My little survey of 20 iP4 users on the SF Peninsula says' 1 person had a problem. They decided to get a cover. Problem solved. I asked if they felt ripped off having to buy a cover at $30 they said no. They wanted a good cover.
The major annoyance right now is that the good cases haven't been released yet. I'm getting one just because I'm an idiot who keeps his phone in his pocket, occasionally with keys.
No real life reception issues but I can make the bars go away by using a penny or the death grip on my iPhone 4.
Wouldn't it be funny if everyone thought this was going to damage Apple's reputation and it ended up damaging Consumer Report's?
That's happened already. In March, all we heard was that lack of Flash would cause the iPad to fail. In April, it was 'lack of Flash is a serious deficiency'. By June, it was 'who needs Flash?'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Ah, the good old "for instance" proof.
Yes, CR has made mistakes. But the point I'm making here is that some people judge whether they're right or have made an error in their testing by whether they agree with the results.
No, that's simply your bias. Some of us evaluate things more accurately than that. For example, I used to have a Lexus ES330. I liked the car and CR liked the car. But their evaluation of the car was stupid-just like their evaluation of most cars. The more I read CR, the more random their results seem to be. They pick one key feature and let that feature override everything else.
Much like Motor Trend. I love the reviews where a car will be better than the BMW it's being compared to in virtually every criterion, but they'll still give the award to the BMW simply because it's from BMW (they'll use some excuse like 'it's more fun to drive', but it essentially comes down to a massive bias).
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltFrench
I'm a long-time CR subscriber. I believe they're truly unbiased and very careful about criteria that they think match their readers' needs, even if the reports are simplified so much you can hardly tell.
I don't think CR is inherently biased. Rather, I think they're simply incompetent. They come up with bogus tests and then act like their test is the only thing that matters - even after the test can be proven to give false results. I think they TRY to be fair, but just don't know how. After all, how many REAL scientists want to be working at CR dumping dirty clothes into a washing machine?
The real problem with CR (and other consumer organizations) is that they see a hot topic and want to jump on board. They did it with SUV roll-overs, and damaged their credibility because of their zeal. Same thing is happening here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
If anything, I was being cautious and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Faking tests is something they've been caught doing.
They claim not to accept any other payments/bribes, but have the money from subscribers alone to spend tens of millions of dollars per incident to defend against constant lawsuits? Right.
I don't think they take bribes. I just think it's incompetence - and zeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility
dBA you say? How did you measure that? Isn't dBA an acoustic unit, to measure some kind of sound?
No. dB is a measure of signal intensity, typical RELATIVE signal intensity. dBA is a measure of absolute signal intensity. It doesn't matter if the signal is acoustic energy or radio waves.
I got my iPHone4 yesterday. It is an understatement to say that it is impressive. Best phone I have ever seen. Love the screen, the camera and the quality. I can drop the bars by touching the infamous spot, so I won't do that. Call quality is excellent. Go Apple
To me, that's what it boils down to:
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this"
"Then don't do that".
If moving your finger by a couple of mm solves the problem, then it's a pretty minor issue. Everything I've ever purchased had tradeoffs. My new Lexus has one piece of loose material in the door handle that makes a loud click when I push on it with my knee. Eventually, I'll get it fixed, but until then, I just don't push on it with my knee. I could get all fired up about 'lousy build quality' or 'I need a lawyer', but it's a great car and has one minor glitch. It comes down to whether the glass is half full or half empty. I prefer to choose to buy great products, even if they're not perfect (since no product is perfect), and then happily use them even if they have some insignificant glitch.
I use to subscribe to Consumer Reports and, over time, realized they just aren't that thorough with a lot of their testing. Very old school it seems to me. I don't trust them anymore.
That's happened already. In March, all we heard was that lack of Flash would cause the iPad to fail. In April, it was 'lack of Flash is a serious deficiency'. By June, it was 'who needs Flash?'.
