I see sflocal has taken on jragosta's annoying habit of calling everyone "whiners" who disagree with him.
Since the "death grip" problem is worse in low signal areas and Mossberg has consistently pointed out that AT&T "operates a network that has trouble connecting and maintaining calls in many cities," the problem does exist. I tried an iPhone 4 out in my house - where the signal is 1 bar if I am extremely lucky - and easily replicated the "death grip" phenomenon.
I personally think Apple was forced to come up with this antenna design to try to make up for AT&T's many deficiencies. They need another network yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The higher fat-content in certain whining American trolls increases the skin conductivity with the between the two antennas. It can usually be resolved by avoiding sitting their fat backsides on leather sofas all day and night and venturing out in the daylight.
It has been blown out of proportion. It's obvious there are people out there with an agenda.
iPhone is released here in a few hours, I'm trying to decide which network to use. The one that's renown as being the best (Telstra) - but gets 500MB data, or the one that I've got now that drops to 2G a lot and loses calls fairly often really (Vodafone)... but gets 1.5GB of data and is about to roll out new better frequencies...
This article leans me towards using the better Telstra network.
(Nice deals on both... Upfront $150(Telstra) or $120(Vodafone) - then $49/mth for about 400 minutes.)
Glad to hear Walt remains the almost lone honest voice in the hogwash engineered by gawkers and psystars. And after having indeed used the product for some time now I'm wholeheartedly with him on this subject.
The iPhone 4 is absolutely amazing product.
The battery life is now --- finally! --- in line with what industry offers in general. But is a charge speed astounding!
The reception capabilities are indisputably superior to previous generations of the phone. I can give calls to my folks from places like basements and underground parking lots, from which with the 3G I could only dream to.
Camera. I stopped to sync third party camera applications. Apple's one has everything I need back again, not to mention the convenience of using it.
Display. Thank you Apple, I can read on my iPhone without eye strain again. It's great.
God almighty, did the industrial design of the case ail me in the beginning. But it appeared to be only a whim just like that anger at your grocery shop personnel upon they've moved shelves and you've lost your habitual stuff from the view. Well, I'm getting used to industrial design too and even starting to find it elegant.
I still do not like Apple having changed home button usage patterns. I still see no big point in multitasking, however, it's good to see how fast suspended applications come to run.
So, I think gawkers committed a real crime with spoiling the launch of such a product in public opinion. And I think they should pay.
What is interesting about the part quoted below is that Mossberg's claim that the iPhone 4 is worse in areas with low signals is exactly the opposite of what Anandtech said in their review of the iPhone 4. Gruber said something similar. I am at a loss to explain the discrepancy but it is intriguing that different people have such different experiences.
Sadash, Anandtech claimed it is better in low-signal areas only if a bumper/case is used.
From my day of testing, I've determined that the iPhone 4 performs much better than the 3GS in situations where signal is very low, at -113 dBm (1 bar). Previously, dropping this low all but guaranteed that calls would drop, fail to be placed, and data would no longer be transacted at all. I can honestly say that I've never held onto so many calls and data simultaneously on 1 bar at -113 dBm as I have with the iPhone 4, so it's readily apparent that the new baseband hardware is much more sensitive compared to what was in the 3GS. The difference is that reception is massively better on the iPhone 4 in actual use.
They then added:
Quote:
With my bumper case on, I made it further into dead zones than ever before, and into marginal areas that would always drop calls without any problems at all. It's amazing really to experience the difference in sensitivity the iPhone 4 brings compared to the 3GS, and issues from holding the phone aside, reception is absolutely definitely improved. I felt like I was going places no iPhone had ever gone before. There's no doubt in my mind this iPhone gets the best cellular reception yet, even though measured signal is lower than the 3GS.
Also note that many sites, including AnandTech,have reported that bars actually went up at times from touching the antenna. I think one thing is certain, despite all media frenzy this design is superior, will be improved because the inherent benefits far outweigh any cons, and will likely be adopted by other vendors wanting to maximize their space, limit their size, and improve their total antenna performance.
I wonder what Jimmy Fallon did with his iPhone 4. Did he end up keeping it or go over to the Android world? As for Mossberg, I notice the same thing too at times. The "death grip/touch" at times actually does give me one more bar. Odd.
This is not that odd. The articles/blogs at large are making the case that touching the antenna shorts it. But the real effect is change in electrical impedance, and the change is not always tantamount to shorting. If it were so, then all TV rabbit ears would fail whenever touched, which is not the case (not the best analogy, but perhaps one that people might understand).
What is odd is that no true antenna expert has written a real technical treatise on this. The closest thing to a proper engineering analysis that has been published is the piece by Anandtech. But even that addresses the software and not the hardware design. This has led to the Consumers piece being the most authoritative sounding one. Too bad.
continued to laud Apple's iPhone 4 as "the best device in its class,"
I wonder did Mosberge reach this conclusion after also using the Samsung Wave and Galaxy S for an equal length of time? I believe the wave is not available in the US?
They are currently the top ranked phones on GSM arena by customer ratings - in that order..
On Testfreaks, the two top ranked phones are the HTC Desire and Galaxy S.
Consumer Reports - take a hint from Mossberg... It's not too late to say, "hey, turns out it's a pretty damn good phone!" of course, that wouldn't drive web traffic and press coverage.
Exactly, even a brief apology to all the people they put into trouble wouldn't harm them.
I have found the iphone 4 to be worse than the 3GS. I have created a poll to see how people rank the reception. The poll has a nice map feature so that you can see how people feel in different parts of the US.... take the poll and pass it on - you can share it in many ways.
If you say so. But there are other voices out there who say differently.
