I have to disagree with you and I'm not an Apple basher. And I checked with a friend of mine who has the new phone and she hasn't experienced any problems (although she does have a case and is in a presumably strong signal area.)
However, any antenna engineer will tell you that touching an antenna changes its characteristics and that putting the antenna on the outside of the case, was probably a really bad idea. However, Apple might have gotten away with that if they didn't have two antennas on the outside of the case which get shorted together when touched. The sad part is that if they had put this "break" at the top or bottom of the phone, in an area that isn't naturally touched when holding the phone, everything probably would have been fine.
Even though Steve denies it, I don't know whether to believe or not whether Apple knew about this in advance. But one thing I do believe, especially if they didn't know in advance, is that Apple probably performed very limited tests on the phone due to their paranoia about revealing new products and that when it was tested, it was tested in a big case so people wouldn't know it was the new iPhone. In addition, I have no doubt that AT&T "makes sure" that service is good in Cupertino (which it probably would be anyway because it's not an especially dense area as compared say, to New York or Chicago.)
I have worked for companies that have received certain Apple products in advance. Those products have to be held in locked rooms and mounted to a table so they can't be removed. Therefore they aren't tested in real world conditions.
There are so many variables with cell phone usage and reception that I think a device like this needs to be tested by AT LEAST a thousand different people in different locations. While I have no idea how many units were tested by Apple in real world conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if that number turns out to be 15 or less.
The thing that is so ridiculous about all this is while Jobs claims that revealing a new product will kill sales of the current one, Apple has already set the pattern for releasing new iPhones. Everyone knows that new iPhones are released annually at the developer's conference. So I think Apple needs to get over their arrogance and paranoia and figure out that revealing the forthcoming model in advance is not as bad as having a phone that everyone can complain about, even if those complaints aren't all valid. Apple has been promoting themselves for years as the company that makes products that "just work". The problems with past Apple phones, largely due to AT&T, and the supposed problems with this phone, have completely killed a $ billion of "goodwill" that Apple has developed over the years. Apple is no longer the company that makes products that "just work."
And I say that as someone who has used Apple products since the Apple II days, as someone who owns the stock and as someone who might buy this phone. In a way, it might be good for Apple in the long term to have had this "failure". It might bring them back down to earth. A little insecurity on Steve's part might make him a little more open to other people's ideas.
These are very thoughtful observations. However, I'm not fully convinced that Apple's secrecy is element in this saga, since it seems they really sweat the creation of simulated real-world conditions in a fairly bewildering array of permutations in their testing center. I wonder if any other manufacturer goes to these lengths. So I'm not sure that putting more prototypes into the field would catch any issues not found in the testing conditions. It might only serve to reveal these products prematurely.
Rarely do companies prefer to telegraph the imminent arrival of new and improved products until they are ready to ship, for the same reason Apple does not. This is hardly unique to Apple, they are simply better at maintaining the level of secrecy that every company would like to achieve, and it makes a real impact on their bottom line. So I wouldn't be so quick to turn this into a vice.
In this instance, Apple's real blunder was allowing the situation to fester for so long and for the bad PR to build without any response. The press conference they held yesterday would have been far more effective had it been held a week or more ago, before Consumer Reports and before David Letterman. I hope they learn from that experience the value of responding to bad PR in days rather than weeks, as I think this will make more difference over the long haul than pulling back the veil of secrecy.
Agreed. Moderation is never easy, but it fell off a cliff at MR a few years ago, to the clear point of no return. Interest in making improvements appeared to be nil, so I and many others threw in the towel.
Yes, MR was a lot better before Arn made it his full-time job. Now it's more about increasing page views and ad clicks than building and fostering a community, and has been overrun by self-important juvenile delinquents, many of whom have become Moderators or Admins. They've lost a lot of regulars with this nonsense.
Yes, MR was a lot better before Arn made it his full-time job. Now it's more about increasing page views and ad clicks than building and fostering a community, and has been overrun by self-important juvenile delinquents, many of whom have become Moderators or Admins. They've lost a lot of regulars with this nonsense.
