I'm convinced its a design flaw, one that effects previous iPhone models as well. After doing a little research its quite clear what happening.
Apple can use a software fix to try an improve the phone's tuning and hide the problem a little bit but they can't change the laws of physics. When you touch a naked antenna it screws with the reception. This is a universally understood concept and thats why antennas are usually insulated.
Not sure if this had been made clear, the bars don't seem to be linked to the quality of the call. I was all caught up on the bars meaning something, but in the end they are just a representation of what is going on in the phone, which might be a faulty indication.
To test, I made a series of calls and triggered the bar loss effect with my finger. In all of the trials, the call quality did not reduce any noticeable amount.
Based on this, I suspect that if the phone is adapting to a new signal configuration, that the signal strength bar might not be switching to the new configuration. (Guessing here). If this turns out to be true, this might be a software issue after all.
Now, I am having the proximity sensor issue as well, sure there will be a thread on this soon as well.
The signal is digital. This means that the call quality will not change, as long as there is enough gain. The only time the call quality will change is when touching the antenna has a strong enough effect that the gain will drop below acceptable levels.
Interesting, I just did a little experiment with my 3GS.
When I handle the phone without my case on (incase slider) the signal strength drops 2-3 bars quite quickly. But if i pick it up exactly the same with the case on its unaffected. The results were 100% repeatable.
Very interesting... Even touching the bezel on the 3GS has such a dramatic effect. Clearly, Apple isn't insulating their antennas properly. This could explain a lot of the issues people are having with iPhone reception in general. By using lots of metal and glass parts in the construction of their phones, Apple's phones clearly have different characteristics when compared to other plastic phones.
All this is reasonable.
Quote:
It makes perfect sense because they field test their phones with protective cases on to hide their appearance. This would have the unintended consequence of insulating the antenna and protecting it from things like standing waves and other tuning/impedance issues. They probably have no real world data for this because they never test their phones naked.
This, not so much. Because a phone was found with a case on it is no indication that every iPhone was tested with a case on it. If it's an insulation issue then wouldn't this affect anything that uses the antenna? If it's a design flaw as you imply it would then affect every iPhone 4 since insulation won't change between signal strength and operating bands.
Even if a variance doesn't cause a 5 bar to No Service drop you'd expect some noticeable attenuation do to this antenna insulation design flaw. There appears to be none so your theory doesn't seem likely to me.
You've ignored everyone using the phone at Cupertino without a casing or in a vehicle around parts of the state or country under the watchful eye of Apple employees before giving them to trusted personnel in a more general real world test to vet SW bugs. You've also discounted every single engineer working on the design to not understand a damn thing about how RF works. Does any of that really seem likely?
How about a production issue affecting only a subset of the units sold? Does that seem at all possible?
This, not so much. Because a phone was found with a case on it is no indication that every iPhone was tested with a case on it. If it's an insulation issue then wouldn't this affect anything that uses the antenna? If it's a design flaw as you imply it would then affect every iPhone 4 since insulation won't change between signal strength and operating bands.
Even if a variance doesn't cause a 5 bar to No Service drop you'd expect some noticeable attenuation do to this antenna insulation design flaw. There appears to be none so your theory doesn't seem likely to me.
You've ignored everyone using the phone at Cupertino without a casing or in a vehicle around parts of the state or country under the watchful eye of Apple employees before giving them to trusted personnel in a more general real world test to vet SW bugs. You've also discounted every single engineer working on the design to not understand a damn thing about how RF works. Does any of that really seem likely?
How about a production issue affecting only a subset of the units sold? Does that seem at all possible?
No it would not effect all phones, because no two antennas would be identical, therefore the effect of touching it would vary from phone to phone. Also, the signal at apple's campus could be very strong, which would make the effect less noticeable. Also, I simply implied that the use of protective cases would be an issue during apple's testing, because Apple likely would not let a naked iPhone out into the wild because of the attention it would attract. The one iPhone 4 that was discovered in the wild had a protective case. Im sure there is a reason and policy for this.
You didn't read it if you're asking that question.
5 bars is MAXIMUM STRENGTH aka FULL STRENGTH aka THE BEST RELATIVE STRENGTH FOR THE PHONE.
This is not difficult to understand.
Okay, I've been watching you spew on and on about how 5 bars equals maximum strength.
