used on the Telstra, Optus, Vodafone and 3 networks in parts of Sydney with varying signal strengths.

"I tried the 'death grip' on the bottom left while making test calls in areas I knew to have weaker reception and the times I did manage to reduce the signal bars... my calls were still not affected," he wrote. "The worst thing that happened was a web page I was loading timed out but after refreshing it came up fine. I even managed to watch a YouTube video over 3G while in the 'death grip.'"

French said that call quality was improved over the iPhone 3GS, and he found that holding the handset in the "death grip" manner was unnatural.

"The iPhone 4 is not just a slight improvement over the iPhone 3GS, it is a massive jump," he said. "There are so many great enhancements across the board it will be hard for existing iPhone owners to resist and a great place to start for users who are new to the smartphone market."

New Zealand launch hits snag

iPhone 4 buyers who lined up overnight in New Zealandto purchase Apple's latest handset came away disappointed on Friday, as the launch was delayed a few hours. According to stuff.co.nz, the handset was eventually available through select Vodafone stores by midday.

The carrier would not comment on what caused an apparent delay of the launch, though some speculated it was caused by a shipping delay.

Though the morning launch was delayed, about 100 people lined up outside the Vodafone Lambton Quay store in Wellington about 4 hours later to purchase the iPhone 4. One customer reportedly referred to the launch as an "epic fail."
post #2 of 133
Since one customer said that, it must be true!
post #3 of 133
I guess we can all go back to blaming AT&T for the reception problems here?
post #4 of 133
You do have to remember when referring to The Daily Telegraph's report that the mobile cell towers have a much better coverage in Australia than they do in the States. Australian telecommunications technology is around 4 years ahead of the US, and our coverage with 3G is basically ubiquitous.

The signals received by an iPhone 4 in Australia will generally be extremely high quality - well into the "5-bar spectrum", and so no amount of touching to that antenna will cause an iPhone to lose even a bar. Say it drops from -51 to -66. It still won't cause even a bar to drop, here in Australia, due to the high quality of our mobile networks.

I personally handled an iPhone 4 today at its release in Australia. I'm on the waiting list for one currently, as they were sold out hours before I got there. (I'm in the Royal Australian Navy and was on duty during the launch) Impeccable quality, and brilliant screen. I attempted to attenuate the signal of the display device, and I had no effect no matter how many times and ways I touched it. But our signals are better here. I can understand and appreciate that this may not be the case in a place such as the US, and I think its fair to state the differences between those two different locales as a factor.
post #5 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

You do have to remember when referring to The Daily Telegraph's report that the mobile cell towers have a much better coverage in Australia than they do in the States. Australian telecommunications technology is around 4 years ahead of the US, and our coverage with 3G is basically ubiquitous.

The signals received by an iPhone 4 in Australia will generally be extremely high quality - well into the "5-bar spectrum", and so no amount of touching to that antenna will cause an iPhone to lose even a bar. Say it drops from -51 to -66. It still won't cause even a bar to drop, here in Australia, due to the high quality of our mobile networks.

I personally handled an iPhone 4 today at its release in Australia. I'm on the waiting list for one currently, as they were sold out hours before I got there. (I'm in the Royal Australian Navy and was on duty during the launch) Impeccable quality, and brilliant screen. I attempted to attenuate the signal of the display device, and I had no effect no matter how many times and ways I touched it. But our signals are better here. I can understand and appreciate that this may not be the case in a place such as the US, and I think its fair to state the differences between those two different locales as a factor.

Total BS.

Australia had the SLOWEST 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/08/global-iphone-3/
post #6 of 133
Just ordered iPhone 4 (32GB) from Apple Australia (web order) soon after the site started accepting web orders. Delivery 27 August! Another four week wait!?
post #7 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Total BS.

Australia had the SLOWEST 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/08/global-iphone-3/

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what he said.

I'm embarassed for you.
post #8 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Total BS.

Australia had the SLOWEST 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/08/global-iphone-3/

You're actually completely misinformed. They probably don't talk much about it out there in Massachusetts. But the 3G in France is much slower.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #9 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Since one customer said that, it must be true!

Mate, now you're being unreasonable. It's in the news and the blogs. Not just one customer... The NZ launch had some definite snags. Remember, this is outside the US, Australia and New Zealand are considered backwaters by all the big companies sometimes. Australia only recently in the past few years got taken more seriously by Apple.
post #10 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Total BS.

Australia had the SLOWEST 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/08/global-iphone-3/

lol. you quote a 2 year old "study" from a magazine, and wired at that.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #11 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Mate, now you're being unreasonable. It's in the news and the blogs. Not just one customer... The NZ launch had some definite snags. Remember, this is outside the US, Australia and New Zealand are considered backwaters by all the big companies sometimes. Australia only recently in the past few years got taken more seriously by Apple.