A big disappointment. I'd been a regular there for nearly ten years when I finally gave it up in disgust. You're right, it did turn into a schoolyard with the kids in charge.
1)You *were* wrong, you said that Murdoch owned the Times ∴ the Times cannot be trusted. But Murdoch doesn't own the Times.
2)The Wall Street journal, which you were actually thinking of, has retained more editorial control than any other Murdoch acquisition and it still actually produces quality stories (and is recognized as such internationally), which makes your point *doubly* wrong!
Also, you may not agree with NYT's editorial position on some things, but to claim they fabricated a story is another level entirely. Like them or hate them, the NYT's is one of the most reputable paper's in the world and they're not about to risk that status (not to mention they're stock price) on a story that in the scheme of things is so much breeze in the grass. They are a major newspaper of record, and one of the few true independent news sources left, attacking them because you don't like that they didn't pander to Apple is slavish and foolish.
Jobs has a legitimate beef if the NYT's source was wrong -- but if the article was wrong it was a bad source I guarantee, not the evil Editor-in-Chief going "::heheheh:: I want to run an anti-apple story today! Now where are those children I was going to roast and devour...". Honestly though, when Bloomberg and the NYT, both known for their accuracy, independently run stories about it I tend to believe them over Job's spin
I love how someone who does not know me from spit, can so clearly misinterpret what I write.
The "Actually I wasn't" comment, was my reply to people consistently telling me that I must have been thinking about the WSJ. Here let me clear it up for you. I WASN'T. So yes, I was wrong in stating that Murdoch owns the NYT, but I still believe he will at one point.
As I stated in my replies, Murdoch wanted the NYT, but settled on the WSJ. He has since continually attacked the NYT in business moves, such as ridiculously low advertising rates, to keep the NYT cash strapped as possible. Murdoch himself has publicly stated on several occasions that he still wants the times. Since I don't follow Murdoch like some star gazing celebrity chaser, I was not aware that he had NOT won the battle for the NYT.
Now, as far as credibility, the NYT does IMHO stand head and shoulders above the WSJ. Hell, my day job is in financial matters, and I haven't read the WSJ in years. If I want THAT much spin, I'll watch my laundry cycle. And you have absolute no idea how much control the WSJ editors do or don't have over what they print. Just because they say they do doesn't make it true
The NYT, however, has made several blunders in the past few years that really make you wonder who on the editorial staff is actually monitoring their reporters. Having said that, I still read the NYT on a daily basis. I DO trust it for the most part, which is a sad comment on the news media of today. Murrow, Cronkite, Hunt and Brinkley must all be rolling over in their graves on a daily basis.
A big disappointment. I'd been a regular there for nearly ten years when I finally gave it up in disgust. You're right, it did turn into a schoolyard with the kids in charge.
Who the fuck is Jason snell, what's with the web these days that every bozzo demands to be known by misconstruing reality that badly?
More than anything this issue with the iPhone has showcased not apple's shortcomings but the lamentable condition of Internet reporting and the mass hysteria it brings about.
Since you asked...
Jason Snell (born October 6, 1970 in Oakland, California) is a writer and editor whose professional career has been spent covering Apple Computer's Apple Macintosh computers and related technologies. He was also one of the early users of the Internet as a publishing medium, with several magazines and web sites to his credit. He is currently the editorial director of Mac Publishing, the publishers of the U.S. edition of Macworld. His column appears monthly in that magazine. In 2006 the MDJ Power 25, a poll of Mac-industry-watchers, named him the 6th most powerful/influential person in the world of Macintosh computing.[1] (In the previous poll, Snell had been 11th.[2])
With apologies to Jason for even having to post this.....
This kind of comments make me want to go kill myself...
As I said before millions of times...
THERE. IS. NO. ANTENNA. DESIGN. FLAW. SHUT THE FRACK UP AND STOP FUELING THIS GIZMODO DRIVEL.
