Yeah, and it's even more peculiar because Steve has never done that before.
(***ssssockssss!!!***) Excuse me. I must have sneezed.
Well, he did advertise iPad dock connectors and keyboards, but I can not recall any single mention of so `unimportant' and seemingly cosmetic accessory in years of WWDC existence.
The coupling is capacitive. Antenna's length, sure, changes. But what is more important, antenna is ``loaded' ' either with input circuitry of WiFi/BT/GPS radio or with a human body plain and simple. It changes antenna's resonance frequency, so it becomes untuned.
As a matter of fact, it's even more interesting. The lower portion of UMTS antenna should obligatory be transmitting part to satisfy FCC requirements. See where I'm going with that?
This sounds like a SW/driver update could allow the device to understand this occurrence and retune itself accordingly.
The inductive coupling by touching the gap will cause a change to the antenna length, which will make it suboptimal but it's not like it breaks the antenna, it drops the signal by 20dBm so it has a similar effect to normal signal attenuation - I've managed to make a 5 bar drop on my 3G by using a similar grip. The reason it looks like you lose all signal is because the lowest 4 bars are measured too close together.
Dropping by 20dB-25dB isn't similar to "normal signal attenuation." You're likely not going to find another phone out there that has that level of signal attenuation. If you're in a low to medium strength signal, you will lose calls and data transfer almost completely. It's not just a cosmetic issue of losing bars, where signal remains sufficient.
Quote:
The antenna still has a design flaw most certainly but as the AI writer put it, it's not that much different from losing audio from covering the ear-piece or not being able to see the display by covering it or not being able to take a photo by having your finger in front of the lens. The biggest flaw comes from the notch being where some people naturally hold the phone making a call.
The bolded portion is an absurd statement. The biggest problem with this issue is that it's caused by placing your hand were it is naturally intended to be placed. All you have to do is google for pictures of Steve Jobs holding the iPhone and you'll see immediately that this way of holding the phone is natural. You don't cover the speaker or the display when holding the phone naturally.
Quote:
However, actual iPhone 4 owners mostly don't seem to have a problem avoiding it as there are no huge returns noted. Even if you hold it in your left hand, you can hold the phone with your fingers or just a little higher up - it only matters in low signal areas where you would normally have to make an active effort to get a good signal anyway.
I agree that it's not as big a problem as some might make it out to be. And it's certainly not a big enough issue for me to return my phone -- particularly because other than this issue, it's the best phone out there in my opinion. But it is an issue. And it's a big enough issue that it should have been discovered and remedied before they brought the thing to market.
This design flaw has put a massive chink in Apple's armor. One of the reasons it's such a big story is that this is shocking mistake from a company that doesn't make mistakes like this. If Dell has 20 million computers recalled, no one cares, because that sort of thing is expected from other companies. But this is unacceptable for Apple. And the fact at they've come off as arrogant in their response is particularly bad.
The coupling is capacitive. Antenna's length, sure, changes. But what is more important, antenna is ``loaded' ' either with input circuitry of WiFi/BT/GPS radio or with a human body plain and simple. It changes antenna's resonance frequency, so it becomes untuned.
As a matter of fact, it's even more interesting. The lower portion of UMTS antenna should obligatory be transmitting part to satisfy FCC requirements. See where I'm going with that?
If it was capacitive coupling, a thin piece of tape would stop the issue on all phones, but it doesn't seem to:
All you have to do is google for pictures of Steve Jobs holding the iPhone and you'll see immediately that this way of holding the phone is natural.
That's not really a natural calling position, when I make a call personally, I hold it in my right hand and face it towards my ear. For 3G data access it's different but this issue wouldn't affect my calling and I rarely ever use 3G for data as it's still much slower than wifi.
Again, not saying it's not a bad design, it just won't affect everyone in the real-world.
That's not really a natural calling position, when I make a call personally, I hold it in my right hand and face it towards my ear.
There's no question that a natural calling position involves holding the phone such that the two antennas are shorted. There are other ways to hold the phone, but for many people, that way of holding the phone is natural. It's just obvious. If people hold the phone on the sides -- don't put such a sensitive area on the side of the phone.
Quote:
For 3G data access it's different but this issue wouldn't affect my calling and I rarely ever use 3G for data as it's still much slower than wifi.
My 3G is actually incredibly fast and, like most people, I use it constantly.
Quote:
Again, not saying it's not a bad design, it just won't affect everyone in the real-world.
It doesn't have to materially affect everyone for it to be a major issue that should have been addressed. If it even just affects 20% of users, that is inexcusable.
There's no question that a natural calling position involves holding the phone such that the two antennas are shorted.
I'm not an "antenna engineer" so could you explain to me how an antenna can be "shorted" regards to RF?
What ivan.rnn01 states makes sense to my understanding of radio waves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
No.
The coupling is capacitive. Antenna's length, sure, changes. But what is more important, antenna is ``loaded' ' either with input circuitry of WiFi/BT/GPS radio or with a human body plain and simple. It changes antenna's resonance frequency, so it becomes untuned.
As a matter of fact, it's even more interesting. The lower portion of UMTS antenna should obligatory be transmitting part to satisfy FCC requirements. See where I'm going with that?
