I actually experience dropped calls pretty frequently and it usually happens when I'm not moving and sitting in the same location. I'm not going to purchase an iphone 4 until all this MESS is cleaned up!
This is exactly the kind of FUD that makes this entire topic so ridiculous.
You don't own an iPhone 4 - yet you're experiencing dropped calls. Yet you're using your dropped calls as an excuse not to buy an iPhone 4.
Most reports are that you get FEWER dropped calls with the iPhone 4 than other phones if you hold it away from the gap and/or buy a case. So it might actually SOLVE your problem. (Of course, there's no real evidence that it drops any more calls than other phones even without a case, but that's a different story).
You're entitled to view their credibility as you wish of course. I don't always like their testing methods either, which is why I'm no longer a subscriber. But many of the "problems" you allude to are in fact the result of angry manufacturers working to undermine their reputation because they don't like the results.
Hold on. Can you give some examples of that? I've seen problems myself. The examples I've listed were not some manufacturer's propaganda.
Quote:
As I said, I can understand why the manufacturers would do this, out of pure self-interest, but I have a harder time understanding why so many of their customers would become voluntarily enrolled in the effort.
Perhaps because they, like me, have seen bias and poorly done reviews?
Quote:
We've seen it before, with SUV rollovers, and we can really witness that playing out now right here with the iPhone fiasco. At this point it doesn't really matter whether you agree or disagree with CR's iPhone testing.
Yeah, it really does. It's a hit piece. It's piss-poor.
Quote:
The real issue is that Apple is way behind the curve in addressing the PR damage which is gets deeper and more serious with every day they are seen to sit on their hands. CR's review just posts the failure up high in big neon for all to see.
Find the failing where it is really is. As much as we might hate to admit it, the problem is with Apple, not CR. Whipping CR on Apple's behalf won't make a dime's worth a difference to the outcome. Only Apple can straighten this out.
Well they've scheduled a press conference, so we'll see. I agree they should have been more ahead of the curve. Then again, I think a lot of the "PR" is crap. It's overblown and very likely encouraged by Apple's competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naboozle
Numerous reports, Youtube demos, etc... and you can search for yourself. But really, if the phone drops into "No Service", that's pretty much going to affect your download speeds in a negative way, yes? Data throughput should have some correlation with signal strength, yes? Let's not labor over the obvious.
No, how about you post them? Shit, posts like that are part of the problem---it's just that the mainstream media is writing stuff like that. I've seen only anecdotal and isolated reports. I've seen an equal number (or more) people that can't reproduce the problem at all.
As for "no service" drops...can you poke holes in Apple's explanation? The issue is that if you have, say, 3 bars...you might actually only have one. In other words, it's easy to have a connection problem in a weak signal area--with any phone. Do you seriously question this? Have you ever noticed that you can not have a signal on a phone in one spot in a room, then have one sitting near a window?
Show me going from 5 bars to no service just from putting your finger over the gap. Then we'll talk.
It wasn't necessary to disconstruct my post. It actually expressed a complete thought, to which you could have responded.
Jesus Christ. I'll use a point-by-point reply when I feel it's appropriate. I don't need you to tell me what's necessary and what's not. If you feel I've taken something out of context, say so. Otherwise, try responding to the points I made.
Jesus Christ. I'll use a point-by-point reply when I feel it's appropriate. I don't need you to tell me what's necessary and what's not. If you feel I've taken something out of context, say so. Otherwise, try responding to the points I made.
If you insist on this, then you will get dialed out. I think it's insulting to dismember a post so that you don't have to reply to the thought actually being expressed. In this case, the post made one point, not several. Just so you know that I know, deconstructing an argument into free-floating and unrelated sentences is a deliberate technique for avoiding a response to the argument being made. Sorry, but this is a game I don't play.
Why are you speaking about schools? The guy's written utter nonsense in his blog post and hence demonstrated to all professionals around he didn't understand what happened to iPhone during CR tests nor even how to properly use the terms from his presumed expertise realm.
Yes, I went to his page in LinkedIn and saw what he was doing for recent 15 years. Did you? The guy was always in managerial positions and not an engineer for a single day. He simply is not (no more) engineer.
