Don't forget...the iP4 uses the microSIM card and can not be swapped back and forth to a 3G or 3Gs. I am not aware of an adapter for micro SIM to SIM (the way there are microSD to SD card adapters). Perhaps somebody will start making them. It would be useful.
The problems with the iP4 do not appear to affect all units. Someone may eventually figure out why this is the case. For the time being, it is puzzling. In addition to my observations about different iP4s at the Apple store below, I have spoken with several people with iP3/iP3Gs who have installed iOS 4 and have regretted doing so which leads me to suspect that there are several different things going on. I certainly hope that Apple recognizes that the problems are not imaginary and are not the fault of the users and finds out what the problem is soon.
Yeah! Apple, as a company has always had kind of a corporate superiority complex-- usually it is deserved!
But, sometimes we need to slap 'em upside the head just to get them to realize that they, too, are mortal and all us mortals make mistakes!
Yeah, that's very indicative that this problem is deeper than they are making out. An algorithm fix on a device that nearly 2 million people have simply will not have such a low priority. If it was just a software update they were working on, it would be out within a matter of hours. Or days if it's firmware to test the chances of bricking devices.
A few weeks says to me that they are going to issue a fix after they hire their antenna engineers to advise them on how they should fix the problem and the engineers will probably reply 'well you shoulda hired an antenna engineer before building the phone'.
It says a lot about their QA too if they have been using the same algorithms for 3 years and nobody bothered to check it. It's a pretty fundamental part of a phone operation and this suggests that the phone part of the iPhone was an afterthought. Jobs already said that the iPhone started as an iPad - they did a tablet first and then shrunk it.
*puts on tin foil hat*
YEAH, you're right!
*takes off tin foil hat*
*SIGH* Seriously though, as much as I want to believe Apple 100% on this, it's probably more than just how they calculate the bars, I agree.
At the end of the day at least they have acknowledged the issue and are working to address the problems, hiring antenna engineers as well means they realise they need to do better in that department.
I'm sure other posters have mentioned it before but I really couldn't be f'ed to go through all 10 pages. Notice how the letter is signed as Apple instead of Steve Jobs.
Clearly PR and management are trying to mitigate the confusion/ miscommunication/ damage "Steve's emails" did, their authenticity notwithstanding.
The open letter was worded carefully so as not to give the impression that there's an egomaniacal madman at the helm running about doing whatever the hell he wants, saying there's no problem one minute, hiring antenna engineers the other.
Notice how the letter is signed as Apple instead of Steve Jobs.
Clearly PR and management are trying to mitigate the confusion/ miscommunication/ damage "Steve's emails" did, their authenticity notwithstanding.
The open letter was worded carefully so as not to give the impression that there's an egomaniacal madman at the helm running about doing whatever the hell he wants, saying there's no problem one minute, hiring antenna engineers the other.
Apple could put whatever they wanted to in the signal bar area and some of you sheep would herd. Steve Jobs should change his title from "CEO, Director" to "Shepherd".
Remember, nearly 3/4 of iPhone sales are to those landfillers, existing customers throwing out their ols one to get the new one. Relatively few first-time buyers.
The stat you are referring to was only for first weekend sales.
Yeah, that's very indicative that this problem is deeper than they are making out. An algorithm fix on a device that nearly 2 million people have simply will not have such a low priority. If it was just a software update they were working on, it would be out within a matter of hours. Or days if it's firmware to test the chances of bricking devices.
A few weeks says to me that they are going to issue a fix after they hire their antenna engineers to advise them on how they should fix the problem and the engineers will probably reply 'well you shoulda hired an antenna engineer before building the phone'.
It says a lot about their QA too if they have been using the same algorithms for 3 years and nobody bothered to check it. It's a pretty fundamental part of a phone operation and this suggests that the phone part of the iPhone was an afterthought. Jobs already said that the iPhone started as an iPad - they did a tablet first and then shrunk it.
I think you are generally correct. But it isn't like the don't have antenna engineers now, or at least it isn't that they have just started looking. At the very worst, I saw Apple postings for Antenna Engineers that were posted Jan 2010. I think we can be pretty sure they had some prior to the original iPhone release.
As for the QA, I don't think it is a matter of the catching it. I think it was an intentionally rigged algorithm. Nothing nefarious, just that (as Anonymouse has proposed) if call/data transfer rates are unaffected at 3 or 4 'true' bars and the user sees no real difference between 3 or 4 or 5 (or 4 and 5) then why not show 5 for these once they hit 'optimal'. The signal might actually be better, but the effective benefits might not be. It would be a little dishonest, but not maliciously so. I think QA was told this was by design, continue testing.