Well, he did advertise iPad dock connectors and keyboards, but I can not recall any single mention of so `unimportant' and seemingly cosmetic accessory in years of WWDC existence.
LOL, I even sad it in my sneeze. Socks. SOCKS.
Steve made a whole presentation about how great the iPod Socks were. Perhaps you're too young or too recent an Apple fan to have remembered that one. Sure, it might have been a MacWorld, before they were done away with, but the Macworld keynotes were every bit as carefully timed as the WWDC keynotes.
I'm not an "antenna engineer" so could you explain to me how an antenna can be "shorted" regards to RF?
What ivan.rnn01 states makes sense to my understanding of radio waves.
I stated early on in the thread that I am not an antenna specialist either. So I don't know why shorting the two antennas causes a problem. But very obviously it does.
I stated early on in the thread that I am not an antenna specialist either. So I don't know why shorting the two antennas causes a problem. But very obviously it does.
You and others keep using the word "shorting" or "short circuit" without explaining why you think that term pertains to RF. How does altering an antenna length or adding attenution short anything, much less a circuit?
While the resultant effect may be similar, this seems comparable to people thinking salt melts ice, when in fact it dissolves ice.
I stated early on in the thread that I am not an antenna specialist either. So I don't know why shorting the two antennas causes a problem. But very obviously it does.
You and others keep using the word "shorting" or "short circuit" without explaining why you think that term pertains to RF. How does altering an antenna length or adding attenution short anything, much less a circuit?
While the resultant effect may be similar, this seems comparable to people thinking salt melts ice, when in fact it dissolves ice.
You and others keep using the word "shorting" or "short circuit" without explaining why you think that term pertains to RF. How does altering an antenna length or adding attenution short anything, much less a circuit?
While the resultant effect may be similar, this seems comparable to people thinking salt melts ice, when in fact it dissolves ice.
The term shorting is simply meant to describe the process of connecting the two antennas. What shorting the antenna does in technical terms is unknown to me. What shorting does in terms of signal reception and call quality is SIGNIFICANT. As shown to you time after time after time after time, the issue is not simply attenuation from touching the antenna. When you touch the antenna in any fashion whatsoever there is no significant issue with reception. Only when the two antennas are connected by some conductor (i.e., "shorted") is there an issue. You can claim this phenomenon doesn't exist. You can play semantics. I don't really care -- I've come to grips with the role of willful ignorance in tech "fanboys." Enjoy your bliss.
The term shorting is simply meant to describe the process of connecting the two antennas. What shorting the antenna does in technical terms is unknown to me. What shorting does in terms of signal reception and call quality is SIGNIFICANT. As shown to you time after time after time after time, the issue is not simply attenuation from touching the antenna. When you touch the antenna in any fashion whatsoever there is no significant issue with reception. Only when the two antennas are connected by some conductor (i.e., "shorted") is there an issue. You can claim this phenomenon doesn't exist. You can play semantics. I don't really care -- I've come to grips with the role of willful ignorance in tech "fanboys." Enjoy your bliss.
I've never heard of a synonym to join to mean to short. There is an effect of cause that can short something but I know that in terms of electrical current, never have I heard it in terms of RF.
I've also never ignored the possibility of an issue and, in fact, I'm quite adamant that there is. What I haven't done is jump to a conclusion that it's a "design flaw" caused by a "short circuit" of an exposed antenna because apple didn't hire "antenna engineers" until after this issue appeared. That is sounds incredibly foolish I can't imagine how anyone could believe that for a second.
What is wrong with possible explanation of the phone incorrectly adjusting for a change in the antenna length when the antennas are bridged? Why does it have to be such an extreme answer with no wavering on the cause, even when you have admitted to not understanding how RF works and what the term short circuit can refer to?
I've never heard of a synonym to join to mean to short.
Well, now you have. That one's free.
Quote:
I've also never ignored the possibility of an issue and, in fact, I'm quite adamant that there is. What I haven't done is jump to a conclusion that it's a "design flaw" caused by a "short circuit" of an exposed antenna
Yes, I get that your position is that since we can't know anything with certainty, we shouldn't come to any conclusion. And I've long since rejected this silly line of argument. There's evidence. And then there's conclusions. We base the latter on evidence we have on-hand. The line as to when that is appropriate and when it's premature presumably falls arbitrarily somewhere near the point at which we reach the conclusion you like.
Quote:
because apple didn't hire "antenna engineers" until after this issue appeared. That is sounds incredibly foolish I can't imagine how anyone could believe that for a second.
What is wrong with possible explanation of the phone incorrectly adjusting for a change in the antenna length when the antennas are bridged? Why does it have to be such an extreme answer with no wavering on the cause, even when you have admitted to not understanding how RF works and what the term short circuit can refer to?
You must be replying to the wrong person. Because I have never stated any of the above. I assume you're just setting up the straw man because you haven't a corner left to run to.
I, for one, hope there is a software fix for the issue. I have never claimed there isn't one. I don't know enough about the engineering to even guess at such a thing. Unfortunately, though, a software fix for the actual issue of shorting the antennas doesn't appear to be Apple's focus based on the letter. Rather, they appear to be simply admitting that they've been misportraying the signal quality for the past two years. Basically just reversing the "fix" that occurred when the 3G launched and people were complaining of too few bars.
