Ok, we get it that English is not your first language, but now you are just digging yourself a hole. Which space agency did you say you worked for?
Just writing fast... what's your language? Swahili?... Look buster, I don't think I need to tell you where I work or what I know to prove anything here. Just pick up a book and educate yourself. First in manners and then to understand about the fundamentals of RF theory.
And I am Superman. With my amazing powers I can (gingerly of course so I don't crush it) make the iPhone lose all it's bars, drop a call AND make the world spin backwards - reversing the charges on my ATT phone plan and making them pay ME for the privilege of using the iPhone. Look I have an email to prove it - and a cheque for $1 gazillion dollars!
No really, what kind of "antenna engineer" are you exactly, recognizing that different bandwidths of radio frequency need different kinds of antenna to propagate and receive signals correctly. Are you a repair technician, or an actual engineer? Depending on the antenna, the transmitter or transceiver, the method of controlling signal strength and the frequencies used, touching an antenna can, attenuate the signal from the transmitter, strengthen the signal, fry your hand or do nothing at all. And yes anyone with any training in radiofrequency technologies knows this and doesn't silly blanket statements like those you made.
Try the statement instead of "I am the king of Prussia". I will more readily believe that claim based on your statement above.
I is apparent you are a shoe salesman. What an idiot
So...they are basically saying that for all this time Apple has had substandard software running one of the most complained about problems with the phone. I'm not vindicating AT&T...but it sure must have been nice to stand back and let them take all the blame...
It's funny how this is supposed to give me faith my iPhone is not a dud...but it does the opposite...because for 4 generations of iPhones...they are apparently just now getting around to admitting they have a long-running phone/antennae issue...even if it is software.
I look forward to my iPhone 8 when they finally get around to fixing it.
I do recall reading now and then that apple had faults on it's end that contributed to the dropped calls etc. I recall even apple say something to the effect if they're still learning. ATT was basically training them. RF is a black science and the software is half the equation.
And I am Superman. With my amazing powers I can (gingerly of course so I don't crush it) make the iPhone lose all it's bars, drop a call AND make the world spin backwards - reversing the charges on my ATT phone plan and making them pay ME for the privilege of using the iPhone. Look I have an email to prove it - and a cheque for $1 gazillion dollars!
No really, what kind of "antenna engineer" are you exactly, recognizing that different bandwidths of radio frequency need different kinds of antenna to propagate and receive signals correctly. Are you a repair technician, or an actual engineer? Depending on the antenna, the transmitter or transceiver, the method of controlling signal strength and the frequencies used, touching an antenna can, attenuate the signal from the transmitter, strengthen the signal, fry your hand or do nothing at all. And yes anyone with any training in radiofrequency technologies knows this and doesn't silly blanket statements like those you made.
Try the statement instead of "I am the king of Prussia". I will more readily believe that claim based on your statement above.
Yes... "I am the king of Prussia" ... as your imagination suggests
Just writing fast... what's your language? Swahili?... Look buster, I don't think I need to tell you where I work or what I know to prove anything here. Just pick up a book and educate yourself. First in manners and then to understand about the fundamentals of RF theory.
Look buster? Most likely the first usage of that colloquial euphemism around these parts in quite a spell.
Just writing fast... what's your language? Swahili?... Look buster, I don't think I need to tell you where I work or what I know to prove anything here. Just pick up a book and educate yourself. First in manners and then to understand about the fundamentals of RF theory.
Hi maczones, I have a couple of questions:
1) I have read reports that applying a coating of some kind could help mitigate the antenna problem. Is this true?
2) If you had "carte blanche" to solve the problem, what would you do?
I am an antenna engineer and the NYT reporter is not. Software will not and I repeat, will not compensate for loss of incoming signal strength. Any basic antenna engineer knows that touching an antenna produces attenuation that reduces the strength of the incoming RF signal. I cannot believe a company like Apple could have been so careless or just dumb to think it could get away with a design like this. The idea to prefer styling over good design practices has been violated again for the sake of money.
While it seems to make sense that grabbing the actual antenna will negatively impact its performance, its been established that completely covering the right sight which is the 3G side doesn't cause a problem. Seems it should but it doesn't.