However, I disagree that the bars can be considered incorrect as they currently are. They only represent more or less signal, not absolute values like the decibels they are built off of. In other words, if it showed 5 bars for a weaker signal and lower bars for a stronger signal, that would be incorrect.
Yes, I agree that "incorrect" isn't the right adjective. I think they made a conscious decision to have them represent something like potential call quality rather than signal strength. So, I don't think there is actually a "bug" in the display of these, the bars just didn't mean what people thought they meant.
In this regard, I find their letter somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the PR department was actually "stunned", but I doubt very much that the engineering teams who work on this were even mildly surprised.
Quote:
All Apple has really stated is they will optimize them so 5 bars doesn't run the gamut to -90dB. What they didn't state is why this will take "a few weeks" to complete, which leads me to theorize they are doing some heavy fixes in the firmware, not just making a cosmetic change to represented bars.
Well, you also have to assume that they have been working on various bug fixes since the day iOS4 went gold master. Even if this is the only antenna/reception issue addressed, they'd have to either put out a branch update that included only that change, or tie up all the loose ends on the other stuff before they release an update. Clearly they were aware of this for some time, since they discussed it with Walt Mossberg, so the bar display changes may even be already completed.
It will, however be interesting to see what changes in behavior iP4s exhibit after this update, to deduce what other changes they may have made. I would not be surprised to see the "seam bridging" issue to be, if not eliminated, at least somewhat ameliorated.
I think they made a conscious decision to have them represent something like potential call quality rather than signal strength. So, I don't think there is actually a "bug" in the display of these, the bars just didn't mean what people thought they meant.
In this regard, I find their letter somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the PR department was actually "stunned", but I doubt very much that the engineering teams who work on this were even mildly surprised.
The oddest part here is that ATT publishes a spec for how manufacturers can display bars, and Apple chose to do something entirely different until after it turns out that not following the published spec proves problematic.
And now feigning surprise? Do they really want to announce to the world that they don't read relevant specs?
The oddest part here is that ATT publishes a spec for how manufacturers can display bars, and Apple chose to do something entirely different until after it turns out that not following the published spec proves problematic.
And now feigning surprise? Do they really want to announce to the world that they don't read relevant specs?
Now, I think you are being disingenuous. If they made a conscious decision to have the bars represent something other than signal strength -- i.e., " chose to do something entirely different" -- and there is nothing wrong with doing that, per se, then it doesn't follow that they, "don't read relevant specs."
I mean, ok, you are a troll, but trying to have it both ways in one post is a little much even for you.
Yes, I agree that "incorrect" isn't the right adjective. I think they made a conscious decision to have them represent something like potential call quality rather than signal strength. So, I don't think there is actually a "bug" in the display of these, the bars just didn't mean what people thought they meant.
In this regard, I find their letter somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the PR department was actually "stunned", but I doubt very much that the engineering teams who work on this were even mildly surprised.
Well, you also have to assume that they have been working on various bug fixes since the day iOS4 went gold master. Even if this is the only antenna/reception issue addressed, they'd have to either put out a branch update that included only that change, or tie up all the loose ends on the other stuff before they release an update. Clearly they were aware of this for some time, since they discussed it with Walt Mossberg, so the bar display changes may even be already completed.
It will, however be interesting to see what changes in behavior iP4s exhibit after this update, to deduce what other changes they may have made. I would not be surprised to see the "seam bridging" issue to be, if not eliminated, at least somewhat ameliorated.
The Apple "fix" has nothing to do with actual reception. If the display went away altogether it would not matter because the signal strength is what it is whether displayed or not.
I think Apple were "stunned" that they got caught in this fraud by people who measured actual signal strength in decibels. Let's face it, there is no reason for this "formula" to give the result which it gave other than to fraudulently deceive the user as to the signal strength and, by implication, the quality of the network (connection). AT&T was undoubtedly involved in this fraud as well.
Anyone with two spare gray cells left to rub together should be running the BS Flag up on Apple's most recent explanation. It is simply not credible. If the phone is dropping calls because of poor signal strength or any other reason for that matter, the fact that the phone displays five bars instead of three is not the problem.
There are some articles which discuss the conflict between the engineering team and the "design" team. On the iPhone 4 it would appear that form has taken precedence over function. It also appears that Apple have been "hoisted by their own petard" with respect to their "you're holding it wrong claim. Their own TV commercials show people holding it in what is more correctly described as the "conventional way".