Steve made a whole presentation about how great the iPod Socks were. Perhaps you're too young or too recent an Apple fan to have remembered that one. Sure, it might have been a MacWorld, before they were done away with, but the Macworld keynotes were every bit as carefully timed as the WWDC keynotes.
It was neither WWDC, nor MacWorld, nor even Macworld. So you've failed to convince us you know Apple's history better, than I do.
Apparently, the only thing connecting you to Apple must be your favorite iPod Shuffle.
It was neither WWDC, nor MacWorld, nor even Macworld. So you've failed to convince us you know Apple's history better, than I do.
Apparently, the only thing connecting you to Apple must be your favorite iPod Shuffle.
It was at one of the Invitation Only events that Apple did around the time they started backing off of MacWorld. It wasn't WWDC or MacWorld or any other annual event. It was at a music event, back in '04, I think. It was the very first item the Steve announced at the event, which I think was centered around the U2 iPod announcement.
tonton is absolutely correct, that Apple has previously released an "`unimportant' and seemingly cosmetic accessory" at a major event. It wasn't WWDC and he admitted that (nor MacWorld). Instead it was at an equally important event for Apple. Looking at their recent history, Apple invitation events are now as or more important to them for product announcements as the annual events (WWDC, MacWorld) were in the past.
Arguing that he is wrong, simply because he got the event wrong, is simply being intentionally obtuse.
The difference, is the the iPod socks were purely cosmetic and served no practical purpose. They were done tongue in cheek and sold very well, iirc. The bumper, on the other hand, serves two purposes, made necessary by design changes in the iPhone 4. Firstly, with the edges of the glass no exposed and susceptible to sudden impact damage, a case is needed to prevent shattering if it were to fall on it's edge (my 3G has fallen at least 3 times and landed on concrete in the edge). Secondly, with the antenna now on the exterior, which improves its reception, the case reduces the interference caused by holding it for normal use. The bumper completely spoils the aesthetic of the iPhone 4 design, but they felt strongly enough about its necessity, that they were willing to ignore that this time.
The fact that both of these issues are new, at least in their severity, with the iPhone 4, it isn't a surprise that Apple wanted to ensure the bumper, which addresses both of these issues, was available immediately and not have to wait for third party solutions. Since most everyone will not just want one but will need one (as suggested by Apple themselves) it is a viable solution and also a nice value add for the coffers. What I don't like, is that they didn't admit these reason for introducing the bumper themselves and that they priced it as a luxury item, when, since it is really a required accessory, they should have priced it low or included it with every iPhone 4 sold.
And yes, tonton has been around the Apple community for a long time and probably does know his Apple history better than you. He was around long before the more recent iPod/iPhone newbs converted.
It took several days to pretendedly so much more knowledgeable Apple fan as tonton (and I believe he was not alone) to figure out the counter-argument for my suggestion. No one else remembered that ``major' ' event at all. Tonton remembered it completely wrong.
Neither did I. As you've read it out, the socks announce was indeed by no means the ``whole presentation' ', but just the first thing presented.
What's wrong with that? What part of ``I [ivan.rnn01] can not recall' ' you do not understand?
So? Get to the point now.
Did Apple's RF and QA engineers remain unaware about the antenna issue, which has been found by ``retarded blogosphere' ' in just two days after the device had been announced? Rubbish.
Quote:
The bumper completely spoils the aesthetic of the iPhone 4 design, but they felt strongly enough about its necessity
Oh, yes; and feel they did.
Avoid? The bumper, being indeed a piece of top-notch engineering, is right here as absolutely necessary accessory for new iPhone, while a lot of other cradles and cases still not.
The primary goal of exposing antenna parts is improving its sensitivity? Rubbish.
If by saying `Apple community' you mean the community of this board, being around is not that much compelling, you know.
It took several days to pretendedly so much more knowledgeable Apple fan as tonton (and I believe he was not alone) to figure out the counter-argument for my suggestion. No one else remembered that ``major' ' event at all. Tonton remembered it completely wrong.
Neither did I. As you've read it out, the socks announce was indeed by no means the ``whole presentation' ', but just the first thing presented.
What's wrong with that? What part of ``I [ivan.rnn01] can not recall' ' you do not understand?
So? Get to the point now.
Did Apple's RF and QA engineers remain unaware about the antenna issue, which has been found by ``retarded blogosphere' ' in just two days after the device had been announced? Rubbish.
Oh, yes; and feel they did.
Avoid? The bumper, being indeed a piece of top-notch engineering, is right here as absolutely necessary accessory for new iPhone, while a lot of other cradles and cases still not.
The primary goal of exposing antenna parts is improving its sensitivity? Rubbish.
If by saying `Apple community' you mean the community of this board, being around is not that much compelling, you know.
Sometimes difficult to parse your posts when they are more than a few lines. No your fault, I know english isn't your first language and that you are multi-lingual, just seems you rushed this one.
tonton was simply, and accurately, pointing out that Apple has previously used their events to launch first party accessories, like cases/socks. He was correct.