Snags? Yes.

Epic fail? That sounds like an overstatement. (If you read the comment of the person quoted).
post #12 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

I guess we can all go back to blaming AT&T for the reception problems here?

I think so, I really do. The global feedback on the antenna seems good so far.
post #13 of 133
Disregard
post #14 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Snags? Yes.

Epic fail? That sounds like an overstatement. (If you read the comment of the person quoted).

Fair enough. I'm not in New Zealand so I don't know how bad it was if it qualified as an "epic fail". Of which their are varying levels of epic failure...
post #15 of 133
This is an epic fail.

post #16 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what he said.

I'm embarassed for you.

No, it has EVERYTHING to do with what he said.

People only complained about AT&T's "weak" network --- because they compare it with Verizon's "THE network".

But when you actually do a international comparison, AT&T ended up with the 3rd fastest 3G iphone speed in the world.

So now instead of what he claims that Australia is 4 years ahead of US in mobile technology --- it is actually the other way around. Australian carriers are a couple of years behind AT&T --- which in turn AT&T is a couple of years behind Verizon.

AT&T's network ain't that bad when you compare it with the rest of the world.
post #17 of 133
This is a snag.




So we'll have to see how bad it was in NZ
post #18 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

You do have to remember when referring to The Daily Telegraph's report that the mobile cell towers have a much better coverage in Australia than they do in the States. Australian telecommunications technology is around 4 years ahead of the US, and our coverage with 3G is basically ubiquitous.

The signals received by an iPhone 4 in Australia will generally be extremely high quality - well into the "5-bar spectrum", and so no amount of touching to that antenna will cause an iPhone to lose even a bar. Say it drops from -51 to -66. It still won't cause even a bar to drop, here in Australia, due to the high quality of our mobile networks.

I personally handled an iPhone 4 today at its release in Australia. I'm on the waiting list for one currently, as they were sold out hours before I got there. (I'm in the Royal Australian Navy and was on duty during the launch) Impeccable quality, and brilliant screen. I attempted to attenuate the signal of the display device, and I had no effect no matter how many times and ways I touched it. But our signals are better here. I can understand and appreciate that this may not be the case in a place such as the US, and I think its fair to state the differences between those two different locales as a factor.

Telstra's Next G network does look rather impressive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_G - I don't see AT&T anywhere near those speeds in any reports!

99% population coverage perhaps.. However you can see clearly there's big patches of nothing there (of course, there's generally noone in those places to complain).

http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/nextg/coverage.html
post #19 of 133
Not only that the data was skewed by the results of one company (Optus) bringing down the average.

Our networks are continuously being upgraded especially in metropolitan areas where 7.2Mbps is the norm and has been since 2009.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

lol. you quote a 2 year old "study" from a magazine, and wired at that.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #20 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Not only that the data was skewed by the results of one company (Optus) bringing down the average.

Our networks are continuously being upgraded especially in metropolitan areas where 7.2Mbps is the norm and has been since 2009.

American comparison is skewed because Americans compare AT&T's "weak" network with Verizon's "THE network" --- the bell curve was skewed.
post #21 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, it has EVERYTHING to do with what he said.

People only complained about AT&T's "weak" network --- because they compare it with Verizon's "THE network".

But when you actually do a international comparison, AT&T ended up with the 3rd fastest 3G iphone speed in the world.

So now instead of what he claims that Australia is 4 years ahead of US in mobile technology --- it is actually the other way around. Australian carriers are a couple of years behind AT&T --- which in turn AT&T is a couple of years behind Verizon.

AT&T's network ain't that bad when you compare it with the rest of the world.

samab, get real. Both Verizon and ATT are truly backward compared to what is available in much of the rest of the world, regardless of what some silly publication like Wired claims. Travel around, and you'll realize that these two pathetic companies are seriously holding our country back in terms of quality and service of cellular communications.

I vaguely recall that you work for Verizon (sorry if I am wrong about that), so perhaps you are not entirely unbiased.
post #22 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

American comparison is skewed because Americans compare AT&T's "weak" network with Verizon's "THE network" --- the bell curve was skewed.

CDMA is dead. Verizon is so yesterday. Get over it.
post #23 of 133
In Canada. Eh.

Reviewing the newly released iPhone 4
CTV's tech guru reviews the highly-anticipated iPhone 4, which is available in Canada Friday, and discusses whether the 16G or 32G model is the best choice.

The video speaks for itself
http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam/
post #24 of 133
So you getting 2Mbps download speeds to your CDMA phones yet?

Because I AVERAGE around 3.5Mbps with peaks around 5.5Mbps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

American comparison is skewed because Americans compare AT&T's "weak" network with Verizon's "THE network" --- the bell curve was skewed.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #25 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, it has EVERYTHING to do with what he said.

People only complained about AT&T's "weak" network --- because they compare it with Verizon's "THE network".