No, that's simply your bias. Some of us evaluate things more accurately than that. For example, I used to have a Lexus ES330. I liked the car and CR liked the car. But their evaluation of the car was stupid-just like their evaluation of most cars. The more I read CR, the more random their results seem to be. They pick one key feature and let that feature override everything else.
Much like Motor Trend. I love the reviews where a car will be better than the BMW it's being compared to in virtually every criterion, but they'll still give the award to the BMW simply because it's from BMW (they'll use some excuse like 'it's more fun to drive', but it essentially comes down to a massive bias).
I don't think CR is inherently biased. Rather, I think they're simply incompetent. They come up with bogus tests and then act like their test is the only thing that matters - even after the test can be proven to give false results. I think they TRY to be fair, but just don't know how. After all, how many REAL scientists want to be working at CR dumping dirty clothes into a washing machine?
The real problem with CR (and other consumer organizations) is that they see a hot topic and want to jump on board. They did it with SUV roll-overs, and damaged their credibility because of their zeal. Same thing is happening here.
I don't think they take bribes. I just think it's incompetence - and zeal.
No. dB is a measure of signal intensity, typical RELATIVE signal intensity. dBA is a measure of absolute signal intensity. It doesn't matter if the signal is acoustic energy or radio waves.
If moving your finger by a couple of mm solves the problem, then it's a pretty minor issue. Everything I've ever purchased had tradeoffs. My new Lexus has one piece of loose material in the door handle that makes a loud click when I push on it with my knee. Eventually, I'll get it fixed, but until then, I just don't push on it with my knee. I could get all fired up about 'lousy build quality' or 'I need a lawyer', but it's a great car and has one minor glitch. It comes down to whether the glass is half full or half empty. I prefer to choose to buy great products, even if they're not perfect (since no product is perfect), and then happily use them even if they have some insignificant glitch.
Exactly. It is not like you didn't know where the bridge was! I put a leftover Zagg material on the bridge and it looks good (better than the CR duct tape).
I use to subscribe to Consumer Reports and, over time, realized they just aren't that thorough with a lot of their testing. Very old school it seems to me. I don't trust them anymore.
Sorry, folks, made an error before. *Consumers Union* would be the organization brought to court for junk science (which they can probably defend as being a "journalistic organization") not "Consumer Reports". Remembered this morning that the mother of one of my daughter's classmates was a lawyer for them. Not sure if as a juror I would vote against her in court...
I'd say that saying the antenna in an iPhone 4 is OK is almost like saying the Global Climate Change, formerly Global Warming, computer models are junk... Ah, the Emperor Wears No Clothes problem...
Stop over-thinking the problem. The phone has 2 antennas and they are separated, by design. If bridging them were acceptable, they would have just gone with a single antenna.
You can argue the fine points of signal propagation, but when someone touches the phone with a mere fingertip and download speeds plummet, then die, there isn't much analysis needed to see there's a problem.
OK, let's see evidence of what you claim, then. I haven't seen download speeds plummet. I have seen signal bars plummet, and that's about all.
Quote:
Apple can go split hairs or even atoms in the lab, but for the customer they need to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety and provide a real-world fix. I guess it's possible they can find some signal-processing magic to pull the information out of the antennas even when bridged. But if so they better do it soon or go with a physical fix.
In the meantime at least acknowledge there is an issue. It's not like someone bought a Pocket Fisherman. People pay serious money for iPhones and associated service plans. If you're selling a premium product it has to be beyond reproach.
What if there isn't an issue? Apple claims it went into its labs and re-tested the phone. They say there is no issue. On the other hand, we have some very dubious reports of problems. In my view the entire thing is completely blown out of proportion. It started with a video of bars dropping. From there, people SPECULATED about an antenna issue. Then, the media started building upon that speculation. Now we have analysts talking about what the "problem" will cost Apple. Meanwhile, no one seems to have noticed that millions of iPhone users don't have a problem at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
I'm not discounting the antenna issue. I think Apple DOES have a serious problem here to deal with.
BUT...
Stop. I don't think you can support that they do have a physical problem to deal with. They clearly have a media problem to deal with, but that's another issue.