I actually agree with you that the bumper was created because Apple was aware of the issues caused by the antenna being external and the exposed glass corners. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the iPhone 4 is the first iPhone to have these two issues and also the first iPhone that Apple created a case for.
As for the antenna being external improving its sensitivity. That is just physics. Was it the primary goal? Seems to be. In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way just to allow the design to have an external antenna. If it was purely for aesthetics, they could have just done a cosmetic metal band. They wanted the antenna external. The main reason for any antenna to be external is for improved reception. The trade off being, for a handheld devices, is interference when touched. Hence the bumper.
My point is that if Apple did know that the bumper would be required for normal use, then they ought to have included it with the iPhone or made it available at a more nominal price. Hell, even the iPod socks were 6 for $30 and they much more of a novelty. The bumper is not a novelty. It is a requirement.
Sometimes difficult to parse your posts when they are more than a few lines. No your fault, I know english isn't your first language and that you are multi-lingual, just seems you rushed this one.
Non issue. Just avoid parsing them that way.
Neither is English your mother tongue. Which, sure, instantly challenges all your stories about 30 years within Mac community. Don't try to fool technophiles, Tulkas. You can not succeed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
tonton was simply, and accurately, pointing out that Apple has previously used their events to launch first party accessories, like cases/socks. He was correct.
The problem is he's not been accurate. Steve is not that used to giving such presentations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
I actually agree with you that the bumper was created because Apple was aware of the issues caused by the antenna being external and the exposed glass corners. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the iPhone 4 is the first iPhone to have these two issues and also the first iPhone that Apple created a case for.
Good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
As for the antenna being external improving its sensitivity. That is just physics. Was it the primary goal? Seems to be. In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way just to allow the design to have an external antenna. If it was purely for aesthetics, they could have just done a cosmetic metal band. They wanted the antenna external. The main reason for any antenna to be external is for improved reception. The trade off being, for a handheld devices, is interference when touched. Hence the bumper.
This is precisely your misunderstanding of the physics, which makes your statements like above one so laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
My point is that if Apple did know that the bumper would be required for normal use, then they ought to have included it with the iPhone or made it available at a more nominal price. Hell, even the iPod socks were 6 for $30 and they much more of a novelty. The bumper is not a novelty. It is a requirement.
It is not required for every next phone user. Antenna issue is that of severity just slightly above minor. iPhones work perfectly in zones of good coverage, bridging the seam is by no means natural gesture, etc...
You and others keep using the word "shorting" or "short circuit" without explaining why you think that term pertains to RF. How does altering an antenna length or adding attenution short anything, much less a circuit?
While the resultant effect may be similar, this seems comparable to people thinking salt melts ice, when in fact it dissolves ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theogt
The term shorting is simply meant to describe the process of connecting the two antennas. What shorting the antenna does in technical terms is unknown to me. What shorting does in terms of signal reception and call quality is SIGNIFICANT. As shown to you time after time after time after time, the issue is not simply attenuation from touching the antenna. When you touch the antenna in any fashion whatsoever there is no significant issue with reception. Only when the two antennas are connected by some conductor (i.e., "shorted") is there an issue. You can claim this phenomenon doesn't exist. You can play semantics. I don't really care -- I've come to grips with the role of willful ignorance in tech "fanboys." Enjoy your bliss.
I think the official word is "detuning" when the antennas are bridged ~ as has been mentioned by antenna engineers. When bridged you get both "attenuation" and "detuning"... I thought the detuning thing was accepted by most people by now? Or is there a new consensus, if any.
Neither is English your mother tongue. Which, sure, instantly challenges all your stories about 30 years within Mac community. Don't try to fool technophiles, Tulkas. You can not succeed
Hmmm...maybe it isn't a language barrier. I think perhaps logic just isn't your forte.
Unless of course you could explain how my native language affects my 'stories' of being a long time Apple fan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
This is precisely your misunderstanding of the physics, which makes your statements like above one so laughable.
Are you really going to try to argue that an external antenna will not have superior reception to one inside the body of a phone? I would really be interested in your explanation. maybe you think cell phones used to have the on them outside for aesthetics, cuz boy they looked great. That would be dumb, but maybe you do think that. I know you won't be able present a reasonable explanation, so take the request as rhetorical. Your poor english and disjointed writing style would simply make any attempt on your part even worse.
But, please ivan, go ahead an try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
It is not required for every next phone user. Antenna issue is that of severity just slightly above minor. iPhones work perfectly in zones of good coverage, bridging the seam is by no means natural gesture, etc...
Bridging it is certainly is a natural 'gesture'. You are simply lying or confused if you say it is not. You can say you don't even hold you phone like that, but that likely isn't true or you have convinced yourself after the fact. Most people never took note of how they held it before. I suppose you might claim you did. Also, people do tend to use different grips when holding the phone. When they are sitting, walking, when their hand gets tired and they change grips. It is foolish to say you never hold it in a way that would bridge it. I don't know why people like you even try.
As for he iPhone working "in zones of good coverage"...well, in real life, you will often make calls in areas that aren't so good.