But when you actually do a international comparison, AT&T ended up with the 3rd fastest 3G iphone speed in the world.

So now instead of what he claims that Australia is 4 years ahead of US in mobile technology --- it is actually the other way around. Australian carriers are a couple of years behind AT&T --- which in turn AT&T is a couple of years behind Verizon.

AT&T's network ain't that bad when you compare it with the rest of the world.

Yeah, but do you remember, at the time when steve approached verizone to get the iPhone on " THE Network", verizone was afraid that " THE Network " would simply collaps?!
post #26 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

CDMA is dead. Verizon is so yesterday. Get over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So you getting 2Mbps download speeds to your CDMA phones yet?

Because I AVERAGE around 3.5Mbps with peaks around 5.5Mbps.

By the end of the year, 1/3 of US will have Verizon's LTE with 5-12 mbps average speed and 50 mbps peak.

It's just a matter of perspective. AT&T's network looks weak only because people are comparing it with Verizon's network. Quantitative analysis has shown that AT&T's network ain't that bad when comparing it with the rest of the world.
post #27 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

Yeah, but do you remember, at the time when steve approached verizone to get the iPhone on " THE Network", verizone was afraid that " THE Network " would simply collaps?!

But who has the last laugh? Verizon beat AT&T in postpaid net adds in a iphone launch quarter.
post #28 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

One customer reportedly referred to the launch as an "epic fail."

Before or after he bought the iPhone 4?
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #29 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

samab, get real. Both Verizon and ATT are truly backward compared to what is available in much of the rest of the world, regardless of what some silly publication like Wired claims. Travel around, and you'll realize that these two pathetic companies are seriously holding our country back in terms of quality and service of cellular communications.

I vaguely recall that you work for Verizon (sorry if I am wrong about that), so perhaps you are not entirely unbiased.

Americans talk 3x more voice minutes than the rest of the world, SMS 3-4x more than Europeans, have more 3G penetration than Europe, use more 3G data, use more smartphones...
post #30 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

But who has the last laugh? Verizon beat AT&T in postpaid net adds in a iphone launch quarter.

Well who cares? Me definitely not.
post #31 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

Well who cares? Me definitely not.

What was Bee Gees singing: I started a joke, which started the whole world crying , But I didn't see that the joke was on me.
post #32 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, it has EVERYTHING to do with what he said.

People only complained about AT&T's "weak" network --- because they compare it with Verizon's "THE network".

But when you actually do a international comparison, AT&T ended up with the 3rd fastest 3G iphone speed in the world.

So now instead of what he claims that Australia is 4 years ahead of US in mobile technology --- it is actually the other way around. Australian carriers are a couple of years behind AT&T --- which in turn AT&T is a couple of years behind Verizon.

AT&T's network ain't that bad when you compare it with the rest of the world.

Oh, samab, still shilling for Qualcomm? It's a little obvious when that's all you ever post about.
post #33 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

What was Bee Gees singing: I started a joke, which started the whole world crying , But I didn't see that the joke was on me.

I am sorry, when people are making fun of you. But as a personal advise I suggest you should be a little bit more realistic. \
post #34 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

samab, get real. Both Verizon and ATT are truly backward compared to what is available in much of the rest of the world, regardless of what some silly publication like Wired claims. Travel around, and you'll realize that these two pathetic companies are seriously holding our country back in terms of quality and service of cellular communications.

I vaguely recall that you work for Verizon (sorry if I am wrong about that), so perhaps you are not entirely unbiased.

I can't totally agree.

My experience in Europe was pretty good. But man is it expensive. Not if you are staying in one place, but cross the borders and wham. Roaming is a bitch. What America doesn't take into consideration is the breadth of their (U.S.A. and Canada) countries. And that is North and South as well as East and West. Try calling Rome from the UK for what you can from NY to LA

As for the orient, it has issues as well. 3G Is not ubiquitous.

As I have always contended, wireless has one major characteristic. Anything that is placed in between the line of sight immediately impacts on the reception. When you factor in all the issues that can impede transmission, it is amazing just how good the technology is. Remember that much is dependent on natural, geographical, topographical, man-made and economical structures and considerations. And then there is man himself.

It must be nice to live in a country that one could walk across in a week or two, the government has built as state-of-art infrastructure without any regard for the inhabitants that paid for it, and has a universal network protocol that is standardize to all your continental neighbors.

Cripe. I'll bet there is many San Francisco's in the rest of the world either.
post #35 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Oh, samab, still shilling for Qualcomm? It's a little obvious when that's all you ever post about.

I am not shilling for Qualcomm at all. I am supporting AT&T in this argument --- straight quantitative analysis do show that AT&T's network ain't that bad when you compare them with the rest of the world.
post #36 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Total BS.