Have you come on to AI in the hope you could see very few engineers? Still they are here. Those with schools and the experience of the length being close to that of ``global head' '. They are specialized in their businesses, yet they can clearly see how a professional writes blog posts.
You are not so sure. But engineers do know where ``strategists' ' and ``best practice pundits' ' come from. They know it exactly after all years spent in the industry.
Yes, strange as it may seem, engineers know what ``strategists' ' used to write in standards, specifications, NYT articles and why NYT asks ``strategists' '.
You hardly are. You do not sound like a professional.
Nobody cares.
So, what's your take of CR tests from the technical standpoint? Tell us. I will know in a minute what you are. I hired and fired dozens of smart ass engineers in my life.
Personally, I know exactly what and how did CR engineers test this time. Not how many flaws they had in their tests over the years but what they did to iPhone. Do you?
Look son, you seem to be one of those angry types who got old and never got promoted.
I DO KNOW, what it takes to write IEEE standards. I DO KNOW, how complex RF is, which is why I don't dabble in it. It is not my thing, digital systems design is. Which is why I didn't come out and comment like a madman on whether one person was right or wrong about the testing procedures. All I said was I know that your bashing of that man was unwarranted, you can't dismiss him as a financial strategist because he hasn't sat in lab like you have all your life. Doesn't make him suddenly unqualified. Your logic isn't sound.
I do not sound like a professional? Why, is this my work environment? Am I evaluating a technical issue? No. I am evaluating your evaluation of someone's analysis. Have you read your posts? Mr. 'Professional'? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Ease up buddy.
So you've hired and fired smart ass engineers? Great. You didn't hire me, you can't fire me. If that drives you nuts, too bad. I'm happy to be working for my employer doing great things and they're happy to have me there. You on the other hand, don't sound so happy.
If you insist on this, then you will get dialed out. I think it's insulting to dismember a post so that you don't have to reply to the thought actually being expressed. In this case, the post made one point, not several. Just so you know that I know, deconstructing an argument into free-floating and unrelated sentences is a deliberate technique for avoiding a response to the argument being made. Sorry, but this is a game I don't play.
Your post was "dismembered" because it wasn't a single thought but several glommed together.
They were:
CR's credibility problems are the result of manufacturers. (arguably false given their testing methods and rating criteria suck in my opinion. Many of CR's credibility problems are self-inflicted from the perspective of not making sense to knowledgable consumers)
You don't understand why consumers would undermine CR's credibility...implying this is stupid behavior. (Answer: because crappy CR grading criteria results in manufacturers designing against crappy CR grading criteria if CR has credibility)
Apple is behind in their PR campaign. (true, but unrelated to the CR credibility discussion)
CR is not to blame but Apple and only Apple can fix it. (related to CR credibility but only tangentially...although, it can be argued that their reputation for being an opportunistic grandstander is being shown and that isn't Apple's failing but CR's)
These map out to the "dismembered" sections that SDW responded to. What, pray tell, was your singular thought being expressed? Other than "I like CR so you should leave it alone you big meanie"? It is equally disingenuous to make a series of bald assertions to support some nebulous position and then cry foul when those assertions are challenged/refuted individually.
Your post was "dismembered" because it wasn't a single thought but several glommed together.
They were:
CR's credibility problems are the result of manufacturers. (arguably false given their testing methods and rating criteria suck in my opinion. Many of CR's credibility problems are self-inflicted from the perspective of not making sense to knowledgable consumers)
You don't understand why consumers would undermine CR's credibility...implying this is stupid behavior. (Answer: because crappy CR grading criteria results in manufacturers designing against crappy CR grading criteria if CR has credibility)
Apple is behind in their PR campaign. (true, but unrelated to the CR credibility discussion)
CR is not to blame but Apple and only Apple can fix it. (related to CR credibility but only tangentially...although, it can be argued that their reputation for being an opportunistic grandstander is being shown and that isn't Apple's failing but CR's)
These map out to the "dismembered" sections that SDW responded to. What, pray tell, was your singular thought being expressed? Other than "I like CR so you should leave it alone you big meanie"? It is equally disingenuous to make a series of bald assertions to support some nebulous position and then cry foul when those assertions are challenged/refuted individually.