Beyond your difficulties with the language, I hope most of your act is simply that... an act and pretense. I would hate to think it isn't.
Comments
Yeah, and it's even more peculiar because Steve has never done that before.
(***ssssockssss!!!***) Excuse me. I must have sneezed.
Well, he did advertise iPad dock connectors and keyboards, but I can not recall any single mention of so `unimportant' and seemingly cosmetic accessory in years of WWDC existence.
No.
The coupling is capacitive. Antenna's length, sure, changes. But what is more important, antenna is ``loaded' ' either with input circuitry of WiFi/BT/GPS radio or with a human body plain and simple. It changes antenna's resonance frequency, so it becomes untuned.
As a matter of fact, it's even more interesting.
This sounds like a SW/driver update could allow the device to understand this occurrence and retune itself accordingly.
The inductive coupling by touching the gap will cause a change to the antenna length, which will make it suboptimal but it's not like it breaks the antenna, it drops the signal by 20dBm so it has a similar effect to normal signal attenuation - I've managed to make a 5 bar drop on my 3G by using a similar grip. The reason it looks like you lose all signal is because the lowest 4 bars are measured too close together.
Dropping by 20dB-25dB isn't similar to "normal signal attenuation." You're likely not going to find another phone out there that has that level of signal attenuation. If you're in a low to medium strength signal, you will lose calls and data transfer almost completely. It's not just a cosmetic issue of losing bars, where signal remains sufficient.
The antenna still has a design flaw most certainly but as the AI writer put it, it's not that much different from losing audio from covering the ear-piece or not being able to see the display by covering it or not being able to take a photo by having your finger in front of the lens. The biggest flaw comes from the notch being where some people naturally hold the phone making a call.
The bolded portion is an absurd statement. The biggest problem with this issue is that it's caused by placing your hand were it is naturally intended to be placed. All you have to do is google for pictures of Steve Jobs holding the iPhone and you'll see immediately that this way of holding the phone is natural. You don't cover the speaker or the display when holding the phone naturally.
However, actual iPhone 4 owners mostly don't seem to have a problem avoiding it as there are no huge returns noted. Even if you hold it in your left hand, you can hold the phone with your fingers or just a little higher up - it only matters in low signal areas where you would normally have to make an active effort to get a good signal anyway.
I agree that it's not as big a problem as some might make it out to be. And it's certainly not a big enough issue for me to return my phone -- particularly because other than this issue, it's the best phone out there in my opinion. But it is an issue. And it's a big enough issue that it should have been discovered and remedied before they brought the thing to market.
This design flaw has put a massive chink in Apple's armor. One of the reasons it's such a big story is that this is shocking mistake from a company that doesn't make mistakes like this. If Dell has 20 million computers recalled, no one cares, because that sort of thing is expected from other companies. But this is unacceptable for Apple. And the fact at they've come off as arrogant in their response is particularly bad.
No.
The coupling is capacitive. Antenna's length, sure, changes. But what is more important, antenna is ``loaded' ' either with input circuitry of WiFi/BT/GPS radio or with a human body plain and simple. It changes antenna's resonance frequency, so it becomes untuned.
As a matter of fact, it's even more interesting.
If it was capacitive coupling, a thin piece of tape would stop the issue on all phones, but it doesn't seem to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPp1-LWY7Jw
All you have to do is google for pictures of Steve Jobs holding the iPhone and you'll see immediately that this way of holding the phone is natural.
That's not really a natural calling position, when I make a call personally, I hold it in my right hand and face it towards my ear. For 3G data access it's different but this issue wouldn't affect my calling and I rarely ever use 3G for data as it's still much slower than wifi.
Again, not saying it's not a bad design, it just won't affect everyone in the real-world.
That's not really a natural calling position, when I make a call personally, I hold it in my right hand and face it towards my ear.
There's no question that a natural calling position involves holding the phone such that the two antennas are shorted. There are other ways to hold the phone, but for many people, that way of holding the phone is natural. It's just obvious. If people hold the phone on the sides -- don't put such a sensitive area on the side of the phone.
For 3G data access it's different but this issue wouldn't affect my calling and I rarely ever use 3G for data as it's still much slower than wifi.
My 3G is actually incredibly fast and, like most people, I use it constantly.
Again, not saying it's not a bad design, it just won't affect everyone in the real-world.
It doesn't have to materially affect everyone for it to be a major issue that should have been addressed. If it even just affects 20% of users, that is inexcusable.
There's no question that a natural calling position involves holding the phone such that the two antennas are shorted.
I'm not an "antenna engineer" so could you explain to me how an antenna can be "shorted" regards to RF?
What ivan.rnn01 states makes sense to my understanding of radio waves.
No.
The coupling is capacitive. Antenna's length, sure, changes. But what is more important, antenna is ``loaded' ' either with input circuitry of WiFi/BT/GPS radio or with a human body plain and simple. It changes antenna's resonance frequency, so it becomes untuned.
As a matter of fact, it's even more interesting. The lower portion of UMTS antenna should obligatory be transmitting part to satisfy FCC requirements. See where I'm going with that?
Well, he did advertise iPad dock connectors and keyboards, but I can not recall any single mention of so `unimportant' and seemingly cosmetic accessory in years of WWDC existence.