I build antennas used in the space business. No margin of error is allow in this type of business. After 40 years doing this type of work I can say I know what I am talking about without any reservations. Basic antenna design principles have been the letter of the law since Marconi and it will not change with software magic to day or in the future.
Do you work on satellite antenna systems, or manned flight systems? Are you tied to the research being done for space communication systems using software configurable radio frequency technology based on the DOD SDR/SCA architecture spec for STRS?
The latest technologies allow for much of the physical layer to be abstracted into software controls and functions, which means that while some attenuation through contact is possible, the software can be programmed to compensate since it controls tuning/detuning, signal transport and data management, as well as transceiver power, latency, jitter, filter params and modulation.
Just sayin'. So instead of relying on non sequiturs and silly statements - put up or shut up. I'm just a lowly research technician for a company that probably supplies a good deal of the equipment you use to build your systems, not AN ANTENNA ENGINEER (trumpets blow and virgins faint - or was that vice versa?).
It may not be a software issue, per se, but a hardware issue can be compensated for by software.
I'm still trying to figure out how in the Googtard universe Apple both simultaneously knew about this flaw a year ago on the one hand and was too stupid to test for it because of the stealth cases they used on the other.
I've never read an explanation that held water for me about how this detuning was different than any other detuning. Antennas are circuits that use standing waves and don't "short" the way a regular circuit might because of that (though "shorting" it to another surface would detune it) at least not if they are working. At least I think so. I've been out of college for 11 years and I was only a astrophysics minor and I have a ham license.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just refusing to believe Apple could make such a boneheaded mistake. But I've thought all along this was a baseband issue (and I have the tweets to prove it). Maybe I'm wrong.
My guess is they'll give a $30 apple store card to every iPhone 4 owner. If you've got a bumper, you can spend it on something else. If you need one, that will cover it. And then they'll do a baseband update.
1) I have read reports that applying a coating of some kind could help mitigate the antenna problem. Is this true?
2) If you had "carte blanche" to solve the problem, what would you do?
If I were King (of Prussia or whereever), and I believed the head of the special film and coatings division of Bayer International (whom I spoke with) I would coat the antenna with urethane, which is one of the hardest and most durable of polymer coatings and should protect it and provide a modicum of insulation.
The latest technologies allow for much of the physical layer to be abstracted into software controls and functions,
Just about every high end ham radio base station has an antenna tuner in it that is software controllable, that takes readings (SWR etc.) and tries to "retune" the antenna. This doesn't make for the optimal perfect radiator, but engineering is about compromises and always has been. It adjusts the capactive and/or inductive reactance in the circuit to try and get the best possible SWR. Sometimes the "best" is still shitty, but it's better than what it would be if it wasn't adjusted.
You don't even have to have the "latest" technologies. I remember radios in the 90s--amateur radios, not military or commercial stuff--that could do that.
I do not know, but would imagine, that cell phones do this same thing.
I am an antenna engineer and the NYT reporter is not. Software will not and I repeat, will not compensate for loss of incoming signal strength. Any basic antenna engineer knows that touching an antenna produces attenuation that reduces the strength of the incoming RF signal. I cannot believe a company like Apple could have been so careless or just dumb to think it could get away with a design like this. The idea to prefer styling over good design practices has been violated again for the sake of money.
Except of course the NYT reporter spoke to some with direct knowledge of the design of the system and you are just making things up. It is clear from your post you are no kind of engineer, certainly not a trained working RF engineer in 2010.
Many of these threads contain complaints about all of the different things that Apple might do to fix the antenna problem, blaming Apple for indecision and confusion about what to do. However, Apple has not had any sort of official comment recently, so these potential solutions are all other people's speculation. Before judging Apple's response (to be good or bad), can we please wait to see what they actually have to say tomorrow?
Comments
No need to feel sorry.
Just know that, if not for Anonymous, we'd never have things like Watergate.
Or bloggers.
Ok, we get it that English is not your first language, but now you are just digging yourself a hole. Which space agency did you say you worked for?