According to you... if the phone drops by one bar, the signal drops by 20%? I doubt it.
I think that the tallest bar on the iPhone could mean anywhere between 81%-100% of a signal.
0 bars = 0%
1 bar = 1%-20%
2 bars = 21%-40%
3 bars = 41%-60%
4 bars = 61%-80%
5 bars = 81%-100%
You see... 5 bars could mean only an 81% signal.
For a similar test, turn off the battery percentage meter on your iPhone. Do you really think that you're at 100% until the first row of pixels is missing? Going from 100% to 90%?... no, it doesn't. It goes from 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91 first and at 90%, the first pixel is removed.
That's what we're trying to say. 5 bars does not mean MAXIMUM signal. It just means that the signal is within the 81%-100% threshold.
No it would not effect all phones, because no two antennas would be identical, therefore the effect of touching it would vary from phone to phone. Also, the signal at apple's campus could be very strong, which would make the effect less noticeable. Also, I simply implied that the use of protective cases would be an issue during apple's testing, because Apple likely would not let a naked iPhone out into the wild because of the attention it would attract. The one iPhone 4 that was discovered in the wild had a protective case. Im sure there is a reason and policy for this.
Nothing is truly identical but I think a CNC milled frame is about close as you can get for CE.
I think the premise that no iPhone 4 was ever out of the 3GS casing is shortsighted, at best. Besides the fact that thd lost phone was found well after thd design process was compketed, do you honestly think all iPhone 4s were tested in bars? Do you not think that perhaps they could be tested in the real world but still in relative isolation like driving California's highways where they could test it along a wide range of conditions without using a case because it would not be their personal phone for testing? it seems unlikely to me that they wouldn't do this.
I'm convinced its a design flaw, one that effects previous iPhone models as well. After doing a little research its quite clear what happening.
Apple can use a software fix to try an improve the phone's tuning and hide the problem a little bit but they can't change the laws of physics. When you touch a naked antenna it screws with the reception. This is a universally understood concept and thats why antennas are usually insulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBLACK
Another factor is the iPhone itself. No two objects are the same. A slight difference in the antenna's natural resonance and impedance could explain why some phones are affected more than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Nothing is truly identical but I think a CNC milled frame is about close as you can get for CE.
Apple said they made "an entirely new alloy" or something like that for the steel-alloy frame. While the machining may be precise, could there be some variability in alloy composition, however small, that causes some variability in signal reception across different phones.
It looks like Apple was doing a lot of new things here, from the design, to the alloy, to the software, etc. They've taken big, big risks in making the next great iPhone.
At the end of the day, is there a design flaw? Or simply dud phones where the alloy/ coating/ whatever is out of regular specification? We'll see.
Okay, I've been watching you spew on and on about how 5 bars equals maximum strength.
According to you... if the phone drops by one bar, the signal drops by 20%? I doubt it.
I think that the tallest bar on the iPhone could mean anywhere between 81%-100% of a signal.
0 bars = 0%
1 bar = 1%-20%
2 bars = 21%-40%
3 bars = 41%-60%
4 bars = 61%-80%
5 bars = 81%-100%
You see... 5 bars could mean only an 81% signal.
For a similar test, turn off the battery percentage meter on your iPhone. Do you really think that you're at 100% until the first row of pixels is missing? Going from 100% to 90%?... no, it doesn't. It goes from 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91 first and at 90%, the first pixel is removed.
That's what we're trying to say. 5 bars does not mean MAXIMUM signal. It just means that the signal is within the 81%-100% threshold.
I know that's what you're trying to say, but the fact remains that the battery indicator will show MORE battery available for use when there are MORE pixels in the battery meter. With signal, there is no gradation between 100% and 99% since they are both 5 bars. However, there is a definite difference between 5 bars and 4 bars as represented on the iPhone 4 just as there is a definite difference between 500 battery pixels versus 450 battery pixels.
Getting back to the original point, the people who are losing their signal on their iPhone 4 do so from 5 bars which represents the maximum signal strength REPRESENTED by the phone. You can't say that it's not the maximum strength, because you do not know what the maximum strength is apart from the fact that it is at 5 bars which is the graphical representation of maximum strength.
It would be understandable if they were at 2 bars, or 3 bars, or 4 bars and posters like you and solipsism would say that signal attenuation to zero bars is understandable because the strength is sub-maximum. However, with the bars fully at 5 going completely to 0 bars indicates a more serious problem involved than the typical attenuation predicted.