Quote:
Consumer Reports is not and has never been a credible source of information on anything. Allegations of faking tests, fudging data, gross incompetence, and outright malice have plagued them for many years. Anyone who knows anything about cameras, computers, cars, or home audio has had more than one occasion to read a CR article and conclude that these guys have no idea what they are talking about. Their camera articles are particularly hilarious.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
CR has angered many manufacturers over the years, but they could not do their job if they were worried about that. I've had lots of issues with CR reviews over the years, and they've gotten more than a couple letters from me when I thought they made mistakes -- but your criticisms are way, way over the top.
I don't think so. Consumer Reports has had many, many problems over the years. I gave two quick examples earlier. They have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
No, that's simply your bias. Some of us evaluate things more accurately than that. For example, I used to have a Lexus ES330. I liked the car and CR liked the car. But their evaluation of the car was stupid-just like their evaluation of most cars. The more I read CR, the more random their results seem to be. They pick one key feature and let that feature override everything else.
No bias whatsoever. You defend one "for instance" proof by citing another one of your own. If you can't understand the basic illogic of this, then most likely nobody can help you see it.
I don't think so. Consumer Reports has had many, many problems over the years. I gave two quick examples earlier. They have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
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. 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.
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. 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.
"A graduate of Wentworth Institute and Bryant College, he is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and is a NARTE board-certified electromagnetic engineer. Bob is one of the original authors of the IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN standard underlying Wi-Fi."
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility
Glorified software tester? I'm not so sure man.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility
You don't sound very smart right now. Do you have any clue what it takes to write a wireless standard?
Yes, strange as it may seem, engineers know what ``strategists' ' used to write in standards, specifications, NYT articles and why NYT asks ``strategists' '.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility
I'm a smart ass engineer with a master's degree in EE and I wouldn't touch RF with a 10-foot pole, because I know I'll sound like an idiot.
You hardly are. You do not sound like a professional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility
You on the other hand, don't know enough, your knowledge level is so low that you actually think it is fine to mouth off like that.
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?
If moving your finger by a couple of mm solves the problem, then it's a pretty minor issue. Everything I've ever purchased had tradeoffs.
Funny, I'd mostly agree with that, yet we have opposite impressions. To me, Dr. "Don't do that" was always a joke about a doctor avoiding an issue.
"It hurts when I swing a Tennis racket"
"Well, don't play Tennis"
Not a great answer for someone who wants to play Tennis.
Likewise, the antenna issue seems to have an fairly simple fix in most cases. Yet, having a don't-touch spot on a handheld device is a bit silly. The customer can work around the flaw, but they really shouldn't have to.
To be fair, the phone I use for work has several "don't-touch spots" because it's festooned with buttons that are stupidly positioned on the perimeter of the device so that you can hardly pick the damned thing up without it beeping and changing something you didn't want changed. It's too fussy and I hate it for that. I think it's perfectly fair to criticize the iPhone for similar cause. It's not the end of the world, but not something you expect to have to deal with, with a top-of-the-line product.
It then takes more than 30 years of experience to some ``global heads' ' to figure out the exact meaning of the words ``antenna bridge' ' and use them as professionals do?
Receiver? Really?
Owing to your vast experience in microwave RF, I'm sure you're aware that you can indeed detune a receiver. Ever used a gunnplexer? Ever had a microwave circuit under test and start tweaking on it only to find its frequency changes when you approach it with your plastic tuning tool? It wasn't all that long ago that certain microwave receivers had "ovens" for the oscillators to keep them temperature stable.
It is possible that the grip of death is due to the interaction between the palm of the hand and the back left corner of the phone, detuning active circuits. I don't think that's what it is, but it is possible.
Judging by the number of people who have gone at their iPhone 4 antennas with DC VOMs and said "of course it's defective, it's shorted" makes me wince. Yes, antennas can be a DC short an still function quite nicely as antennas.
Whether or not you agree with this guy is up to you, but he credentials are significant.