No, it was a single thought, even if you failed to see it. Jumping on the generic CR bashing bandwagon is not a counterargument. You have conveniently ignored parts of what I said and entirely fabricated others.
CR has been sued many, many times over the years by manufacturers. Even setting aside for a moment the fact that they've never lost one of these suits, I think it's quite easy to understand why they are attacked so often by manufacturers. What many of these suits have turned on is whether their testing methods and conclusions are reasonable. In the end they come down to whether CR is entitled to draw conclusions based on whatever data gathering method they choose. The courts have always said they are so entitled.
What I think is unfortunate is when consumers themselves, particularly owners of products poorly reviewed, attack CR's results for no other obvious reason they have don't really want to know about possible flaws in products they own. We saw this play out in the SUV rollover business. Whether you or the manufacturers agreed with CR's rollover testing methods, partially, fully, or not at all -- the general principle that many SUVs are designed in a way which makes them far more unstable than they need to be, came through. This is what a lot of SUV owners where furious about. I'm not saying or even implying that this is "stupid" -- but it is an example of the "puppy dog affect," which is not one of the more logical or useful human characteristics.
So the point being, I think we are hearing much the same think in the case of CR's testing of the iPhone 4. Whether you or I agree with CR's testing or not is entirely besides the point. They are in the business of rendering opinions using the methods which seem valid to them. We could argue endlessly about whether they were or not, and get absolutely nowhere. It seems obvious to me that Apple could have neutralized the bad press they got from CR's testing if they'd been something other than silent about the issue for weeks. They could have gotten out front on this issue (CR was hardly the only source of their problems), but they failed, in a way which disappoints me as both a buyer of their products for over 25 years and as a stockholder. I'm not going to stick up for Apple when I think they've blundered, and I'm not going to blame it on someone else.
Comments
I actually experience dropped calls pretty frequently and it usually happens when I'm not moving and sitting in the same location. I'm not going to purchase an iphone 4 until all this MESS is cleaned up!
This is exactly the kind of FUD that makes this entire topic so ridiculous.
You don't own an iPhone 4 - yet you're experiencing dropped calls. Yet you're using your dropped calls as an excuse not to buy an iPhone 4.
Most reports are that you get FEWER dropped calls with the iPhone 4 than other phones if you hold it away from the gap and/or buy a case. So it might actually SOLVE your problem. (Of course, there's no real evidence that it drops any more calls than other phones even without a case, but that's a different story).
It doesn't matter anyway. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, even if on occasion he is right, no one believes him.
Am I the only one who finds your comment freaking hilarious?
Irony - it does run deep!
Whipping CR on Apple's behalf won't make a dime's worth a difference to the outcome. Only Apple can straighten this out.
they have already issued the fix in beta form.
they have already issued the fix in beta form.
And you know this how, exactly?
You're entitled to view their credibility as you wish of course. I don't always like their testing methods either, which is why I'm no longer a subscriber. But many of the "problems" you allude to are in fact the result of angry manufacturers working to undermine their reputation because they don't like the results.
Hold on. Can you give some examples of that? I've seen problems myself. The examples I've listed were not some manufacturer's propaganda.
As I said, I can understand why the manufacturers would do this, out of pure self-interest, but I have a harder time understanding why so many of their customers would become voluntarily enrolled in the effort.
Perhaps because they, like me, have seen bias and poorly done reviews?
We've seen it before, with SUV rollovers, and we can really witness that playing out now right here with the iPhone fiasco. At this point it doesn't really matter whether you agree or disagree with CR's iPhone testing.
Yeah, it really does. It's a hit piece. It's piss-poor.
The real issue is that Apple is way behind the curve in addressing the PR damage which is gets deeper and more serious with every day they are seen to sit on their hands. CR's review just posts the failure up high in big neon for all to see.
Find the failing where it is really is. As much as we might hate to admit it, the problem is with Apple, not CR. Whipping CR on Apple's behalf won't make a dime's worth a difference to the outcome. Only Apple can straighten this out.
Well they've scheduled a press conference, so we'll see. I agree they should have been more ahead of the curve. Then again, I think a lot of the "PR" is crap. It's overblown and very likely encouraged by Apple's competitors.