LOL, I even sad it in my sneeze. Socks. SOCKS.
Steve made a whole presentation about how great the iPod Socks were. Perhaps you're too young or too recent an Apple fan to have remembered that one. Sure, it might have been a MacWorld, before they were done away with, but the Macworld keynotes were every bit as carefully timed as the WWDC keynotes.
I'm not an "antenna engineer" so could you explain to me how an antenna can be "shorted" regards to RF?
What ivan.rnn01 states makes sense to my understanding of radio waves.
I stated early on in the thread that I am not an antenna specialist either. So I don't know why shorting the two antennas causes a problem. But very obviously it does.
I stated early on in the thread that I am not an antenna specialist either. So I don't know why shorting the two antennas causes a problem. But very obviously it does.
You and others keep using the word "shorting" or "short circuit" without explaining why you think that term pertains to RF. How does altering an antenna length or adding attenution short anything, much less a circuit?
While the resultant effect may be similar, this seems comparable to people thinking salt melts ice, when in fact it dissolves ice.
I stated early on in the thread that I am not an antenna specialist either. So I don't know why shorting the two antennas causes a problem. But very obviously it does.
You and others keep using the word "shorting" or "short circuit" without explaining why you think that term pertains to RF. How does altering an antenna length or adding attenution short anything, much less a circuit?
While the resultant effect may be similar, this seems comparable to people thinking salt melts ice, when in fact it dissolves ice.
You and others keep using the word "shorting" or "short circuit" without explaining why you think that term pertains to RF. How does altering an antenna length or adding attenution short anything, much less a circuit?
While the resultant effect may be similar, this seems comparable to people thinking salt melts ice, when in fact it dissolves ice.
The term shorting is simply meant to describe the process of connecting the two antennas. What shorting the antenna does in technical terms is unknown to me. What shorting does in terms of signal reception and call quality is SIGNIFICANT. As shown to you time after time after time after time, the issue is not simply attenuation from touching the antenna. When you touch the antenna in any fashion whatsoever there is no significant issue with reception. Only when the two antennas are connected by some conductor (i.e., "shorted") is there an issue. You can claim this phenomenon doesn't exist. You can play semantics. I don't really care -- I've come to grips with the role of willful ignorance in tech "fanboys." Enjoy your bliss.
The term shorting is simply meant to describe the process of connecting the two antennas. What shorting the antenna does in technical terms is unknown to me. What shorting does in terms of signal reception and call quality is SIGNIFICANT. As shown to you time after time after time after time, the issue is not simply attenuation from touching the antenna. When you touch the antenna in any fashion whatsoever there is no significant issue with reception. Only when the two antennas are connected by some conductor (i.e., "shorted") is there an issue. You can claim this phenomenon doesn't exist. You can play semantics. I don't really care -- I've come to grips with the role of willful ignorance in tech "fanboys." Enjoy your bliss.
I've never heard of a synonym to join to mean to short. There is an effect of cause that can short something but I know that in terms of electrical current, never have I heard it in terms of RF.
I've also never ignored the possibility of an issue and, in fact, I'm quite adamant that there is. What I haven't done is jump to a conclusion that it's a "design flaw" caused by a "short circuit" of an exposed antenna because apple didn't hire "antenna engineers" until after this issue appeared. That is sounds incredibly foolish I can't imagine how anyone could believe that for a second.
What is wrong with possible explanation of the phone incorrectly adjusting for a change in the antenna length when the antennas are bridged? Why does it have to be such an extreme answer with no wavering on the cause, even when you have admitted to not understanding how RF works and what the term short circuit can refer to?
I've never heard of a synonym to join to mean to short.
Well, now you have. That one's free.
I've also never ignored the possibility of an issue and, in fact, I'm quite adamant that there is. What I haven't done is jump to a conclusion that it's a "design flaw" caused by a "short circuit" of an exposed antenna
Yes, I get that your position is that since we can't know anything with certainty, we shouldn't come to any conclusion. And I've long since rejected this silly line of argument. There's evidence. And then there's conclusions. We base the latter on evidence we have on-hand. The line as to when that is appropriate and when it's premature presumably falls arbitrarily somewhere near the point at which we reach the conclusion you like.
because apple didn't hire "antenna engineers" until after this issue appeared. That is sounds incredibly foolish I can't imagine how anyone could believe that for a second.
What is wrong with possible explanation of the phone incorrectly adjusting for a change in the antenna length when the antennas are bridged? Why does it have to be such an extreme answer with no wavering on the cause, even when you have admitted to not understanding how RF works and what the term short circuit can refer to?
You must be replying to the wrong person. Because I have never stated any of the above. I assume you're just setting up the straw man because you haven't a corner left to run to.
I, for one, hope there is a software fix for the issue. I have never claimed there isn't one. I don't know enough about the engineering to even guess at such a thing. Unfortunately, though, a software fix for the actual issue of shorting the antennas doesn't appear to be Apple's focus based on the letter. Rather, they appear to be simply admitting that they've been misportraying the signal quality for the past two years. Basically just reversing the "fix" that occurred when the 3G launched and people were complaining of too few bars.