OK, let's see evidence of what you claim, then. I haven't seen download speeds plummet. I have seen signal bars plummet, and that's about all.
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.
Owing to your vast experience in microwave RF, I'm sure you're aware that you can indeed detune a receiver. Ever used a gunnplexer? Ever had a microwave circuit under test and start tweaking on it only to find its frequency changes when you approach it with your plastic tuning tool? It wasn't all that long ago that certain microwave receivers had "ovens" for the oscillators to keep them temperature stable.
It is possible that the grip of death is due to the interaction between the palm of the hand and the back left corner of the phone, detuning active circuits. I don't think that's what it is, but it is possible.
What is located at "Death Spot"? What's the "interaction between palm and back left corner", when people hit the seam with their pinky? If you "don't think that's what it is" what is your above rubbish about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zentec
Whether or not you agree with this guy is up to you, but he credentials are significant.
His credentials say ``strategist' ' and ``best practice pundit' ', who is currently working in managerial position in financial consulting and likes to popularly overview technology aspects in papers.
To be fair, the phone I use for work has several "don't-touch spots" because it's festooned with buttons that are stupidly positioned on the perimeter of the device so that you can hardly pick the damned thing up without it beeping and changing something you didn't want changed. It's too fussy and I hate it for that. I think it's perfectly fair to criticize the iPhone for similar cause. It's not the end of the world, but not something you expect to have to deal with, with a top-of-the-line product.
You know that made me think. Maybe they should have put the seam right between the volume buttons. Then people wouldn't be touching that area except to precisely adjust the volume.
The major annoyance right now is that the good cases haven't been released yet. I'm getting one just because I'm an idiot who keeps his phone in his pocket, occasionally with keys.
I got a Belkin case that's very nice. Molded silicone that covers the back and sides. Good fit and comfortable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zentec
Owing to your vast experience in microwave RF, I'm sure you're aware that you can indeed detune a receiver. Ever used a gunnplexer? Ever had a microwave circuit under test and start tweaking on it only to find its frequency changes when you approach it with your plastic tuning tool?
The better known example for anyone living in the pre-Cable TV days was trying to adjust a TV antenna.
You know that made me think. Maybe they should have put the seam right between the volume buttons. Then people wouldn't be touching that area except to precisely adjust the volume.
THAT is exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction Apple needs to avoid.
It's easy for someone to propose a solution, but it's far less likely that any solution is going to improve things. Your solution, for example, could change the antenna location enough to increase radiation above FCC limits (not saying it would, just that there are a lot of factors to be considered in antenna design). There are always trade-offs and simply changing one thing will undoubtedly cause compromises elsewhere.
THAT is exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction Apple needs to avoid.
It's easy for someone to propose a solution, but it's far less likely that any solution is going to improve things. Your solution, for example, could change the antenna location enough to increase radiation above FCC limits (not saying it would, just that there are a lot of factors to be considered in antenna design). There are always trade-offs and simply changing one thing will undoubtedly cause compromises elsewhere.
Good point. Did you see the word MAYBE at the beginning of my sentence? It was a simple consideration. Apple's premature release of the radical new design without proper testing might be characterized as a knee-jerk reaction to the leak of the prototype.
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!
It seems to me that a real world test of the iPhone4 functioning would require an actual human near the phone to test whether a finger touch to the sensitive area affects the phone's performance. Bob Egan seems to think that no human should be in the chamber with the phone. How does he propose such a test actually take place?
Dropped calls (not just shifts in bar display) are the real issue and Bob Egan's criticism of CR methodology doesn't appear to address this issue, which is one of actual functionality.
I don't have an iPhone4, but even before this brouhaha arose, I was certain I would get some kind of protective covering (similar to what I have on my 3GS), which evidently would solve the issue in any case. I agree that Apple should pony up a free silicone (or whatever) covering to solve this matter until such time as a redesign can fix it definitively.
Comments
My little survey of 20 iP4 users on the SF Peninsula says' 1 person had a problem. They decided to get a cover. Problem solved. I asked if they felt ripped off having to buy a cover at $30 they said no. They wanted a good cover.