You can get all hot and bothered about how you can be at 5 bars and sit under a tower which is better strength than being at 5 bars and being 100 meters away from a tower and still at 5 bars, but is that really much of a difference when it comes to touching an antenna and making the signal decrease from 5 bars to 0 bars?
You can not have a very weak signal starting out and still be at 5 bars as a way of explaining away Apple's signal problem.
Okay, I've been watching you spew on and on about how 5 bars equals maximum strength.
You see... 5 bars could mean only an 81% signal.
For a similar test, turn off the battery percentage meter on your iPhone. Do you really think that you're at 100% until the first row of pixels is missing? Going from 100% to 90%?... no, it doesn't. It goes from 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91 first and at 90%, the first pixel is removed.
That's what we're trying to say. 5 bars does not mean MAXIMUM signal. It just means that the signal is within the 81%-100% threshold.
It all depends on the operating level that is set by the phone manufacturer. For example, if 5 bars only means full strength, I would have to climb on a cell tower and hold the phone next to an antenna to get 5 bars. The RF level drops in half as you double the distance.
The five bars may mean a rating of bit error rate (BER). That is, no errors in the signal give you five bars. It may not be a rating of signal strength at all. As the correctible errors increase, the bars go down.
In radio transmissions, the term "five by five" means perfect transmission. It is a signal quality rating. You can hear and the other person can hear you correctly. So the five bars may mean that transmission is working properly and has no discernible errors.
If it is just showing RF strength then it would show a more rapid change when you short the antenna. But it seems that is takes time to lower the bars. Perhaps the phone is making calculations on the error rate and that is why it slowly goes down. And remember that in digital transmission, you can correct errors until they get so large that you start hearing glitches and the phone can no longer keep the connection.
Sometimes in electronics (and in life) the obvious is not necessarily true. Just because five bars light up, you can't assume what it is showing if you don't know the circuitry and the algorithms.
But then, they may be no more than eye candy,
"They don't mean much of anything, it turns out.
I don't know what they're displaying for GSM, but probably what they're displaying is the signal strength. For CDMA (which is what I know about) that's what they display, but in CDMA the signal strength is highly deceptive because it doesn't inform you of what the noise floor is.
The technical term is "EC/I0" (pronounced "ee-see-over-eye-naught") and it refers to the amount of the signal which is usable. In CDMA you can have strong signal (4 bars) and lousy EC/I0 and not be able to carry a call, and you can have low signal (zero bars) and excellent EC/I0 and carry a call fine. But they can't display EC/I0 because it fluctuates wildly (it could go from zero to four bars and back to zero again in just a few seconds) and would terrify users, so they display the signal strength, which at least has the virtue of being stable, though it doesn't really mean much.
Even worse... there is no industry standard for what "one bar" or "two bars" means. None. Everyone just sort of sets some thresholds, and even from the same manufacturer it can change from phone model to phone model.
Extrapolating from my CDMA experience, I would guess that in GSM they're displaying the signal strength of the paging channel, with an uncalibrated display not driven by industry standards."
If there is a recall or SW fix will you man up admit there is no design flaw and that you been acting like a bunny these last few days.
The definition of a recall is a design flaw. Acting like a bunny? You so crazy.
A software fix is different. If you look back at what I said I've stated a few times that it doesn't look like something that's software fixable, and I doubt it'll come out Monday or Tuesday, but if it does then I won't complain. I have made comments along these lines already, but you have skimmed over them, haven't you?
That all said, it doesn't change that Steve told someone to hold their phone differently, or buy a case to cover the problem, and that it's a non issue. Steve didn't instead say to that guy, a software fix is coming. And the only proof we have that it is is this mysteriously disappearing here-say thread article from AI itself. Written by none other than "The Prince". Color me cautious. And Apple's statement to Walt about a software fix was about the cosmetic bar-signal display bug, not the other tangible, reproducible, speed-reducing, call-dropping issue.
The question is: what are you going to say if Apple does admit there's an issue, after you stating there wasn't. I don't expect anything.
One of the criticisms voiced throughout many of the posts is that we don't know if it's a design flaw or just a small issue caused by manufacturing variability.
The definition of a recall is a design flaw. Acting like a bunny? You so crazy.