Yeah, that's very indicative that this problem is deeper than they are making out. An algorithm fix on a device that nearly 2 million people have simply will not have such a low priority. If it was just a software update they were working on, it would be out within a matter of hours. Or days if it's firmware to test the chances of bricking devices.
A few weeks says to me that they are going to issue a fix after they hire their antenna engineers to advise them on how they should fix the problem and the engineers will probably reply 'well you shoulda hired an antenna engineer before building the phone'.
It says a lot about their QA too if they have been using the same algorithms for 3 years and nobody bothered to check it. It's a pretty fundamental part of a phone operation and this suggests that the phone part of the iPhone was an afterthought. Jobs already said that the iPhone started as an iPad - they did a tablet first and then shrunk it.
One thing I find curious is that if you go back and look at Walt Mossbergs review of the iPhone 4 you will find this:
"Yet, in some places where the signal was relatively weak, the iPhone 4 showed no bars, or fewer bars than its predecessor. Apple says that this is a bug it plans to fix, and that it has to do with the way the bars are presented, not the actual ability to make a call. And, in fact, in nearly all of these cases, the iPhone 4 was able to place calls despite the lack of bars."
I'm assuming Walt had the phone at least a week or two before the launch date...If you look at Apple's letter, you find this:
"The iPhone 4 has been the most successful product launch in Apple?s history. It has been judged by reviewers around the world to be the best smartphone ever, and users have told us that they love it. So we were surprised when we read reports of reception problems, and we immediately began investigating them. Here is what we have learned."
"Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong."
Wait...you told Walt, it's a bug, before the phone was even launched and now, they are "surprised" to read reports of reception issues?
"We have gone back to our labs and retested everything, and the results are the same? the iPhone 4?s wireless performance is the best we have ever shipped."
Testing in a lab is great for creating reproducible conditions but I hope they also tested out in the field? With cell signals, I would imagine there are many factors that go into getting good reception...distances to cell towers, 3G and EDGE coverage areas, cell congestion within an area and so on...
The Apple "fix" has nothing to do with actual reception. If the display went away altogether it would not matter because the signal strength is what it is whether displayed or not.
I think Apple were "stunned" that they got caught in this fraud by people who measured actual signal strength in decibels. Let's face it, there is no reason for this "formula" to give the result which it gave other than to fraudulently deceive the user as to the signal strength and, by implication, the quality of the network (connection). AT&T was undoubtedly involved in this fraud as well. ...
I don't think there is any foundation for your accusations. However, as pointed out, it's unlikely that the update will include only a single fix, and we don't really know what effect those updates may have on reception.
You may hate Apple, you may be mad as hell at Apple, but at least try to be rational.
Now, I think you are being disingenuous. If they made a conscious decision to have the bars represent something other than signal strength -- i.e., " chose to do something entirely different" -- and there is nothing wrong with doing that, per se, then it doesn't follow that they, "don't read relevant specs."
ATT publishes a spec. Apple didn't follow it until AFTER it became a major problem.
Whether that means they willfully ignored the spec or somehow never managed to read it is something only they can tell us.
But either possibility is not especially flattering for them.
I don't think there is any foundation for your accusations. However, as pointed out, it's unlikely that the update will include only a single fix, and we don't really know what effect those updates may have on reception.
You may hate Apple, you may be mad as hell at Apple, but at least try to be rational.
Let's be rational. There is no other explanation. To even suggest otherwise is to deny reality. This was not a "mistake" or error and has nothing whatsoever to do with the problems people are experiencing. Get real!
I'm sure other posters have mentioned it before but I really couldn't be f'ed to go through all 10 pages. Notice how the letter is signed as Apple instead of Steve Jobs.
So? Jobs doesn't sign every letter coming out of Apple - or even all the important ones. In fact, very few Apple press releases are signed by Jobs. You're conspiracy theories need some work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
A few weeks says to me that they are going to issue a fix after they hire their antenna engineers to advise them on how they should fix the problem and the engineers will probably reply 'well you shoulda hired an antenna engineer before building the phone'.
YASCT (Yet another silly conspiracy theory).
First, the ads for engineers appeared last week. It will take at least a week for resumes to come in, at least another week to evaluate them, another week to interview. (All of those are very optimistic). Then, even assuming that they find someone they like and make them an acceptable offer, most people give 2 weeks' notice on their existing jobs. So those jobs won't be filled for at least 5 weeks AT BEST. Then, it takes time for the engineer to become familiar with the product and testing protocols in use at Apple, the software code being used, then develop new code and properly test it, so any contributions they might make are MONTHS away, not weeks.