LOL, I even sad it in my sneeze. Socks. SOCKS.
Steve made a whole presentation about how great the iPod Socks were. Perhaps you're too young or too recent an Apple fan to have remembered that one. Sure, it might have been a MacWorld, before they were done away with, but the Macworld keynotes were every bit as carefully timed as the WWDC keynotes.
It was neither WWDC, nor MacWorld, nor even Macworld. So you've failed to convince us you know Apple's history better, than I do.
Apparently, the only thing connecting you to Apple must be your favorite iPod Shuffle.
It was neither WWDC, nor MacWorld, nor even Macworld. So you've failed to convince us you know Apple's history better, than I do.
Apparently, the only thing connecting you to Apple must be your favorite iPod Shuffle.
It was at one of the Invitation Only events that Apple did around the time they started backing off of MacWorld. It wasn't WWDC or MacWorld or any other annual event. It was at a music event, back in '04, I think. It was the very first item the Steve announced at the event, which I think was centered around the U2 iPod announcement.
tonton is absolutely correct, that Apple has previously released an "`unimportant' and seemingly cosmetic accessory" at a major event. It wasn't WWDC and he admitted that (nor MacWorld). Instead it was at an equally important event for Apple. Looking at their recent history, Apple invitation events are now as or more important to them for product announcements as the annual events (WWDC, MacWorld) were in the past.
Arguing that he is wrong, simply because he got the event wrong, is simply being intentionally obtuse.
The difference, is the the iPod socks were purely cosmetic and served no practical purpose. They were done tongue in cheek and sold very well, iirc. The bumper, on the other hand, serves two purposes, made necessary by design changes in the iPhone 4. Firstly, with the edges of the glass no exposed and susceptible to sudden impact damage, a case is needed to prevent shattering if it were to fall on it's edge (my 3G has fallen at least 3 times and landed on concrete in the edge). Secondly, with the antenna now on the exterior, which improves its reception, the case reduces the interference caused by holding it for normal use. The bumper completely spoils the aesthetic of the iPhone 4 design, but they felt strongly enough about its necessity, that they were willing to ignore that this time.
The fact that both of these issues are new, at least in their severity, with the iPhone 4, it isn't a surprise that Apple wanted to ensure the bumper, which addresses both of these issues, was available immediately and not have to wait for third party solutions. Since most everyone will not just want one but will need one (as suggested by Apple themselves) it is a viable solution and also a nice value add for the coffers. What I don't like, is that they didn't admit these reason for introducing the bumper themselves and that they priced it as a luxury item, when, since it is really a required accessory, they should have priced it low or included it with every iPhone 4 sold.
And yes, tonton has been around the Apple community for a long time and probably does know his Apple history better than you. He was around long before the more recent iPod/iPhone newbs converted.
It took several days to pretendedly so much more knowledgeable Apple fan as tonton (and I believe he was not alone) to figure out the counter-argument for my suggestion. No one else remembered that ``major' ' event at all. Tonton remembered it completely wrong.
Neither did I. As you've read it out, the socks announce was indeed by no means the ``whole presentation' ', but just the first thing presented.
What's wrong with that? What part of ``I [ivan.rnn01] can not recall' ' you do not understand?
So? Get to the point now.
Did Apple's RF and QA engineers remain unaware about the antenna issue, which has been found by ``retarded blogosphere' ' in just two days after the device had been announced? Rubbish.
The bumper completely spoils the aesthetic of the iPhone 4 design, but they felt strongly enough about its necessity
Oh, yes; and feel they did.
Avoid? The bumper, being indeed a piece of top-notch engineering, is right here as absolutely necessary accessory for new iPhone, while a lot of other cradles and cases still not.
The primary goal of exposing antenna parts is improving its sensitivity? Rubbish.
If by saying `Apple community' you mean the community of this board, being around is not that much compelling, you know.
Why such a rant, Tulkas?
It took several days to pretendedly so much more knowledgeable Apple fan as tonton (and I believe he was not alone) to figure out the counter-argument for my suggestion. No one else remembered that ``major' ' event at all. Tonton remembered it completely wrong.
Neither did I. As you've read it out, the socks announce was indeed by no means the ``whole presentation' ', but just the first thing presented.
What's wrong with that? What part of ``I [ivan.rnn01] can not recall' ' you do not understand?
So? Get to the point now.
Did Apple's RF and QA engineers remain unaware about the antenna issue, which has been found by ``retarded blogosphere' ' in just two days after the device had been announced? Rubbish.
Oh, yes; and feel they did.
Avoid? The bumper, being indeed a piece of top-notch engineering, is right here as absolutely necessary accessory for new iPhone, while a lot of other cradles and cases still not.
The primary goal of exposing antenna parts is improving its sensitivity? Rubbish.
If by saying `Apple community' you mean the community of this board, being around is not that much compelling, you know.
Sometimes difficult to parse your posts when they are more than a few lines. No your fault, I know english isn't your first language and that you are multi-lingual, just seems you rushed this one.
tonton was simply, and accurately, pointing out that Apple has previously used their events to launch first party accessories, like cases/socks. He was correct.