It only means there is an issue with a device. A recall doesn't mean the design is flawed, only the finished product. If less than 100% of iPhone 4s are recalled or they issue a protective Bumper for every iPhone 4 because the exposed antenna is a faulty concept then it's a production issue, not a design issue. Understanding the differences and admitting you overacted would go a long way.
Quote:
The question is: what are you going to say if Apple does admit there's an issue, after you stating there wasn't. I don't expect anything.
Perhaps you should comprehend what you read instead of getting emotional over the trivial. I've stated from the start that there will be issues with the iPhone 4 and with all mass produced CE. Regardless of the quality control, the fact that there is quality control means there is an inherent level of potential issues that can and will arise from time to time. That is life, deal with it.
I even stated an anecdote, from the get go, about a friend who received an iPhone 4 that was DOA and asked you if that means that all iPhone 4s are therefore DOA to show you the logical fallacy of your implication that all iPhone 4s were having signal issues because some were. HE returned it to the store, they gave him a new one, they made sure it worked in the store (even testing FaceTime) and he hasn't had an issue sense. That's how a reasonable person should deal with a faulty product.
It only means there is an issue with a device. A recall doesn't mean the design is flawed, only the finished product.
If could mean either one, actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
If less than 100% of iPhone 4s are recalled or they issue a protective Bumper for every iPhone 4 because the exposed antenna is a faulty concept then it's a production issue, not a design issue.
Faulty concept? Are you actually mad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Understanding the differences and admitting you overacted would go a long way.
erhaps you should comprehend what you read instead of getting emotional over the trivial. I've stated from the start that there will be issues with the iPhone 4 and with all mass produced CE. Regardless of the quality control, the fact that there is quality control means there is an inherent level of potential issues that can and will arise from time to time. That is life, deal with it.
Comments
Apple can use a software fix to try an improve the phone's tuning and hide the problem a little bit but they can't change the laws of physics. When you touch a naked antenna it screws with the reception. This is a universally understood concept and thats why antennas are usually insulated.
Not sure if this had been made clear, the bars don't seem to be linked to the quality of the call. I was all caught up on the bars meaning something, but in the end they are just a representation of what is going on in the phone, which might be a faulty indication.
To test, I made a series of calls and triggered the bar loss effect with my finger. In all of the trials, the call quality did not reduce any noticeable amount.
Based on this, I suspect that if the phone is adapting to a new signal configuration, that the signal strength bar might not be switching to the new configuration. (Guessing here). If this turns out to be true, this might be a software issue after all.
Now, I am having the proximity sensor issue as well, sure there will be a thread on this soon as well.
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/...ning-properly/
The signal is digital. This means that the call quality will not change, as long as there is enough gain. The only time the call quality will change is when touching the antenna has a strong enough effect that the gain will drop below acceptable levels.
Interesting, I just did a little experiment with my 3GS.
When I handle the phone without my case on (incase slider) the signal strength drops 2-3 bars quite quickly. But if i pick it up exactly the same with the case on its unaffected. The results were 100% repeatable.
Very interesting... Even touching the bezel on the 3GS has such a dramatic effect. Clearly, Apple isn't insulating their antennas properly. This could explain a lot of the issues people are having with iPhone reception in general. By using lots of metal and glass parts in the construction of their phones, Apple's phones clearly have different characteristics when compared to other plastic phones.
All this is reasonable.
It makes perfect sense because they field test their phones with protective cases on to hide their appearance. This would have the unintended consequence of insulating the antenna and protecting it from things like standing waves and other tuning/impedance issues. They probably have no real world data for this because they never test their phones naked.
This, not so much. Because a phone was found with a case on it is no indication that every iPhone was tested with a case on it. If it's an insulation issue then wouldn't this affect anything that uses the antenna? If it's a design flaw as you imply it would then affect every iPhone 4 since insulation won't change between signal strength and operating bands.
Even if a variance doesn't cause a 5 bar to No Service drop you'd expect some noticeable attenuation do to this antenna insulation design flaw. There appears to be none so your theory doesn't seem likely to me.
You've ignored everyone using the phone at Cupertino without a casing or in a vehicle around parts of the state or country under the watchful eye of Apple employees before giving them to trusted personnel in a more general real world test to vet SW bugs. You've also discounted every single engineer working on the design to not understand a damn thing about how RF works. Does any of that really seem likely?