Second, if Apple needed more expertise than they have in house on this issue, hiring people is not the solution. They would have retained a consulting firm that specializes in the subject and given them a high-priority contract. That would get the needed results much faster than hiring employees to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shapesNforms
Wait...you told Walt, it's a bug, before the phone was even launched and now, they are "surprised" to read reports of reception issues?
There's no inconsistency. Read what they told Mossberg. They told him that there was a problem with the reported number of bars, but that it wouldn't affect reception. it was only after the phone shipped that they learned of alleged reception problems.
Note also that this debunks the "Apple intentionally inflated the number of bars" conspiracy theory. They told Mossberg that it was a bug and would be fixed - so there was no intentional over-stating of the number of bars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shapesNforms
Testing in a lab is great for creating reproducible conditions but I hope they also tested out in the field? With cell signals, I would imagine there are many factors that go into getting good reception...distances to cell towers, 3G and EDGE coverage areas, cell congestion within an area and so on...
No doubt they did field testing. Apple has always tested its products in the field and phones would be even more likely to be tested in the field.
Now, it IS possible that they reduced the amount of field testing slightly due to the slimebuckets at Gizmodo. I don't know if that's the case, but it's certainly possible. That would pretty effectively destroy the "Gizmodo didn't do any harm since the phone would eventually be released, anyway" rationalization.
The Apple "fix" has nothing to do with actual reception. If the display went away altogether it would not matter because the signal strength is what it is whether displayed or not.
I think Apple were "stunned" that they got caught in this fraud by people who measured actual signal strength in decibels. Let's face it, there is no reason for this "formula" to give the result which it gave other than to fraudulently deceive the user as to the signal strength and, by implication, the quality of the network (connection). AT&T was undoubtedly involved in this fraud as well.
That's is an illogical conclusion. For your theory to be correct we have assume that largest selling single model modern smartphone isn't scrutinized, we have to think that the flagship smartphone isn't scrutinized, we have to think that Apple isn't scrutinized, and we have to think that Apple isn't aware of this scrutiny that falls upon them. There is no way in hell I can suspend that much reality. If this was a movie I'd have walked out by now.
If the fix has NOTHING to do with reception, then why is taking "a few weeks" for some visual changes to some bars? It wouldn't and there aren't any other major pressing issues that are requiring them to wait on this fix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalTroll
ATT publishes a spec. Apple didn't follow it until AFTER it became a major problem.
Whether that means they willfully ignored the spec or somehow never managed to read it is something only they can tell us.
But either possibility is not especially flattering for them.
Why is ATT&T algorithm any better? Because they said so? That was an escape, a way to deflect form the real issue(s). There is no "wrong" way to display the bars, just "better" ways which may or may not be synonymous with what we want.
Apple wants their phone to look like it's more powerful than other phones. AT&T wants all the phones on their network to look like it's more powerful than other networks. This is the same as other carriers and networks. We know this because these companies exist! The only variance is how much of the envelope are they will to push to register those bars.
Remember, this is an internal spec for AT&T, not an industry standard. Perhaps we need the FCC and ETSI(?) to make the bars require a certain algorithm or at least regulate the date the bars represent.
Detail the minimum and maximum number of bars
Detail the minimum and maximum dB range for any one bar
Detail the minimum and maximum cycle time before the represented data updates
The first two are probably obvious, but the last one make be a head scratcher at first. The reason for the inclusion is if there was no mandate on the duration between cycles then a vendor could have 5 bars stays longer than they should even though you've dropped to a weak signal.
That's is an illogical conclusion. For your theory to be correct we have assume that largest selling single model modern smartphone isn't scrutinized, we have to think that the flagship smartphone isn't scrutinized, we have to think that Apple isn't scrutinized, and we have to think that Apple isn't aware of this scrutiny that falls upon them. There is no way in hell I can suspend that much reality. If this was a movie I'd have walked out by now.
If the fix has NOTHING to do with reception, then why is taking "a few weeks" for some visual changes to some bars? It wouldn't and there aren't any other major pressing issues that are requiring them to wait on this fix.
<snip>
Think about what you said for just a second. IF you believe Apple, they are telling you that the iPhone was NOT scrutinized.
Once again, think about what you are saying. The number of bars displayed does not matter. The actual signal strength is what matters...that and the ability of the device to utilize the signal strength. Changing the number of bars displayed will not change dropped calls.