The major annoyance right now is that the good cases haven't been released yet. I'm getting one just because I'm an idiot who keeps his phone in his pocket, occasionally with keys.
No real life reception issues but I can make the bars go away by using a penny or the death grip on my iPhone 4.
Wouldn't it be funny if everyone thought this was going to damage Apple's reputation and it ended up damaging Consumer Report's?
That's happened already. In March, all we heard was that lack of Flash would cause the iPad to fail. In April, it was 'lack of Flash is a serious deficiency'. By June, it was 'who needs Flash?'.
Ah, the good old "for instance" proof.
Yes, CR has made mistakes. But the point I'm making here is that some people judge whether they're right or have made an error in their testing by whether they agree with the results.
No, that's simply your bias. Some of us evaluate things more accurately than that. For example, I used to have a Lexus ES330. I liked the car and CR liked the car. But their evaluation of the car was stupid-just like their evaluation of most cars. The more I read CR, the more random their results seem to be. They pick one key feature and let that feature override everything else.
Much like Motor Trend. I love the reviews where a car will be better than the BMW it's being compared to in virtually every criterion, but they'll still give the award to the BMW simply because it's from BMW (they'll use some excuse like 'it's more fun to drive', but it essentially comes down to a massive bias).
I'm a long-time CR subscriber. I believe they're truly unbiased and very careful about criteria that they think match their readers' needs, even if the reports are simplified so much you can hardly tell.
I don't think CR is inherently biased. Rather, I think they're simply incompetent. They come up with bogus tests and then act like their test is the only thing that matters - even after the test can be proven to give false results. I think they TRY to be fair, but just don't know how. After all, how many REAL scientists want to be working at CR dumping dirty clothes into a washing machine?
The real problem with CR (and other consumer organizations) is that they see a hot topic and want to jump on board. They did it with SUV roll-overs, and damaged their credibility because of their zeal. Same thing is happening here.
If anything, I was being cautious and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Faking tests is something they've been caught doing.
Suzuki says they had them on tape instructing the testers to make the Samurai roll over no matter what. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-717209.html
Toyota's Prius still had CRs top rating right in the middle of the largest recall in history. It's still listed as their top pick "green car": http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...p-picks-ov.htm
The NHTSA caught them faking child car seat tests and forced them to retract those reports. They've lied about the nutritional value in dog food too: http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/new...fantseats.html
They also try to coerce sites into removing articles critical of their testing procedures: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ts_scores.html
They claim not to accept any other payments/bribes, but have the money from subscribers alone to spend tens of millions of dollars per incident to defend against constant lawsuits? Right.
I don't think they take bribes. I just think it's incompetence - and zeal.
dBA you say? How did you measure that? Isn't dBA an acoustic unit, to measure some kind of sound?
No. dB is a measure of signal intensity, typical RELATIVE signal intensity. dBA is a measure of absolute signal intensity. It doesn't matter if the signal is acoustic energy or radio waves.
http://www.answers.com/topic/decibel
I got my iPHone4 yesterday. It is an understatement to say that it is impressive. Best phone I have ever seen. Love the screen, the camera and the quality. I can drop the bars by touching the infamous spot, so I won't do that. Call quality is excellent. Go Apple
To me, that's what it boils down to:
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this"
"Then don't do that".
If moving your finger by a couple of mm solves the problem, then it's a pretty minor issue. Everything I've ever purchased had tradeoffs. My new Lexus has one piece of loose material in the door handle that makes a loud click when I push on it with my knee. Eventually, I'll get it fixed, but until then, I just don't push on it with my knee. I could get all fired up about 'lousy build quality' or 'I need a lawyer', but it's a great car and has one minor glitch. It comes down to whether the glass is half full or half empty. I prefer to choose to buy great products, even if they're not perfect (since no product is perfect), and then happily use them even if they have some insignificant glitch.
So yes CR is clueless, but a lot of people including myself, do pay attention to their reports.
lol wut?