GODDAMIT man. GODDAMIT...
Thank you for posting. It is all rather sad, isn't it? So many apt individuals convinced themselves there is an issue... when the entire thing is a sham introduced by Gizmodo and perpetuated by poor journalism and trolls. And even after presented with incontrovertible evidence of the contrary, namely, that all cell phones exhibit the identical issue in an identical way, these proud fools just dig in deeper in ignorance. But, we too must admit that the iPhone 4 design is flawed because it does not account for how stubbornly moronic .55% of its users are.
Agreed 100%. But if you think it's bad here, you should have a look at that Macrumors forum, it's one giant clusterf--k where the mods are like JRagosta.
eeesh. What's the point if the mods are like -that-.
I just wanted to make a general comment that trolling in these forums has become unbearable, the sheer idiocy and doggedness of the trolls is insufferable. I think I might have to take a break because I come to these forums to be informed and relax not to have some morons jangle my nerves, I get that during my work week thank you very much.
Maybe it is the fault of "the jewery"? Here's what you said earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Mel Gibson's targeted because he dared to talk about the jewery, and lo and behold some of the biggest sufferers of of human crimes against them are now some of the worst perpetrators and persecutors.
Buh BYE!!!
don't let the screen door hit you where the sun don't shine!
Agreed. Moderation is never easy, but it fell off a cliff at MR a few years ago, to the clear point of no return. Interest in making improvements appeared to be nil, so I and many others threw in the towel.
I am going to vouch for this too, Mac rumors is unbearable, I threw in the towel too some time ago, the people moderating there have such a high opinion of their shoddy work... It's probably the worst moderated forum on the web.
I like the light hand of the moderators here, and despite the problems, I think they are doing one of the best jobs around.
Jason Snell (born October 6, 1970 in Oakland, California) is a writer and editor whose professional career has been spent covering Apple Computer's Apple Macintosh computers and related technologies. He was also one of the early users of the Internet as a publishing medium, with several magazines and web sites to his credit. He is currently the editorial director of Mac Publishing, the publishers of the U.S. edition of Macworld. His column appears monthly in that magazine. In 2006 the MDJ Power 25, a poll of Mac-industry-watchers, named him the 6th most powerful/influential person in the world of Macintosh computing.[1] (In the previous poll, Snell had been 11th.[2])
With apologies to Jason for even having to post this.....
My bad, and apologies. That said he should think more about his comments which were to say the least misinformed, so he won't be lumped with the Joe nobody blogger from people such as myself who don't know who he is,
I am going to vouch for this too, Mac rumors is unbearable, I threw in the towel too some time ago, the people moderating there have such a high opinion of their shoddy work... It's probably the worst moderated forum on the web.
I like the light hand of the moderators here, and despite the problems, I think they are doing one of the best jobs around.
Yes, "Doctor Q" has quite the huge ego over there! Oh, I could share a few dandy emails from him a few years ago. The pontificating was nauseating.
Wow you guys will believe anything SJ says. Like he's gonna stand up there and say "it's all true". Deny, deny, deny, ALL these CEOs know very well how to do that.
Comments
I have to disagree with you and I'm not an Apple basher. And I checked with a friend of mine who has the new phone and she hasn't experienced any problems (although she does have a case and is in a presumably strong signal area.)
However, any antenna engineer will tell you that touching an antenna changes its characteristics and that putting the antenna on the outside of the case, was probably a really bad idea. However, Apple might have gotten away with that if they didn't have two antennas on the outside of the case which get shorted together when touched. The sad part is that if they had put this "break" at the top or bottom of the phone, in an area that isn't naturally touched when holding the phone, everything probably would have been fine.
Even though Steve denies it, I don't know whether to believe or not whether Apple knew about this in advance. But one thing I do believe, especially if they didn't know in advance, is that Apple probably performed very limited tests on the phone due to their paranoia about revealing new products and that when it was tested, it was tested in a big case so people wouldn't know it was the new iPhone. In addition, I have no doubt that AT&T "makes sure" that service is good in Cupertino (which it probably would be anyway because it's not an especially dense area as compared say, to New York or Chicago.)