Comments
Don't forget...the iP4 uses the microSIM card and can not be swapped back and forth to a 3G or 3Gs. I am not aware of an adapter for micro SIM to SIM (the way there are microSD to SD card adapters). Perhaps somebody will start making them. It would be useful.
The problems with the iP4 do not appear to affect all units. Someone may eventually figure out why this is the case. For the time being, it is puzzling. In addition to my observations about different iP4s at the Apple store below, I have spoken with several people with iP3/iP3Gs who have installed iOS 4 and have regretted doing so which leads me to suspect that there are several different things going on. I certainly hope that Apple recognizes that the problems are not imaginary and are not the fault of the users and finds out what the problem is soon.
Yeah! Apple, as a company has always had kind of a corporate superiority complex-- usually it is deserved!
But, sometimes we need to slap 'em upside the head just to get them to realize that they, too, are mortal and all us mortals make mistakes!
.
Yeah, that's very indicative that this problem is deeper than they are making out. An algorithm fix on a device that nearly 2 million people have simply will not have such a low priority. If it was just a software update they were working on, it would be out within a matter of hours. Or days if it's firmware to test the chances of bricking devices.
A few weeks says to me that they are going to issue a fix after they hire their antenna engineers to advise them on how they should fix the problem and the engineers will probably reply 'well you shoulda hired an antenna engineer before building the phone'.
It says a lot about their QA too if they have been using the same algorithms for 3 years and nobody bothered to check it. It's a pretty fundamental part of a phone operation and this suggests that the phone part of the iPhone was an afterthought. Jobs already said that the iPhone started as an iPad - they did a tablet first and then shrunk it.
*puts on tin foil hat*
YEAH, you're right!
*takes off tin foil hat*
*SIGH* Seriously though, as much as I want to believe Apple 100% on this, it's probably more than just how they calculate the bars, I agree.
At the end of the day at least they have acknowledged the issue and are working to address the problems, hiring antenna engineers as well means they realise they need to do better in that department.
Back to my iPad... *shh don't disturb me*
Clearly PR and management are trying to mitigate the confusion/ miscommunication/ damage "Steve's emails" did, their authenticity notwithstanding.
The open letter was worded carefully so as not to give the impression that there's an egomaniacal madman at the helm running about doing whatever the hell he wants, saying there's no problem one minute, hiring antenna engineers the other.
Notice how the letter is signed as Apple instead of Steve Jobs.
Clearly PR and management are trying to mitigate the confusion/ miscommunication/ damage "Steve's emails" did, their authenticity notwithstanding.
The open letter was worded carefully so as not to give the impression that there's an egomaniacal madman at the helm running about doing whatever the hell he wants, saying there's no problem one minute, hiring antenna engineers the other.
+1 Insightful
Remember, nearly 3/4 of iPhone sales are to those landfillers, existing customers throwing out their ols one to get the new one. Relatively few first-time buyers.
The stat you are referring to was only for first weekend sales.
Yeah, that's very indicative that this problem is deeper than they are making out. An algorithm fix on a device that nearly 2 million people have simply will not have such a low priority. If it was just a software update they were working on, it would be out within a matter of hours. Or days if it's firmware to test the chances of bricking devices.
A few weeks says to me that they are going to issue a fix after they hire their antenna engineers to advise them on how they should fix the problem and the engineers will probably reply 'well you shoulda hired an antenna engineer before building the phone'.
It says a lot about their QA too if they have been using the same algorithms for 3 years and nobody bothered to check it. It's a pretty fundamental part of a phone operation and this suggests that the phone part of the iPhone was an afterthought. Jobs already said that the iPhone started as an iPad - they did a tablet first and then shrunk it.
I think you are generally correct. But it isn't like the don't have antenna engineers now, or at least it isn't that they have just started looking. At the very worst, I saw Apple postings for Antenna Engineers that were posted Jan 2010. I think we can be pretty sure they had some prior to the original iPhone release.
As for the QA, I don't think it is a matter of the catching it. I think it was an intentionally rigged algorithm. Nothing nefarious, just that (as Anonymouse has proposed) if call/data transfer rates are unaffected at 3 or 4 'true' bars and the user sees no real difference between 3 or 4 or 5 (or 4 and 5) then why not show 5 for these once they hit 'optimal'. The signal might actually be better, but the effective benefits might not be. It would be a little dishonest, but not maliciously so. I think QA was told this was by design, continue testing.
However, I disagree that the bars can be considered incorrect as they currently are. They only represent more or less signal, not absolute values like the decibels they are built off of. In other words, if it showed 5 bars for a weaker signal and lower bars for a stronger signal, that would be incorrect.