That's happened already. In March, all we heard was that lack of Flash would cause the iPad to fail. In April, it was 'lack of Flash is a serious deficiency'. By June, it was 'who needs Flash?'.
No, that's simply your bias. Some of us evaluate things more accurately than that. For example, I used to have a Lexus ES330. I liked the car and CR liked the car. But their evaluation of the car was stupid-just like their evaluation of most cars. The more I read CR, the more random their results seem to be. They pick one key feature and let that feature override everything else.
Much like Motor Trend. I love the reviews where a car will be better than the BMW it's being compared to in virtually every criterion, but they'll still give the award to the BMW simply because it's from BMW (they'll use some excuse like 'it's more fun to drive', but it essentially comes down to a massive bias).
I don't think CR is inherently biased. Rather, I think they're simply incompetent. They come up with bogus tests and then act like their test is the only thing that matters - even after the test can be proven to give false results. I think they TRY to be fair, but just don't know how. After all, how many REAL scientists want to be working at CR dumping dirty clothes into a washing machine?
The real problem with CR (and other consumer organizations) is that they see a hot topic and want to jump on board. They did it with SUV roll-overs, and damaged their credibility because of their zeal. Same thing is happening here.
I don't think they take bribes. I just think it's incompetence - and zeal.
No. dB is a measure of signal intensity, typical RELATIVE signal intensity. dBA is a measure of absolute signal intensity. It doesn't matter if the signal is acoustic energy or radio waves.
http://www.answers.com/topic/decibel
To me, that's what it boils down to:
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this"
"Then don't do that".
If moving your finger by a couple of mm solves the problem, then it's a pretty minor issue. Everything I've ever purchased had tradeoffs. My new Lexus has one piece of loose material in the door handle that makes a loud click when I push on it with my knee. Eventually, I'll get it fixed, but until then, I just don't push on it with my knee. I could get all fired up about 'lousy build quality' or 'I need a lawyer', but it's a great car and has one minor glitch. It comes down to whether the glass is half full or half empty. I prefer to choose to buy great products, even if they're not perfect (since no product is perfect), and then happily use them even if they have some insignificant glitch.
Exactly. It is not like you didn't know where the bridge was! I put a leftover Zagg material on the bridge and it looks good (better than the CR duct tape).
I use to subscribe to Consumer Reports and, over time, realized they just aren't that thorough with a lot of their testing. Very old school it seems to me. I don't trust them anymore.
Sorry, folks, made an error before. *Consumers Union* would be the organization brought to court for junk science (which they can probably defend as being a "journalistic organization") not "Consumer Reports". Remembered this morning that the mother of one of my daughter's classmates was a lawyer for them. Not sure if as a juror I would vote against her in court...
I'd say that saying the antenna in an iPhone 4 is OK is almost like saying the Global Climate Change, formerly Global Warming, computer models are junk...
Stop over-thinking the problem. The phone has 2 antennas and they are separated, by design. If bridging them were acceptable, they would have just gone with a single antenna.
You can argue the fine points of signal propagation, but when someone touches the phone with a mere fingertip and download speeds plummet, then die, there isn't much analysis needed to see there's a problem.
OK, let's see evidence of what you claim, then. I haven't seen download speeds plummet. I have seen signal bars plummet, and that's about all.
Apple can go split hairs or even atoms in the lab, but for the customer they need to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety and provide a real-world fix. I guess it's possible they can find some signal-processing magic to pull the information out of the antennas even when bridged. But if so they better do it soon or go with a physical fix.
In the meantime at least acknowledge there is an issue. It's not like someone bought a Pocket Fisherman. People pay serious money for iPhones and associated service plans. If you're selling a premium product it has to be beyond reproach.
What if there isn't an issue? Apple claims it went into its labs and re-tested the phone. They say there is no issue. On the other hand, we have some very dubious reports of problems. In my view the entire thing is completely blown out of proportion. It started with a video of bars dropping. From there, people SPECULATED about an antenna issue. Then, the media started building upon that speculation. Now we have analysts talking about what the "problem" will cost Apple. Meanwhile, no one seems to have noticed that millions of iPhone users don't have a problem at all.