I have worked for companies that have received certain Apple products in advance. Those products have to be held in locked rooms and mounted to a table so they can't be removed. Therefore they aren't tested in real world conditions.
There are so many variables with cell phone usage and reception that I think a device like this needs to be tested by AT LEAST a thousand different people in different locations. While I have no idea how many units were tested by Apple in real world conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if that number turns out to be 15 or less.
The thing that is so ridiculous about all this is while Jobs claims that revealing a new product will kill sales of the current one, Apple has already set the pattern for releasing new iPhones. Everyone knows that new iPhones are released annually at the developer's conference. So I think Apple needs to get over their arrogance and paranoia and figure out that revealing the forthcoming model in advance is not as bad as having a phone that everyone can complain about, even if those complaints aren't all valid. Apple has been promoting themselves for years as the company that makes products that "just work". The problems with past Apple phones, largely due to AT&T, and the supposed problems with this phone, have completely killed a $ billion of "goodwill" that Apple has developed over the years. Apple is no longer the company that makes products that "just work."
And I say that as someone who has used Apple products since the Apple II days, as someone who owns the stock and as someone who might buy this phone. In a way, it might be good for Apple in the long term to have had this "failure". It might bring them back down to earth. A little insecurity on Steve's part might make him a little more open to other people's ideas.
These are very thoughtful observations. However, I'm not fully convinced that Apple's secrecy is element in this saga, since it seems they really sweat the creation of simulated real-world conditions in a fairly bewildering array of permutations in their testing center. I wonder if any other manufacturer goes to these lengths. So I'm not sure that putting more prototypes into the field would catch any issues not found in the testing conditions. It might only serve to reveal these products prematurely.
Rarely do companies prefer to telegraph the imminent arrival of new and improved products until they are ready to ship, for the same reason Apple does not. This is hardly unique to Apple, they are simply better at maintaining the level of secrecy that every company would like to achieve, and it makes a real impact on their bottom line. So I wouldn't be so quick to turn this into a vice.
In this instance, Apple's real blunder was allowing the situation to fester for so long and for the bad PR to build without any response. The press conference they held yesterday would have been far more effective had it been held a week or more ago, before Consumer Reports and before David Letterman. I hope they learn from that experience the value of responding to bad PR in days rather than weeks, as I think this will make more difference over the long haul than pulling back the veil of secrecy.
Agreed. Moderation is never easy, but it fell off a cliff at MR a few years ago, to the clear point of no return. Interest in making improvements appeared to be nil, so I and many others threw in the towel.
Yes, MR was a lot better before Arn made it his full-time job. Now it's more about increasing page views and ad clicks than building and fostering a community, and has been overrun by self-important juvenile delinquents, many of whom have become Moderators or Admins. They've lost a lot of regulars with this nonsense.
Yes, MR was a lot better before Arn made it his full-time job. Now it's more about increasing page views and ad clicks than building and fostering a community, and has been overrun by self-important juvenile delinquents, many of whom have become Moderators or Admins. They've lost a lot of regulars with this nonsense.
A big disappointment. I'd been a regular there for nearly ten years when I finally gave it up in disgust. You're right, it did turn into a schoolyard with the kids in charge.
2 things:
1)You *were* wrong, you said that Murdoch owned the Times ∴ the Times cannot be trusted. But Murdoch doesn't own the Times.
2)The Wall Street journal, which you were actually thinking of, has retained more editorial control than any other Murdoch acquisition and it still actually produces quality stories (and is recognized as such internationally), which makes your point *doubly* wrong!
Also, you may not agree with NYT's editorial position on some things, but to claim they fabricated a story is another level entirely. Like them or hate them, the NYT's is one of the most reputable paper's in the world and they're not about to risk that status (not to mention they're stock price) on a story that in the scheme of things is so much breeze in the grass. They are a major newspaper of record, and one of the few true independent news sources left, attacking them because you don't like that they didn't pander to Apple is slavish and foolish.