Yes, I agree that "incorrect" isn't the right adjective. I think they made a conscious decision to have them represent something like potential call quality rather than signal strength. So, I don't think there is actually a "bug" in the display of these, the bars just didn't mean what people thought they meant.
In this regard, I find their letter somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the PR department was actually "stunned", but I doubt very much that the engineering teams who work on this were even mildly surprised.
All Apple has really stated is they will optimize them so 5 bars doesn't run the gamut to -90dB. What they didn't state is why this will take "a few weeks" to complete, which leads me to theorize they are doing some heavy fixes in the firmware, not just making a cosmetic change to represented bars.
Well, you also have to assume that they have been working on various bug fixes since the day iOS4 went gold master. Even if this is the only antenna/reception issue addressed, they'd have to either put out a branch update that included only that change, or tie up all the loose ends on the other stuff before they release an update. Clearly they were aware of this for some time, since they discussed it with Walt Mossberg, so the bar display changes may even be already completed.
It will, however be interesting to see what changes in behavior iP4s exhibit after this update, to deduce what other changes they may have made. I would not be surprised to see the "seam bridging" issue to be, if not eliminated, at least somewhat ameliorated.
I think they made a conscious decision to have them represent something like potential call quality rather than signal strength. So, I don't think there is actually a "bug" in the display of these, the bars just didn't mean what people thought they meant.
In this regard, I find their letter somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the PR department was actually "stunned", but I doubt very much that the engineering teams who work on this were even mildly surprised.
The oddest part here is that ATT publishes a spec for how manufacturers can display bars, and Apple chose to do something entirely different until after it turns out that not following the published spec proves problematic.
And now feigning surprise? Do they really want to announce to the world that they don't read relevant specs?
The oddest part here is that ATT publishes a spec for how manufacturers can display bars, and Apple chose to do something entirely different until after it turns out that not following the published spec proves problematic.
And now feigning surprise? Do they really want to announce to the world that they don't read relevant specs?
Now, I think you are being disingenuous. If they made a conscious decision to have the bars represent something other than signal strength -- i.e., " chose to do something entirely different" -- and there is nothing wrong with doing that, per se, then it doesn't follow that they, "don't read relevant specs."
I mean, ok, you are a troll, but trying to have it both ways in one post is a little much even for you.
Yes, I agree that "incorrect" isn't the right adjective. I think they made a conscious decision to have them represent something like potential call quality rather than signal strength. So, I don't think there is actually a "bug" in the display of these, the bars just didn't mean what people thought they meant.
In this regard, I find their letter somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the PR department was actually "stunned", but I doubt very much that the engineering teams who work on this were even mildly surprised.
Well, you also have to assume that they have been working on various bug fixes since the day iOS4 went gold master. Even if this is the only antenna/reception issue addressed, they'd have to either put out a branch update that included only that change, or tie up all the loose ends on the other stuff before they release an update. Clearly they were aware of this for some time, since they discussed it with Walt Mossberg, so the bar display changes may even be already completed.
It will, however be interesting to see what changes in behavior iP4s exhibit after this update, to deduce what other changes they may have made. I would not be surprised to see the "seam bridging" issue to be, if not eliminated, at least somewhat ameliorated.
The Apple "fix" has nothing to do with actual reception. If the display went away altogether it would not matter because the signal strength is what it is whether displayed or not.
I think Apple were "stunned" that they got caught in this fraud by people who measured actual signal strength in decibels. Let's face it, there is no reason for this "formula" to give the result which it gave other than to fraudulently deceive the user as to the signal strength and, by implication, the quality of the network (connection). AT&T was undoubtedly involved in this fraud as well.
Anyone with two spare gray cells left to rub together should be running the BS Flag up on Apple's most recent explanation. It is simply not credible. If the phone is dropping calls because of poor signal strength or any other reason for that matter, the fact that the phone displays five bars instead of three is not the problem.
There are some articles which discuss the conflict between the engineering team and the "design" team. On the iPhone 4 it would appear that form has taken precedence over function. It also appears that Apple have been "hoisted by their own petard" with respect to their "you're holding it wrong claim. Their own TV commercials show people holding it in what is more correctly described as the "conventional way".
Yeah, that's very indicative that this problem is deeper than they are making out. An algorithm fix on a device that nearly 2 million people have simply will not have such a low priority. If it was just a software update they were working on, it would be out within a matter of hours. Or days if it's firmware to test the chances of bricking devices.
A few weeks says to me that they are going to issue a fix after they hire their antenna engineers to advise them on how they should fix the problem and the engineers will probably reply 'well you shoulda hired an antenna engineer before building the phone'.