Just writing fast... what's your language? Swahili?... Look buster, I don't think I need to tell you where I work or what I know to prove anything here. Just pick up a book and educate yourself. First in manners and then to understand about the fundamentals of RF theory.
"Verify, then trust."
Old Russian proverb as told by Ronald Reagan.
No, Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
I think Reagan (in the context of the US-Russian nuclear arsenal reduction) actually said, 'Trust, but verify.'
Similar in meaning, though.....
Sorry, anant. Didn't see your response.
And I am Superman. With my amazing powers I can (gingerly of course so I don't crush it) make the iPhone lose all it's bars, drop a call AND make the world spin backwards - reversing the charges on my ATT phone plan and making them pay ME for the privilege of using the iPhone. Look I have an email to prove it - and a cheque for $1 gazillion dollars!
No really, what kind of "antenna engineer" are you exactly, recognizing that different bandwidths of radio frequency need different kinds of antenna to propagate and receive signals correctly. Are you a repair technician, or an actual engineer? Depending on the antenna, the transmitter or transceiver, the method of controlling signal strength and the frequencies used, touching an antenna can, attenuate the signal from the transmitter, strengthen the signal, fry your hand or do nothing at all. And yes anyone with any training in radiofrequency technologies knows this and doesn't silly blanket statements like those you made.
Try the statement instead of "I am the king of Prussia". I will more readily believe that claim based on your statement above.
I is apparent you are a shoe salesman. What an idiot
So...they are basically saying that for all this time Apple has had substandard software running one of the most complained about problems with the phone. I'm not vindicating AT&T...but it sure must have been nice to stand back and let them take all the blame...
It's funny how this is supposed to give me faith my iPhone is not a dud...but it does the opposite...because for 4 generations of iPhones...they are apparently just now getting around to admitting they have a long-running phone/antennae issue...even if it is software.
I look forward to my iPhone 8 when they finally get around to fixing it.
I do recall reading now and then that apple had faults on it's end that contributed to the dropped calls etc. I recall even apple say something to the effect if they're still learning. ATT was basically training them. RF is a black science and the software is half the equation.
Why isn't the media reporting on this?
Check it out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_RP7Fn1w8Q
Because now that Apple is huuuuge and successful, it's more fun for stupid people to attack them.
And I am Superman. With my amazing powers I can (gingerly of course so I don't crush it) make the iPhone lose all it's bars, drop a call AND make the world spin backwards - reversing the charges on my ATT phone plan and making them pay ME for the privilege of using the iPhone. Look I have an email to prove it - and a cheque for $1 gazillion dollars!
No really, what kind of "antenna engineer" are you exactly, recognizing that different bandwidths of radio frequency need different kinds of antenna to propagate and receive signals correctly. Are you a repair technician, or an actual engineer? Depending on the antenna, the transmitter or transceiver, the method of controlling signal strength and the frequencies used, touching an antenna can, attenuate the signal from the transmitter, strengthen the signal, fry your hand or do nothing at all. And yes anyone with any training in radiofrequency technologies knows this and doesn't silly blanket statements like those you made.
Try the statement instead of "I am the king of Prussia". I will more readily believe that claim based on your statement above.
Yes... "I am the king of Prussia" ... as your imagination suggests
Just writing fast... what's your language? Swahili?... Look buster, I don't think I need to tell you where I work or what I know to prove anything here. Just pick up a book and educate yourself. First in manners and then to understand about the fundamentals of RF theory.
Look buster? Most likely the first usage of that colloquial euphemism around these parts in quite a spell.
so all you apple nay sayers, take a hike to droid land and see if you like the scenery.
Just writing fast... what's your language? Swahili?... Look buster, I don't think I need to tell you where I work or what I know to prove anything here. Just pick up a book and educate yourself. First in manners and then to understand about the fundamentals of RF theory.
Hi maczones, I have a couple of questions:
1) I have read reports that applying a coating of some kind could help mitigate the antenna problem. Is this true?
2) If you had "carte blanche" to solve the problem, what would you do?