Jobs has a legitimate beef if the NYT's source was wrong -- but if the article was wrong it was a bad source I guarantee, not the evil Editor-in-Chief going "::heheheh:: I want to run an anti-apple story today! Now where are those children I was going to roast and devour...". Honestly though, when Bloomberg and the NYT, both known for their accuracy, independently run stories about it I tend to believe them over Job's spin
I love how someone who does not know me from spit, can so clearly misinterpret what I write.
The "Actually I wasn't" comment, was my reply to people consistently telling me that I must have been thinking about the WSJ. Here let me clear it up for you. I WASN'T. So yes, I was wrong in stating that Murdoch owns the NYT, but I still believe he will at one point.
As I stated in my replies, Murdoch wanted the NYT, but settled on the WSJ. He has since continually attacked the NYT in business moves, such as ridiculously low advertising rates, to keep the NYT cash strapped as possible. Murdoch himself has publicly stated on several occasions that he still wants the times. Since I don't follow Murdoch like some star gazing celebrity chaser, I was not aware that he had NOT won the battle for the NYT.
Now, as far as credibility, the NYT does IMHO stand head and shoulders above the WSJ. Hell, my day job is in financial matters, and I haven't read the WSJ in years. If I want THAT much spin, I'll watch my laundry cycle. And you have absolute no idea how much control the WSJ editors do or don't have over what they print. Just because they say they do doesn't make it true
The NYT, however, has made several blunders in the past few years that really make you wonder who on the editorial staff is actually monitoring their reporters. Having said that, I still read the NYT on a daily basis. I DO trust it for the most part, which is a sad comment on the news media of today. Murrow, Cronkite, Hunt and Brinkley must all be rolling over in their graves on a daily basis.
Gotta love the internet...
A big disappointment. I'd been a regular there for nearly ten years when I finally gave it up in disgust. You're right, it did turn into a schoolyard with the kids in charge.
+++1 Sadly.
Who the fuck is Jason snell, what's with the web these days that every bozzo demands to be known by misconstruing reality that badly?
More than anything this issue with the iPhone has showcased not apple's shortcomings but the lamentable condition of Internet reporting and the mass hysteria it brings about.
Since you asked...
Jason Snell (born October 6, 1970 in Oakland, California) is a writer and editor whose professional career has been spent covering Apple Computer's Apple Macintosh computers and related technologies. He was also one of the early users of the Internet as a publishing medium, with several magazines and web sites to his credit. He is currently the editorial director of Mac Publishing, the publishers of the U.S. edition of Macworld. His column appears monthly in that magazine. In 2006 the MDJ Power 25, a poll of Mac-industry-watchers, named him the 6th most powerful/influential person in the world of Macintosh computing.[1] (In the previous poll, Snell had been 11th.[2])
With apologies to Jason for even having to post this.....
the ny times said: "dewey wins" "dewey wins"
for the uninitiated, he was running against truman
For the ill informed (see above) the headline was Dewey Defeats Truman and it was run by the Chicago Tribune not the New York Times.
This kind of comments make me want to go kill myself...
As I said before millions of times...
THERE. IS. NO. ANTENNA. DESIGN. FLAW. SHUT THE FRACK UP AND STOP FUELING THIS GIZMODO DRIVEL.
GODDAMIT man. GODDAMIT...
Thank you for posting. It is all rather sad, isn't it? So many apt individuals convinced themselves there is an issue... when the entire thing is a sham introduced by Gizmodo and perpetuated by poor journalism and trolls. And even after presented with incontrovertible evidence of the contrary, namely, that all cell phones exhibit the identical issue in an identical way, these proud fools just dig in deeper in ignorance. But, we too must admit that the iPhone 4 design is flawed because it does not account for how stubbornly moronic .55% of its users are.
At the press conference there was a giant screen that said "0.55% Percent of all iPhone 4 users who have called about antenna or reception"
And did they tell anything about how many percent of those who used the iPhone 4 to call Apple with?