It says a lot about their QA too if they have been using the same algorithms for 3 years and nobody bothered to check it. It's a pretty fundamental part of a phone operation and this suggests that the phone part of the iPhone was an afterthought. Jobs already said that the iPhone started as an iPad - they did a tablet first and then shrunk it.
One thing I find curious is that if you go back and look at Walt Mossbergs review of the iPhone 4 you will find this:
"Yet, in some places where the signal was relatively weak, the iPhone 4 showed no bars, or fewer bars than its predecessor. Apple says that this is a bug it plans to fix, and that it has to do with the way the bars are presented, not the actual ability to make a call. And, in fact, in nearly all of these cases, the iPhone 4 was able to place calls despite the lack of bars."
I'm assuming Walt had the phone at least a week or two before the launch date...If you look at Apple's letter, you find this:
"The iPhone 4 has been the most successful product launch in Apple?s history. It has been judged by reviewers around the world to be the best smartphone ever, and users have told us that they love it. So we were surprised when we read reports of reception problems, and we immediately began investigating them. Here is what we have learned."
"Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong."
Wait...you told Walt, it's a bug, before the phone was even launched and now, they are "surprised" to read reports of reception issues?
"We have gone back to our labs and retested everything, and the results are the same? the iPhone 4?s wireless performance is the best we have ever shipped."
Testing in a lab is great for creating reproducible conditions but I hope they also tested out in the field? With cell signals, I would imagine there are many factors that go into getting good reception...distances to cell towers, 3G and EDGE coverage areas, cell congestion within an area and so on...
The Apple "fix" has nothing to do with actual reception. If the display went away altogether it would not matter because the signal strength is what it is whether displayed or not.
I think Apple were "stunned" that they got caught in this fraud by people who measured actual signal strength in decibels. Let's face it, there is no reason for this "formula" to give the result which it gave other than to fraudulently deceive the user as to the signal strength and, by implication, the quality of the network (connection). AT&T was undoubtedly involved in this fraud as well. ...
I don't think there is any foundation for your accusations. However, as pointed out, it's unlikely that the update will include only a single fix, and we don't really know what effect those updates may have on reception.
You may hate Apple, you may be mad as hell at Apple, but at least try to be rational.
Now, I think you are being disingenuous. If they made a conscious decision to have the bars represent something other than signal strength -- i.e., " chose to do something entirely different" -- and there is nothing wrong with doing that, per se, then it doesn't follow that they, "don't read relevant specs."
ATT publishes a spec. Apple didn't follow it until AFTER it became a major problem.
Whether that means they willfully ignored the spec or somehow never managed to read it is something only they can tell us.
But either possibility is not especially flattering for them.
ATT publishes a spec. Apple didn't follow it until AFTER it became a major problem.
Whether that means they willfully ignored the spec or somehow never managed to read it is something only they can tell us.
But either possibility is not especially flattering for them.
Nonsense. You are just reaching for inflammatory rhetoric. Reasoned thought will not support your diatribe.
Nonsense. You are just reaching for inflammatory rhetoric. Reasoned thought will not support your diatribe.
Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong.
...
To fix this, we are adopting AT&T?s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010...pleletter.html
I don't think there is any foundation for your accusations. However, as pointed out, it's unlikely that the update will include only a single fix, and we don't really know what effect those updates may have on reception.
You may hate Apple, you may be mad as hell at Apple, but at least try to be rational.
Let's be rational. There is no other explanation. To even suggest otherwise is to deny reality. This was not a "mistake" or error and has nothing whatsoever to do with the problems people are experiencing. Get real!
I'm sure other posters have mentioned it before but I really couldn't be f'ed to go through all 10 pages. Notice how the letter is signed as Apple instead of Steve Jobs.
So? Jobs doesn't sign every letter coming out of Apple - or even all the important ones. In fact, very few Apple press releases are signed by Jobs. You're conspiracy theories need some work.
A few weeks says to me that they are going to issue a fix after they hire their antenna engineers to advise them on how they should fix the problem and the engineers will probably reply 'well you shoulda hired an antenna engineer before building the phone'.
YASCT (Yet another silly conspiracy theory).
First, the ads for engineers appeared last week. It will take at least a week for resumes to come in, at least another week to evaluate them, another week to interview. (All of those are very optimistic). Then, even assuming that they find someone they like and make them an acceptable offer, most people give 2 weeks' notice on their existing jobs. So those jobs won't be filled for at least 5 weeks AT BEST. Then, it takes time for the engineer to become familiar with the product and testing protocols in use at Apple, the software code being used, then develop new code and properly test it, so any contributions they might make are MONTHS away, not weeks.