How about a production issue affecting only a subset of the units sold? Does that seem at all possible?
All this is reasonable.
This, not so much. Because a phone was found with a case on it is no indication that every iPhone was tested with a case on it. If it's an insulation issue then wouldn't this affect anything that uses the antenna? If it's a design flaw as you imply it would then affect every iPhone 4 since insulation won't change between signal strength and operating bands.
Even if a variance doesn't cause a 5 bar to No Service drop you'd expect some noticeable attenuation do to this antenna insulation design flaw. There appears to be none so your theory doesn't seem likely to me.
You've ignored everyone using the phone at Cupertino without a casing or in a vehicle around parts of the state or country under the watchful eye of Apple employees before giving them to trusted personnel in a more general real world test to vet SW bugs. You've also discounted every single engineer working on the design to not understand a damn thing about how RF works. Does any of that really seem likely?
How about a production issue affecting only a subset of the units sold? Does that seem at all possible?
No it would not effect all phones, because no two antennas would be identical, therefore the effect of touching it would vary from phone to phone. Also, the signal at apple's campus could be very strong, which would make the effect less noticeable. Also, I simply implied that the use of protective cases would be an issue during apple's testing, because Apple likely would not let a naked iPhone out into the wild because of the attention it would attract. The one iPhone 4 that was discovered in the wild had a protective case. Im sure there is a reason and policy for this.
You didn't read it if you're asking that question.
5 bars is MAXIMUM STRENGTH aka FULL STRENGTH aka THE BEST RELATIVE STRENGTH FOR THE PHONE.
This is not difficult to understand.
Okay, I've been watching you spew on and on about how 5 bars equals maximum strength.
According to you... if the phone drops by one bar, the signal drops by 20%? I doubt it.
I think that the tallest bar on the iPhone could mean anywhere between 81%-100% of a signal.
0 bars = 0%
1 bar = 1%-20%
2 bars = 21%-40%
3 bars = 41%-60%
4 bars = 61%-80%
5 bars = 81%-100%
You see... 5 bars could mean only an 81% signal.
For a similar test, turn off the battery percentage meter on your iPhone. Do you really think that you're at 100% until the first row of pixels is missing? Going from 100% to 90%?... no, it doesn't. It goes from 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91 first and at 90%, the first pixel is removed.
That's what we're trying to say. 5 bars does not mean MAXIMUM signal. It just means that the signal is within the 81%-100% threshold.
No it would not effect all phones, because no two antennas would be identical, therefore the effect of touching it would vary from phone to phone. Also, the signal at apple's campus could be very strong, which would make the effect less noticeable. Also, I simply implied that the use of protective cases would be an issue during apple's testing, because Apple likely would not let a naked iPhone out into the wild because of the attention it would attract. The one iPhone 4 that was discovered in the wild had a protective case. Im sure there is a reason and policy for this.
Nothing is truly identical but I think a CNC milled frame is about close as you can get for CE.
I think the premise that no iPhone 4 was ever out of the 3GS casing is shortsighted, at best. Besides the fact that thd lost phone was found well after thd design process was compketed, do you honestly think all iPhone 4s were tested in bars? Do you not think that perhaps they could be tested in the real world but still in relative isolation like driving California's highways where they could test it along a wide range of conditions without using a case because it would not be their personal phone for testing? it seems unlikely to me that they wouldn't do this.
I'm convinced its a design flaw, one that effects previous iPhone models as well. After doing a little research its quite clear what happening.
Apple can use a software fix to try an improve the phone's tuning and hide the problem a little bit but they can't change the laws of physics. When you touch a naked antenna it screws with the reception. This is a universally understood concept and thats why antennas are usually insulated.
Another factor is the iPhone itself. No two objects are the same. A slight difference in the antenna's natural resonance and impedance could explain why some phones are affected more than others.
Nothing is truly identical but I think a CNC milled frame is about close as you can get for CE.
Apple said they made "an entirely new alloy" or something like that for the steel-alloy frame. While the machining may be precise, could there be some variability in alloy composition, however small, that causes some variability in signal reception across different phones.
It looks like Apple was doing a lot of new things here, from the design, to the alloy, to the software, etc. They've taken big, big risks in making the next great iPhone.
At the end of the day, is there a design flaw? Or simply dud phones where the alloy/ coating/ whatever is out of regular specification? We'll see.