I'm not discounting the antenna issue. I think Apple DOES have a serious problem here to deal with.
BUT...
Stop. I don't think you can support that they do have a physical problem to deal with. They clearly have a media problem to deal with, but that's another issue.
Consumer Reports is not and has never been a credible source of information on anything. Allegations of faking tests, fudging data, gross incompetence, and outright malice have plagued them for many years. Anyone who knows anything about cameras, computers, cars, or home audio has had more than one occasion to read a CR article and conclude that these guys have no idea what they are talking about. Their camera articles are particularly hilarious.
Agreed.
CR has angered many manufacturers over the years, but they could not do their job if they were worried about that. I've had lots of issues with CR reviews over the years, and they've gotten more than a couple letters from me when I thought they made mistakes -- but your criticisms are way, way over the top.
I don't think so. Consumer Reports has had many, many problems over the years. I gave two quick examples earlier. They have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
No, that's simply your bias. Some of us evaluate things more accurately than that. For example, I used to have a Lexus ES330. I liked the car and CR liked the car. But their evaluation of the car was stupid-just like their evaluation of most cars. The more I read CR, the more random their results seem to be. They pick one key feature and let that feature override everything else.
No bias whatsoever. You defend one "for instance" proof by citing another one of your own. If you can't understand the basic illogic of this, then most likely nobody can help you see it.
I don't think so. Consumer Reports has had many, many problems over the years. I gave two quick examples earlier. They have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
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. 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.
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. 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.
"A graduate of Wentworth Institute and Bryant College, he is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and is a NARTE board-certified electromagnetic engineer. Bob is one of the original authors of the IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN standard underlying Wi-Fi."
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.
Glorified software tester? I'm not so sure man.
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.
You don't sound very smart right now. Do you have any clue what it takes to write a wireless standard?
Yes, strange as it may seem, engineers know what ``strategists' ' used to write in standards, specifications, NYT articles and why NYT asks ``strategists' '.
I'm a smart ass engineer with a master's degree in EE and I wouldn't touch RF with a 10-foot pole, because I know I'll sound like an idiot.
You hardly are. You do not sound like a professional.
You on the other hand, don't know enough, your knowledge level is so low that you actually think it is fine to mouth off like that.
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?
To me, that's what it boils down to:
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this"
"Then don't do that".
If moving your finger by a couple of mm solves the problem, then it's a pretty minor issue. Everything I've ever purchased had tradeoffs.
Funny, I'd mostly agree with that, yet we have opposite impressions. To me, Dr. "Don't do that" was always a joke about a doctor avoiding an issue.
"It hurts when I swing a Tennis racket"
"Well, don't play Tennis"
Not a great answer for someone who wants to play Tennis.
Likewise, the antenna issue seems to have an fairly simple fix in most cases. Yet, having a don't-touch spot on a handheld device is a bit silly. The customer can work around the flaw, but they really shouldn't have to.
To be fair, the phone I use for work has several "don't-touch spots" because it's festooned with buttons that are stupidly positioned on the perimeter of the device so that you can hardly pick the damned thing up without it beeping and changing something you didn't want changed. It's too fussy and I hate it for that. I think it's perfectly fair to criticize the iPhone for similar cause. It's not the end of the world, but not something you expect to have to deal with, with a top-of-the-line product.
It then takes more than 30 years of experience to some ``global heads' ' to figure out the exact meaning of the words ``antenna bridge' ' and use them as professionals do?
Receiver? Really?
Owing to your vast experience in microwave RF, I'm sure you're aware that you can indeed detune a receiver. Ever used a gunnplexer? Ever had a microwave circuit under test and start tweaking on it only to find its frequency changes when you approach it with your plastic tuning tool? It wasn't all that long ago that certain microwave receivers had "ovens" for the oscillators to keep them temperature stable.