Why should I hold a car by the steering wheel?
It's my car and no damned car company is going to tell me the right way to hold it.
If I have an accident due to not holding it the "right" way I'm suing them because it proves 100% of cars are defective.
Actually you make a point, cars in general are defective because they still crash, it is a industry issue, and we all are ok with it.
Agreed 100%. But if you think it's bad here, you should have a look at that Macrumors forum, it's one giant clusterf--k where the mods are like JRagosta.
eeesh. What's the point if the mods are like -that-.
Too many shrieking 'google geniuses'.
I just wanted to make a general comment that trolling in these forums has become unbearable, the sheer idiocy and doggedness of the trolls is insufferable. I think I might have to take a break because I come to these forums to be informed and relax not to have some morons jangle my nerves, I get that during my work week thank you very much.
Maybe it is the fault of "the jewery"? Here's what you said earlier:
Mel Gibson's targeted because he dared to talk about the jewery, and lo and behold some of the biggest sufferers of of human crimes against them are now some of the worst perpetrators and persecutors.
Buh BYE!!!
don't let the screen door hit you where the sun don't shine!
Go hang out where someone actually cares what you have to say troll - this issue is now put to rest.
Apple has only known about this for 22 days. Steve made that clear.
Agreed. Moderation is never easy, but it fell off a cliff at MR a few years ago, to the clear point of no return. Interest in making improvements appeared to be nil, so I and many others threw in the towel.
I am going to vouch for this too, Mac rumors is unbearable, I threw in the towel too some time ago, the people moderating there have such a high opinion of their shoddy work... It's probably the worst moderated forum on the web.
I like the light hand of the moderators here, and despite the problems, I think they are doing one of the best jobs around.
Since you asked...
Jason Snell (born October 6, 1970 in Oakland, California) is a writer and editor whose professional career has been spent covering Apple Computer's Apple Macintosh computers and related technologies. He was also one of the early users of the Internet as a publishing medium, with several magazines and web sites to his credit. He is currently the editorial director of Mac Publishing, the publishers of the U.S. edition of Macworld. His column appears monthly in that magazine. In 2006 the MDJ Power 25, a poll of Mac-industry-watchers, named him the 6th most powerful/influential person in the world of Macintosh computing.[1] (In the previous poll, Snell had been 11th.[2])
With apologies to Jason for even having to post this.....
My bad, and apologies. That said he should think more about his comments which were to say the least misinformed, so he won't be lumped with the Joe nobody blogger from people such as myself who don't know who he is,
Why should I hold a car by the steering wheel?
It's my car and no damned car company is going to tell me the right way to hold it.
If I have an accident due to not holding it the "right" way I'm suing them because it proves 100% of cars are defective.
That's SO funny! Those whiners will never learn to just hold the phone properly, or use a Bumper.
I am going to vouch for this too, Mac rumors is unbearable, I threw in the towel too some time ago, the people moderating there have such a high opinion of their shoddy work... It's probably the worst moderated forum on the web.
I like the light hand of the moderators here, and despite the problems, I think they are doing one of the best jobs around.
Yes, "Doctor Q" has quite the huge ego over there! Oh, I could share a few dandy emails from him a few years ago. The pontificating was nauseating.
I can't wait for the iPhone 5. Steve is so peeved now that he will make sure the next iPhone will have such good reception it will need 6 bars.
He will change the laws of physics by sheer will if he has to.
IO think that it will have such good reception that there will finally be no need to clutter things up with those useless bars.
Who invented the "bars", anyhow? Was it Motorola? Nokia?
Apple needs to get rid of those silly bars once and for all until it can come up with something that will lead the industry.
Apple needs to get rid of those silly bars once and for all until it can come up with something that will lead the industry.
Like what, a pie chart? That would only change things slightly...
"Why am I only getting 2 slices on my iPhone when I used to get 6 slices ????? WTF?!1?!??!!11!"