I am an antenna engineer and the NYT reporter is not. Software will not and I repeat, will not compensate for loss of incoming signal strength. Any basic antenna engineer knows that touching an antenna produces attenuation that reduces the strength of the incoming RF signal. I cannot believe a company like Apple could have been so careless or just dumb to think it could get away with a design like this. The idea to prefer styling over good design practices has been violated again for the sake of money.
While it seems to make sense that grabbing the actual antenna will negatively impact its performance, its been established that completely covering the right sight which is the 3G side doesn't cause a problem. Seems it should but it doesn't.
<snip>
So have you returned your iPhone 4 yet?
I build antennas used in the space business. No margin of error is allow in this type of business. After 40 years doing this type of work I can say I know what I am talking about without any reservations. Basic antenna design principles have been the letter of the law since Marconi and it will not change with software magic to day or in the future.
Do you work on satellite antenna systems, or manned flight systems? Are you tied to the research being done for space communication systems using software configurable radio frequency technology based on the DOD SDR/SCA architecture spec for STRS?
The latest technologies allow for much of the physical layer to be abstracted into software controls and functions, which means that while some attenuation through contact is possible, the software can be programmed to compensate since it controls tuning/detuning, signal transport and data management, as well as transceiver power, latency, jitter, filter params and modulation.
Just sayin'. So instead of relying on non sequiturs and silly statements - put up or shut up. I'm just a lowly research technician for a company that probably supplies a good deal of the equipment you use to build your systems, not AN ANTENNA ENGINEER (trumpets blow and virgins faint - or was that vice versa?).
It may not be a software issue, per se, but a hardware issue can be compensated for by software.
I'm still trying to figure out how in the Googtard universe Apple both simultaneously knew about this flaw a year ago on the one hand and was too stupid to test for it because of the stealth cases they used on the other.
I've never read an explanation that held water for me about how this detuning was different than any other detuning. Antennas are circuits that use standing waves and don't "short" the way a regular circuit might because of that (though "shorting" it to another surface would detune it) at least not if they are working. At least I think so. I've been out of college for 11 years and I was only a astrophysics minor and I have a ham license.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just refusing to believe Apple could make such a boneheaded mistake. But I've thought all along this was a baseband issue (and I have the tweets to prove it). Maybe I'm wrong.
My guess is they'll give a $30 apple store card to every iPhone 4 owner. If you've got a bumper, you can spend it on something else. If you need one, that will cover it. And then they'll do a baseband update.
4.0.1 did not have a baseband update.
Hi maczones, I have a couple of questions:
1) I have read reports that applying a coating of some kind could help mitigate the antenna problem. Is this true?
2) If you had "carte blanche" to solve the problem, what would you do?
If I were King (of Prussia or whereever), and I believed the head of the special film and coatings division of Bayer International (whom I spoke with) I would coat the antenna with urethane, which is one of the hardest and most durable of polymer coatings and should protect it and provide a modicum of insulation.
The latest technologies allow for much of the physical layer to be abstracted into software controls and functions,
Just about every high end ham radio base station has an antenna tuner in it that is software controllable, that takes readings (SWR etc.) and tries to "retune" the antenna. This doesn't make for the optimal perfect radiator, but engineering is about compromises and always has been. It adjusts the capactive and/or inductive reactance in the circuit to try and get the best possible SWR. Sometimes the "best" is still shitty, but it's better than what it would be if it wasn't adjusted.
You don't even have to have the "latest" technologies. I remember radios in the 90s--amateur radios, not military or commercial stuff--that could do that.
I do not know, but would imagine, that cell phones do this same thing.
I am an antenna engineer and the NYT reporter is not. Software will not and I repeat, will not compensate for loss of incoming signal strength. Any basic antenna engineer knows that touching an antenna produces attenuation that reduces the strength of the incoming RF signal. I cannot believe a company like Apple could have been so careless or just dumb to think it could get away with a design like this. The idea to prefer styling over good design practices has been violated again for the sake of money.
Except of course the NYT reporter spoke to some with direct knowledge of the design of the system and you are just making things up. It is clear from your post you are no kind of engineer, certainly not a trained working RF engineer in 2010.
Sometimes the "best" is still shitty, but it's better than what it would be if it wasn't adjusted.
Are you saying the iPhone 4 is the best?