Numerous reports, Youtube demos, etc... and you can search for yourself. But really, if the phone drops into "No Service", that's pretty much going to affect your download speeds in a negative way, yes? Data throughput should have some correlation with signal strength, yes? Let's not labor over the obvious.
No, how about you post them? Shit, posts like that are part of the problem---it's just that the mainstream media is writing stuff like that. I've seen only anecdotal and isolated reports. I've seen an equal number (or more) people that can't reproduce the problem at all.
As for "no service" drops...can you poke holes in Apple's explanation? The issue is that if you have, say, 3 bars...you might actually only have one. In other words, it's easy to have a connection problem in a weak signal area--with any phone. Do you seriously question this? Have you ever noticed that you can not have a signal on a phone in one spot in a room, then have one sitting near a window?
Show me going from 5 bars to no service just from putting your finger over the gap. Then we'll talk.
It wasn't necessary to disconstruct my post. It actually expressed a complete thought, to which you could have responded.
Jesus Christ. I'll use a point-by-point reply when I feel it's appropriate. I don't need you to tell me what's necessary and what's not. If you feel I've taken something out of context, say so. Otherwise, try responding to the points I made.
Jesus Christ. I'll use a point-by-point reply when I feel it's appropriate. I don't need you to tell me what's necessary and what's not. If you feel I've taken something out of context, say so. Otherwise, try responding to the points I made.
If you insist on this, then you will get dialed out. I think it's insulting to dismember a post so that you don't have to reply to the thought actually being expressed. In this case, the post made one point, not several. Just so you know that I know, deconstructing an argument into free-floating and unrelated sentences is a deliberate technique for avoiding a response to the argument being made. Sorry, but this is a game I don't play.
Why are you speaking about schools? The guy's written utter nonsense in his blog post and hence demonstrated to all professionals around he didn't understand what happened to iPhone during CR tests nor even how to properly use the terms from his presumed expertise realm.
Yes, I went to his page in LinkedIn and saw what he was doing for recent 15 years. Did you? The guy was always in managerial positions and not an engineer for a single day. He simply is not (no more) engineer.
Have you come on to AI in the hope you could see very few engineers? Still they are here. Those with schools and the experience of the length being close to that of ``global head' '. They are specialized in their businesses, yet they can clearly see how a professional writes blog posts.
You are not so sure. But engineers do know where ``strategists' ' and ``best practice pundits' ' come from. They know it exactly after all years spent in the industry.
Yes, strange as it may seem, engineers know what ``strategists' ' used to write in standards, specifications, NYT articles and why NYT asks ``strategists' '.
You hardly are. You do not sound like a professional.
Nobody cares.
So, what's your take of CR tests from the technical standpoint? Tell us. I will know in a minute what you are. I hired and fired dozens of smart ass engineers in my life.
Personally, I know exactly what and how did CR engineers test this time. Not how many flaws they had in their tests over the years but what they did to iPhone. Do you?
Look son, you seem to be one of those angry types who got old and never got promoted.
I DO KNOW, what it takes to write IEEE standards. I DO KNOW, how complex RF is, which is why I don't dabble in it. It is not my thing, digital systems design is. Which is why I didn't come out and comment like a madman on whether one person was right or wrong about the testing procedures. All I said was I know that your bashing of that man was unwarranted, you can't dismiss him as a financial strategist because he hasn't sat in lab like you have all your life. Doesn't make him suddenly unqualified. Your logic isn't sound.
I do not sound like a professional? Why, is this my work environment? Am I evaluating a technical issue? No. I am evaluating your evaluation of someone's analysis. Have you read your posts? Mr. 'Professional'? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Ease up buddy.
So you've hired and fired smart ass engineers? Great. You didn't hire me, you can't fire me. If that drives you nuts, too bad. I'm happy to be working for my employer doing great things and they're happy to have me there. You on the other hand, don't sound so happy.
It wasn't necessary to disconstruct my post. It actually expressed a complete thought, to which you could have responded.
Deconstruct this.
(If I seem perturbed today, it is because I see the downside of the internet)
Bulshitters from Ars tried hard to play a little PR stand with some cheap clowns and ``WiFi drivers' '. They're farting in a mud puddle, as usual.
In time, their yet another bullcrap about Cortex A8 will get very --- and I mean very --- close attention, I promise.