Okay, I've been watching you spew on and on about how 5 bars equals maximum strength.
According to you... if the phone drops by one bar, the signal drops by 20%? I doubt it.
I think that the tallest bar on the iPhone could mean anywhere between 81%-100% of a signal.
0 bars = 0%
1 bar = 1%-20%
2 bars = 21%-40%
3 bars = 41%-60%
4 bars = 61%-80%
5 bars = 81%-100%
You see... 5 bars could mean only an 81% signal.
For a similar test, turn off the battery percentage meter on your iPhone. Do you really think that you're at 100% until the first row of pixels is missing? Going from 100% to 90%?... no, it doesn't. It goes from 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91 first and at 90%, the first pixel is removed.
That's what we're trying to say. 5 bars does not mean MAXIMUM signal. It just means that the signal is within the 81%-100% threshold.
I know that's what you're trying to say, but the fact remains that the battery indicator will show MORE battery available for use when there are MORE pixels in the battery meter. With signal, there is no gradation between 100% and 99% since they are both 5 bars. However, there is a definite difference between 5 bars and 4 bars as represented on the iPhone 4 just as there is a definite difference between 500 battery pixels versus 450 battery pixels.
Getting back to the original point, the people who are losing their signal on their iPhone 4 do so from 5 bars which represents the maximum signal strength REPRESENTED by the phone. You can't say that it's not the maximum strength, because you do not know what the maximum strength is apart from the fact that it is at 5 bars which is the graphical representation of maximum strength.
It would be understandable if they were at 2 bars, or 3 bars, or 4 bars and posters like you and solipsism would say that signal attenuation to zero bars is understandable because the strength is sub-maximum. However, with the bars fully at 5 going completely to 0 bars indicates a more serious problem involved than the typical attenuation predicted.
You can get all hot and bothered about how you can be at 5 bars and sit under a tower which is better strength than being at 5 bars and being 100 meters away from a tower and still at 5 bars, but is that really much of a difference when it comes to touching an antenna and making the signal decrease from 5 bars to 0 bars?
You can not have a very weak signal starting out and still be at 5 bars as a way of explaining away Apple's signal problem.
Okay, I've been watching you spew on and on about how 5 bars equals maximum strength.
You see... 5 bars could mean only an 81% signal.
For a similar test, turn off the battery percentage meter on your iPhone. Do you really think that you're at 100% until the first row of pixels is missing? Going from 100% to 90%?... no, it doesn't. It goes from 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91 first and at 90%, the first pixel is removed.
That's what we're trying to say. 5 bars does not mean MAXIMUM signal. It just means that the signal is within the 81%-100% threshold.
It all depends on the operating level that is set by the phone manufacturer. For example, if 5 bars only means full strength, I would have to climb on a cell tower and hold the phone next to an antenna to get 5 bars. The RF level drops in half as you double the distance.
The five bars may mean a rating of bit error rate (BER). That is, no errors in the signal give you five bars. It may not be a rating of signal strength at all. As the correctible errors increase, the bars go down.
In radio transmissions, the term "five by five" means perfect transmission. It is a signal quality rating. You can hear and the other person can hear you correctly. So the five bars may mean that transmission is working properly and has no discernible errors.
If it is just showing RF strength then it would show a more rapid change when you short the antenna. But it seems that is takes time to lower the bars. Perhaps the phone is making calculations on the error rate and that is why it slowly goes down. And remember that in digital transmission, you can correct errors until they get so large that you start hearing glitches and the phone can no longer keep the connection.
Sometimes in electronics (and in life) the obvious is not necessarily true. Just because five bars light up, you can't assume what it is showing if you don't know the circuitry and the algorithms.
But then, they may be no more than eye candy,
"They don't mean much of anything, it turns out.
I don't know what they're displaying for GSM, but probably what they're displaying is the signal strength. For CDMA (which is what I know about) that's what they display, but in CDMA the signal strength is highly deceptive because it doesn't inform you of what the noise floor is.
The technical term is "EC/I0" (pronounced "ee-see-over-eye-naught") and it refers to the amount of the signal which is usable. In CDMA you can have strong signal (4 bars) and lousy EC/I0 and not be able to carry a call, and you can have low signal (zero bars) and excellent EC/I0 and carry a call fine. But they can't display EC/I0 because it fluctuates wildly (it could go from zero to four bars and back to zero again in just a few seconds) and would terrify users, so they display the signal strength, which at least has the virtue of being stable, though it doesn't really mean much.