Second, if Apple needed more expertise than they have in house on this issue, hiring people is not the solution. They would have retained a consulting firm that specializes in the subject and given them a high-priority contract. That would get the needed results much faster than hiring employees to do it.
Wait...you told Walt, it's a bug, before the phone was even launched and now, they are "surprised" to read reports of reception issues?
There's no inconsistency. Read what they told Mossberg. They told him that there was a problem with the reported number of bars, but that it wouldn't affect reception. it was only after the phone shipped that they learned of alleged reception problems.
Note also that this debunks the "Apple intentionally inflated the number of bars" conspiracy theory. They told Mossberg that it was a bug and would be fixed - so there was no intentional over-stating of the number of bars.
Testing in a lab is great for creating reproducible conditions but I hope they also tested out in the field? With cell signals, I would imagine there are many factors that go into getting good reception...distances to cell towers, 3G and EDGE coverage areas, cell congestion within an area and so on...
No doubt they did field testing. Apple has always tested its products in the field and phones would be even more likely to be tested in the field.
Now, it IS possible that they reduced the amount of field testing slightly due to the slimebuckets at Gizmodo. I don't know if that's the case, but it's certainly possible. That would pretty effectively destroy the "Gizmodo didn't do any harm since the phone would eventually be released, anyway" rationalization.
The Apple "fix" has nothing to do with actual reception. If the display went away altogether it would not matter because the signal strength is what it is whether displayed or not.
I think Apple were "stunned" that they got caught in this fraud by people who measured actual signal strength in decibels. Let's face it, there is no reason for this "formula" to give the result which it gave other than to fraudulently deceive the user as to the signal strength and, by implication, the quality of the network (connection). AT&T was undoubtedly involved in this fraud as well.
That's is an illogical conclusion. For your theory to be correct we have assume that largest selling single model modern smartphone isn't scrutinized, we have to think that the flagship smartphone isn't scrutinized, we have to think that Apple isn't scrutinized, and we have to think that Apple isn't aware of this scrutiny that falls upon them. There is no way in hell I can suspend that much reality. If this was a movie I'd have walked out by now.
If the fix has NOTHING to do with reception, then why is taking "a few weeks" for some visual changes to some bars? It wouldn't and there aren't any other major pressing issues that are requiring them to wait on this fix.
ATT publishes a spec. Apple didn't follow it until AFTER it became a major problem.
Whether that means they willfully ignored the spec or somehow never managed to read it is something only they can tell us.
But either possibility is not especially flattering for them.
Why is ATT&T algorithm any better? Because they said so? That was an escape, a way to deflect form the real issue(s). There is no "wrong" way to display the bars, just "better" ways which may or may not be synonymous with what we want.
Apple wants their phone to look like it's more powerful than other phones. AT&T wants all the phones on their network to look like it's more powerful than other networks. This is the same as other carriers and networks. We know this because these companies exist! The only variance is how much of the envelope are they will to push to register those bars.
Remember, this is an internal spec for AT&T, not an industry standard. Perhaps we need the FCC and ETSI(?) to make the bars require a certain algorithm or at least regulate the date the bars represent.
- Detail the minimum and maximum number of bars
- Detail the minimum and maximum dB range for any one bar
- Detail the minimum and maximum cycle time before the represented data updates
The first two are probably obvious, but the last one make be a head scratcher at first. The reason for the inclusion is if there was no mandate on the duration between cycles then a vendor could have 5 bars stays longer than they should even though you've dropped to a weak signal.That's is an illogical conclusion. For your theory to be correct we have assume that largest selling single model modern smartphone isn't scrutinized, we have to think that the flagship smartphone isn't scrutinized, we have to think that Apple isn't scrutinized, and we have to think that Apple isn't aware of this scrutiny that falls upon them. There is no way in hell I can suspend that much reality. If this was a movie I'd have walked out by now.
If the fix has NOTHING to do with reception, then why is taking "a few weeks" for some visual changes to some bars? It wouldn't and there aren't any other major pressing issues that are requiring them to wait on this fix.
<snip>
Think about what you said for just a second. IF you believe Apple, they are telling you that the iPhone was NOT scrutinized.
Once again, think about what you are saying. The number of bars displayed does not matter. The actual signal strength is what matters...that and the ability of the device to utilize the signal strength. Changing the number of bars displayed will not change dropped calls.