It is possible that the grip of death is due to the interaction between the palm of the hand and the back left corner of the phone, detuning active circuits. I don't think that's what it is, but it is possible.
Judging by the number of people who have gone at their iPhone 4 antennas with DC VOMs and said "of course it's defective, it's shorted" makes me wince. Yes, antennas can be a DC short an still function quite nicely as antennas.
Whether or not you agree with this guy is up to you, but he credentials are significant.
OK, let's see evidence of what you claim, then. I haven't seen download speeds plummet. I have seen signal bars plummet, and that's about all.
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.
Owing to your vast experience in microwave RF, I'm sure you're aware that you can indeed detune a receiver. Ever used a gunnplexer? Ever had a microwave circuit under test and start tweaking on it only to find its frequency changes when you approach it with your plastic tuning tool? It wasn't all that long ago that certain microwave receivers had "ovens" for the oscillators to keep them temperature stable.
It is possible that the grip of death is due to the interaction between the palm of the hand and the back left corner of the phone, detuning active circuits. I don't think that's what it is, but it is possible.
What is located at "Death Spot"? What's the "interaction between palm and back left corner", when people hit the seam with their pinky? If you "don't think that's what it is" what is your above rubbish about?
Whether or not you agree with this guy is up to you, but he credentials are significant.
His credentials say ``strategist' ' and ``best practice pundit' ', who is currently working in managerial position in financial consulting and likes to popularly overview technology aspects in papers.
To be fair, the phone I use for work has several "don't-touch spots" because it's festooned with buttons that are stupidly positioned on the perimeter of the device so that you can hardly pick the damned thing up without it beeping and changing something you didn't want changed. It's too fussy and I hate it for that. I think it's perfectly fair to criticize the iPhone for similar cause. It's not the end of the world, but not something you expect to have to deal with, with a top-of-the-line product.
You know that made me think. Maybe they should have put the seam right between the volume buttons. Then people wouldn't be touching that area except to precisely adjust the volume.
The major annoyance right now is that the good cases haven't been released yet. I'm getting one just because I'm an idiot who keeps his phone in his pocket, occasionally with keys.
I got a Belkin case that's very nice. Molded silicone that covers the back and sides. Good fit and comfortable.
Owing to your vast experience in microwave RF, I'm sure you're aware that you can indeed detune a receiver. Ever used a gunnplexer? Ever had a microwave circuit under test and start tweaking on it only to find its frequency changes when you approach it with your plastic tuning tool?
The better known example for anyone living in the pre-Cable TV days was trying to adjust a TV antenna.
You know that made me think. Maybe they should have put the seam right between the volume buttons. Then people wouldn't be touching that area except to precisely adjust the volume.
THAT is exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction Apple needs to avoid.
It's easy for someone to propose a solution, but it's far less likely that any solution is going to improve things. Your solution, for example, could change the antenna location enough to increase radiation above FCC limits (not saying it would, just that there are a lot of factors to be considered in antenna design). There are always trade-offs and simply changing one thing will undoubtedly cause compromises elsewhere.
THAT is exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction Apple needs to avoid.
It's easy for someone to propose a solution, but it's far less likely that any solution is going to improve things. Your solution, for example, could change the antenna location enough to increase radiation above FCC limits (not saying it would, just that there are a lot of factors to be considered in antenna design). There are always trade-offs and simply changing one thing will undoubtedly cause compromises elsewhere.
Good point. Did you see the word MAYBE at the beginning of my sentence? It was a simple consideration. Apple's premature release of the radical new design without proper testing might be characterized as a knee-jerk reaction to the leak of the prototype.
Dropped calls (not just shifts in bar display) are the real issue and Bob Egan's criticism of CR methodology doesn't appear to address this issue, which is one of actual functionality.
I don't have an iPhone4, but even before this brouhaha arose, I was certain I would get some kind of protective covering (similar to what I have on my 3GS), which evidently would solve the issue in any case. I agree that Apple should pony up a free silicone (or whatever) covering to solve this matter until such time as a redesign can fix it definitively.