If you insist on this, then you will get dialed out. I think it's insulting to dismember a post so that you don't have to reply to the thought actually being expressed. In this case, the post made one point, not several. Just so you know that I know, deconstructing an argument into free-floating and unrelated sentences is a deliberate technique for avoiding a response to the argument being made. Sorry, but this is a game I don't play.
Your post was "dismembered" because it wasn't a single thought but several glommed together.
They were:
CR's credibility problems are the result of manufacturers. (arguably false given their testing methods and rating criteria suck in my opinion. Many of CR's credibility problems are self-inflicted from the perspective of not making sense to knowledgable consumers)
You don't understand why consumers would undermine CR's credibility...implying this is stupid behavior. (Answer: because crappy CR grading criteria results in manufacturers designing against crappy CR grading criteria if CR has credibility)
Apple is behind in their PR campaign. (true, but unrelated to the CR credibility discussion)
CR is not to blame but Apple and only Apple can fix it. (related to CR credibility but only tangentially...although, it can be argued that their reputation for being an opportunistic grandstander is being shown and that isn't Apple's failing but CR's)
These map out to the "dismembered" sections that SDW responded to. What, pray tell, was your singular thought being expressed? Other than "I like CR so you should leave it alone you big meanie"? It is equally disingenuous to make a series of bald assertions to support some nebulous position and then cry foul when those assertions are challenged/refuted individually.
Your post was "dismembered" because it wasn't a single thought but several glommed together.
They were:
CR's credibility problems are the result of manufacturers. (arguably false given their testing methods and rating criteria suck in my opinion. Many of CR's credibility problems are self-inflicted from the perspective of not making sense to knowledgable consumers)
You don't understand why consumers would undermine CR's credibility...implying this is stupid behavior. (Answer: because crappy CR grading criteria results in manufacturers designing against crappy CR grading criteria if CR has credibility)
Apple is behind in their PR campaign. (true, but unrelated to the CR credibility discussion)
CR is not to blame but Apple and only Apple can fix it. (related to CR credibility but only tangentially...although, it can be argued that their reputation for being an opportunistic grandstander is being shown and that isn't Apple's failing but CR's)
These map out to the "dismembered" sections that SDW responded to. What, pray tell, was your singular thought being expressed? Other than "I like CR so you should leave it alone you big meanie"? It is equally disingenuous to make a series of bald assertions to support some nebulous position and then cry foul when those assertions are challenged/refuted individually.
No, it was a single thought, even if you failed to see it. Jumping on the generic CR bashing bandwagon is not a counterargument. You have conveniently ignored parts of what I said and entirely fabricated others.
CR has been sued many, many times over the years by manufacturers. Even setting aside for a moment the fact that they've never lost one of these suits, I think it's quite easy to understand why they are attacked so often by manufacturers. What many of these suits have turned on is whether their testing methods and conclusions are reasonable. In the end they come down to whether CR is entitled to draw conclusions based on whatever data gathering method they choose. The courts have always said they are so entitled.
What I think is unfortunate is when consumers themselves, particularly owners of products poorly reviewed, attack CR's results for no other obvious reason they have don't really want to know about possible flaws in products they own. We saw this play out in the SUV rollover business. Whether you or the manufacturers agreed with CR's rollover testing methods, partially, fully, or not at all -- the general principle that many SUVs are designed in a way which makes them far more unstable than they need to be, came through. This is what a lot of SUV owners where furious about. I'm not saying or even implying that this is "stupid" -- but it is an example of the "puppy dog affect," which is not one of the more logical or useful human characteristics.
So the point being, I think we are hearing much the same think in the case of CR's testing of the iPhone 4. Whether you or I agree with CR's testing or not is entirely besides the point. They are in the business of rendering opinions using the methods which seem valid to them. We could argue endlessly about whether they were or not, and get absolutely nowhere. It seems obvious to me that Apple could have neutralized the bad press they got from CR's testing if they'd been something other than silent about the issue for weeks. They could have gotten out front on this issue (CR was hardly the only source of their problems), but they failed, in a way which disappoints me as both a buyer of their products for over 25 years and as a stockholder. I'm not going to stick up for Apple when I think they've blundered, and I'm not going to blame it on someone else.