Even worse... there is no industry standard for what "one bar" or "two bars" means. None. Everyone just sort of sets some thresholds, and even from the same manufacturer it can change from phone model to phone model.
Extrapolating from my CDMA experience, I would guess that in GSM they're displaying the signal strength of the paging channel, with an uncalibrated display not driven by industry standards."
http://ask.metafilter.com/60227/What...tion-bars-mean
If there is a recall or SW fix will you man up admit there is no design flaw and that you been acting like a bunny these last few days.
The definition of a recall is a design flaw. Acting like a bunny? You so crazy.
A software fix is different. If you look back at what I said I've stated a few times that it doesn't look like something that's software fixable, and I doubt it'll come out Monday or Tuesday, but if it does then I won't complain. I have made comments along these lines already, but you have skimmed over them, haven't you?
That all said, it doesn't change that Steve told someone to hold their phone differently, or buy a case to cover the problem, and that it's a non issue. Steve didn't instead say to that guy, a software fix is coming. And the only proof we have that it is is this mysteriously disappearing here-say thread article from AI itself. Written by none other than "The Prince". Color me cautious. And Apple's statement to Walt about a software fix was about the cosmetic bar-signal display bug, not the other tangible, reproducible, speed-reducing, call-dropping issue.
The question is: what are you going to say if Apple does admit there's an issue, after you stating there wasn't. I don't expect anything.
At the end of the day, is there a design flaw? Or simply dud phones where the alloy/ coating/ whatever is out of regular specification? We'll see.
Yeah, but that would be reasonable, and would negate the ability to call lots of people trolls.
One of the criticisms voiced throughout many of the posts is that we don't know if it's a design flaw or just a small issue caused by manufacturing variability.
Macrumors has organised a poll: http://polldaddy.com/poll/3395888/?view=results
From this it would appear that over 50% of respondents have seen the issue.
73% actually.
Whoops, looks like fake Steve Jobs says Apple is going to recall the iPhone 4.
Source? Or just BS?
The definition of a recall is a design flaw. Acting like a bunny? You so crazy.
It only means there is an issue with a device. A recall doesn't mean the design is flawed, only the finished product. If less than 100% of iPhone 4s are recalled or they issue a protective Bumper for every iPhone 4 because the exposed antenna is a faulty concept then it's a production issue, not a design issue. Understanding the differences and admitting you overacted would go a long way.
The question is: what are you going to say if Apple does admit there's an issue, after you stating there wasn't. I don't expect anything.
Perhaps you should comprehend what you read instead of getting emotional over the trivial. I've stated from the start that there will be issues with the iPhone 4 and with all mass produced CE. Regardless of the quality control, the fact that there is quality control means there is an inherent level of potential issues that can and will arise from time to time. That is life, deal with it.
I even stated an anecdote, from the get go, about a friend who received an iPhone 4 that was DOA and asked you if that means that all iPhone 4s are therefore DOA to show you the logical fallacy of your implication that all iPhone 4s were having signal issues because some were. HE returned it to the store, they gave him a new one, they made sure it worked in the store (even testing FaceTime) and he hasn't had an issue sense. That's how a reasonable person should deal with a faulty product.
Source? Or just BS?
http://twitter.com/ceoSteveJobs/status/17124017895
Yeah, but that would be reasonable, and would negate the ability to call lots of people trolls.
Regardless of the outcome, you were (paste tense) still trolling here for couple days.
It only means there is an issue with a device. A recall doesn't mean the design is flawed, only the finished product.
If could mean either one, actually.
If less than 100% of iPhone 4s are recalled or they issue a protective Bumper for every iPhone 4 because the exposed antenna is a faulty concept then it's a production issue, not a design issue.
Faulty concept? Are you actually mad.
Understanding the differences and admitting you overacted would go a long way.
Yes, and we're all simply trolls, right?
erhaps you should comprehend what you read instead of getting emotional over the trivial. I've stated from the start that there will be issues with the iPhone 4 and with all mass produced CE. Regardless of the quality control, the fact that there is quality control means there is an inherent level of potential issues that can and will arise from time to time. That is life, deal with it.
I'm not talking about quality control.