Australia had the SLOWEST 3G iphone speed in the wired.com survey.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/08/global-iphone-3/

It seems others have already taken you to task about this comment, but this is completely irrelevant. The speed of the network is not the same thing as the coverage or the strength of the signal necessarily. Also, you are obviously a troll and you knew this already because your reference to that article is very selective. In the bulleted list you are referring to in the article it says this:

"Participants in Australia reported the slowest average 3G download speeds of about 759 Kbps."

But the very next line in the same set of points? ...

"The most 0 results for 3G download speeds came from U.S. participants presumably those dropped from the 3G network. In the United States, 63 participants reported 0″ Altogether there were 80 0″ figures reported."

This is the real problem with the so-called "death grip" issue. The networks in the USA basically are old-school and suck rather badly. This isn't reported on, because most of the people doing the complaining are Americans and it's a "negative" message which the media avoids like the plague now they are more concerned with ratings than facts.

You don't tell your customers, or your audience, that something is their fault or endemic to choice they made. Ergo and ipso facto, no one has the guts to tell people that the problem with the antenna is really just bad infrastructure combined with obese American hands. (Higher BMI equals more interference with the antenna when you touch it.)

This is what Apple, and the news media would like to tell you, but can't. It's *your* fault America.
post #37 of 133
I purchased my iphone 4 on launch day in the US i did experience many drop calls in weak sigal areas, since then i´ve been in Mexico, Germany, England and France in NONE of those places did i drop ONE phone call i could not even replicate de issue by droping bars so i really believe 100% thi is an AT&T issue.
post #38 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samv View Post

Just ordered iPhone 4 (32GB) from Apple Australia (web order) soon after the site started accepting web orders. Delivery 27 August! Another four week wait!?

Yeah. I'm in Canada but got the same sad news.

I really am pissed at how badly Apple handles it's international product launches. Right up until hours before the release of the product, there's no pre-orders, and worse no information (at all!) on what they are actually going to do or what their policies are going to be. It's as if Apple figures it's job is "done" when the truck finally drives up to the international location and dumps a load of boxes. All they care about is shovelling out the product, there is no customer care, and no communication beyond the rumours you hear on the web.

I phoned my local Apple store last night and was told that the managers had been specifically instructed by Apple headquarters not to give out *any* information on sales before the actual launch today. It's not like I was asking for inside info either. I was asking stuff like "will I be *able* to buy it online?" and they stonewalled me and said they were under strict orders not to communicate *anything* to the customer.

I know it's nice for Apple that a lot of obsessive types take the day off from work and line up just on the possibility that the iPhone will be for sale, but they shouldn't expect all their sales to be that way. If I now have to wait three or four more weeks, why the f*ck couldn't I pre-order it three weeks ago? If they have stock in the store, why can't I set my order for in store pickup? If I was able to take the day off work, I could just walk into the Apple store and buy one but now I have to wait three weeks even though I live within fifteen minutes of the Apple store. Alternatively, I could have called in sick or something and went downtown to line up with all the losers, but because they won't tell you how many they have (even wild approximations are verboten apparently), one could line up for hours and not get one.

Absolutely abysmal customer service if you ask me. My local Apple store has joined the ranks of places like WallMart and RadioShack in my town. It *looks* like an Apple store, but it runs like any other run-of-the-mill crappy department store.
post #39 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

By the end of the year, 1/3 of US will have Verizon's LTE with 5-12 mbps average speed and 50 mbps peak.

It's just a matter of perspective. AT&T's network looks weak only because people are comparing it with Verizon's network. Quantitative analysis has shown that AT&T's network ain't that bad when comparing it with the rest of the world.

By the end of the year We already have 10 Mbps in all big cities and even more than that.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #40 of 133
In samab's defense...
  1. I consider Wired a reputable source.
  2. I don't think 2 years is excessive for a comparison chart, but if someone has a newer one please post it.
  3. It's possible for a mobile network operator to be both the fastest and slowest network at the same time.
  4. It's possible for a mobile network operator both cutting edge And antiquated at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G View Post

You do have to remember when referring to The Daily Telegraph's report that the mobile cell towers have a much better coverage in Australia than they do in the States. Australian telecommunications technology is around 4 years ahead of the US, and our coverage with 3G is basically ubiquitous.

The signals received by an iPhone 4 in Australia will generally be extremely high quality - well into the "5-bar spectrum", and so no amount of touching to that antenna will cause an iPhone to lose even a bar. Say it drops from -51 to -66. It still won't cause even a bar to drop, here in Australia, due to the high quality of our mobile networks.

[...]

There was an article yesterday stating the iPhone was recommended for low signal and rural areas for its superior reception. There are many other reports showing the iPhone 4 can maintain a connection where other phones would say No Service or drop the call.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Aussie paper says iPhone 4 antenna is no problem, Kiwi launch hits snag