I actually agree with you that the bumper was created because Apple was aware of the issues caused by the antenna being external and the exposed glass corners. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the iPhone 4 is the first iPhone to have these two issues and also the first iPhone that Apple created a case for.
As for the antenna being external improving its sensitivity. That is just physics. Was it the primary goal? Seems to be. In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way just to allow the design to have an external antenna. If it was purely for aesthetics, they could have just done a cosmetic metal band. They wanted the antenna external. The main reason for any antenna to be external is for improved reception. The trade off being, for a handheld devices, is interference when touched. Hence the bumper.
My point is that if Apple did know that the bumper would be required for normal use, then they ought to have included it with the iPhone or made it available at a more nominal price. Hell, even the iPod socks were 6 for $30 and they much more of a novelty. The bumper is not a novelty. It is a requirement.
Sometimes difficult to parse your posts when they are more than a few lines. No your fault, I know english isn't your first language and that you are multi-lingual, just seems you rushed this one.
Non issue. Just avoid parsing them that way.
Neither is English your mother tongue. Which, sure, instantly challenges all your stories about 30 years within Mac community. Don't try to fool technophiles, Tulkas. You can not succeed
tonton was simply, and accurately, pointing out that Apple has previously used their events to launch first party accessories, like cases/socks. He was correct.
The problem is he's not been accurate. Steve is not that used to giving such presentations.
I actually agree with you that the bumper was created because Apple was aware of the issues caused by the antenna being external and the exposed glass corners. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the iPhone 4 is the first iPhone to have these two issues and also the first iPhone that Apple created a case for.
Good.
As for the antenna being external improving its sensitivity. That is just physics. Was it the primary goal? Seems to be. In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way just to allow the design to have an external antenna. If it was purely for aesthetics, they could have just done a cosmetic metal band. They wanted the antenna external. The main reason for any antenna to be external is for improved reception. The trade off being, for a handheld devices, is interference when touched. Hence the bumper.
This is precisely your misunderstanding of the physics, which makes your statements like above one so laughable.
My point is that if Apple did know that the bumper would be required for normal use, then they ought to have included it with the iPhone or made it available at a more nominal price. Hell, even the iPod socks were 6 for $30 and they much more of a novelty. The bumper is not a novelty. It is a requirement.
It is not required for every next phone user. Antenna issue is that of severity just slightly above minor. iPhones work perfectly in zones of good coverage, bridging the seam is by no means natural gesture, etc...
You and others keep using the word "shorting" or "short circuit" without explaining why you think that term pertains to RF. How does altering an antenna length or adding attenution short anything, much less a circuit?
While the resultant effect may be similar, this seems comparable to people thinking salt melts ice, when in fact it dissolves ice.
The term shorting is simply meant to describe the process of connecting the two antennas. What shorting the antenna does in technical terms is unknown to me. What shorting does in terms of signal reception and call quality is SIGNIFICANT. As shown to you time after time after time after time, the issue is not simply attenuation from touching the antenna. When you touch the antenna in any fashion whatsoever there is no significant issue with reception. Only when the two antennas are connected by some conductor (i.e., "shorted") is there an issue. You can claim this phenomenon doesn't exist. You can play semantics. I don't really care -- I've come to grips with the role of willful ignorance in tech "fanboys." Enjoy your bliss.
I think the official word is "detuning" when the antennas are bridged ~ as has been mentioned by antenna engineers. When bridged you get both "attenuation" and "detuning"... I thought the detuning thing was accepted by most people by now? Or is there a new consensus, if any.
Non issue. Just avoid parsing them that way.
Neither is English your mother tongue. Which, sure, instantly challenges all your stories about 30 years within Mac community. Don't try to fool technophiles, Tulkas. You can not succeed
Hmmm...maybe it isn't a language barrier. I think perhaps logic just isn't your forte.
Unless of course you could explain how my native language affects my 'stories' of being a long time Apple fan.
This is precisely your misunderstanding of the physics, which makes your statements like above one so laughable.
Are you really going to try to argue that an external antenna will not have superior reception to one inside the body of a phone? I would really be interested in your explanation. maybe you think cell phones used to have the on them outside for aesthetics, cuz boy they looked great. That would be dumb, but maybe you do think that. I know you won't be able present a reasonable explanation, so take the request as rhetorical. Your poor english and disjointed writing style would simply make any attempt on your part even worse.
But, please ivan, go ahead an try.
It is not required for every next phone user. Antenna issue is that of severity just slightly above minor. iPhones work perfectly in zones of good coverage, bridging the seam is by no means natural gesture, etc...
Bridging it is certainly is a natural 'gesture'. You are simply lying or confused if you say it is not. You can say you don't even hold you phone like that, but that likely isn't true or you have convinced yourself after the fact. Most people never took note of how they held it before. I suppose you might claim you did. Also, people do tend to use different grips when holding the phone. When they are sitting, walking, when their hand gets tired and they change grips. It is foolish to say you never hold it in a way that would bridge it. I don't know why people like you even try.
As for he iPhone working "in zones of good coverage"...well, in real life, you will often make calls in areas that aren't so good.
Beyond your difficulties with the language, I hope most of your act is simply that... an act and pretense. I would hate to think it isn't.