The vocal minority. How many times do you go to hundreds of websites after a purchase to spread around how much you're pleased with what you just bought? No, just the complaints are spread around. That makes any issue appear greatly inflated.
Don't get your hopes up- this will not sink Apple or the iPhone. The press is the only one perpetuating the problem, for their own gain, and that's keeping some people from purchasing until an acceptable fix is produced. Some.
I can't understand what's wrong with AT&T network. How can be the so many places with poor reception? In my country (smaller than US of course) we don't have these problems. Our operators have almost 100% signal coverage. I am travelling through my country and through Europe, but personally I know only one place (in the mountains) where is bad mobile operator signal.
When I saw US movies where users can't make a phone call on a road, I was thinking, that it's not real problem. Now I see that it's real. It's problem also for other US mobile operators?
I am watching "antennagate" from the beginning and I must say that I didn't read bad reviews (reception issue) in Europe, only in the US. It's seems to me like only US problem.
That's because here in the U.S. we are a fickle bunch who love to hate things.
If you say so. But there are other voices out there who say differently.
There's always voices. People love stuff like Vista, they can constantly laugh at it, when to be quite honest with you there is nothing really wrong with it. The only mistake Vista made was confusing all the hardware manufactures and developers on when it would be coming out (if they had used common sense they would have released a Vista version anyway, but a lot of these hardware makers have no common sense within them).
My iP4 has really sh*tty reception at home. My 3GS was ok, but I think I drop 50% if all the calls I get at home. The bars go from 0 to 5 and back again with or without a death grip.
PS: I just got my free bumper. It fits nicely and my phone still fits in my holster. We'll see if it was any effect.
iPhone is released here in a few hours, I'm trying to decide which network to use. The one that's renown as being the best (Telstra) - but gets 500MB data, or the one that I've got now that drops to 2G a lot and loses calls fairly often really (Vodafone)... but gets 1.5GB of data and is about to roll out new better frequencies...
This article leans me towards using the better Telstra network.
(Nice deals on both... Upfront $150(Telstra) or $120(Vodafone) - then $49/mth for about 400 minutes.)
telstra with bonus data and extra data packs: (eg. $49 cap)
A$49 + 1gb = $39 + $19.50 =$58.50
A$49 + 3gb = $63.50
A$49 + 6gb = $78.50
i'm not upgrading this cycle, but the only thing attractive about continuing on 3 is the international calls included in the cap. even that probably won't be enough to keep me there next year.
i've heard only good reports of iPhone 4 on telstra (from ppl who purchased in the UK)...
I can't understand what's wrong with AT&T network. How can be the so many places with poor reception? In my country (smaller than US of course) we don't have these problems. Our operators have almost 100% signal coverage. I am travelling through my country and through Europe, but personally I know only one place (in the mountains) where is bad mobile operator signal.
When I saw US movies where users can't make a phone call on a road, I was thinking, that it's not real problem. Now I see that it's real. It's problem also for other US mobile operators?
I am watching "antennagate" from the beginning and I must say that I didn't read bad reviews (reception issue) in Europe, only in the US. It's seems to me like only US problem.
In the US AT&T (cingular) took the punch and went GSM like many Europe phone networks were doing, and put up new generation GSM antenna's across the country as fast as they could. Of course companies like Verision adopted the typical Microsoft way of thinking 'If it ain't broke, don't improve it' and kept with old CDMA tech because it had strong signal and so did many other phone makers.
THEN
iPhone came out, on Cingular, ON GSM. But 'pah', it's a million pound phone, only Apple geeks in big cites will buy that, while in Starbucks sipping urine. Despite this iPhone sells well....
THEN
App Store comes out and iPhone 3G comes out, BAM, the iPhone is an even bigger hit growing the NEED for GSM in the States. Oh dear who will save these archaic phone companies?
...well...
ANDROID! Android comes out along with it's 20th century ways of thinking (open source). You can now have a open phone that looks better than a Tux Phone. WOW open source is so amazing, you can have all the Porn you want etc.
...but...
Android with it's open source way of thinking isn't setting the world on fire (as I predicted), it's gaining market share. But for what? To become another Windows? I think so. It's eating at MS currently, but if MS market Windows Phone REALLY well... then Androids down the lake without a paddle.
No ads on the Consumer Reports web site. None in the magazine either. In fact you can't even look at the content of the web site without being a member.
Confounding, I know.
Well, you can't look at the content behind the paywall without being a member. They do have freely available content, such as their flip-flopping blog entries on this topic. I think two things are pretty clear:
1. Consumer Reports, like most blogs and news sites that jumped on this particular bandwagon, was driven in significant part by a desire to stir up controversy and drive traffic to their site. In their case it wasn't to increase ad revenue, but traffic to their site doubtlessly drives subscriptions to the content behind their paywall. There is an obvious conflict of interest here, highlighted by their handling of the issue, that calls into question their motives. Remember, employees at non-profits don't work for free, and their compensation, just like everyone else's (unless you work on Wall St) depends on how much money their employer pulls in.
2. Consumer Reports has no idea what they are doing evaluating smartphones. Not all that surprising since I think most people have had the experience with CR that reviews of things you know about usually make no sense. (Meaning that it's likely that reviews of things you don't know about may not make sense either.)
But, the more serious problem is that, from a purely objective standpoint, this particular review process is so obviously broken. The iP4 has the highest rating of any smartphone, yet is not recommended. Now CR does a little song and dance number to try to explain this, but what exactly do their ratings mean if recommendations aren't based on them? Is this an objective process or not?
The answer is that it is obviously not an objective process. If it were, their ratings and recommendations would agree, rather than contradict. In fact, if they can't recommend the iP4 based on their ratings, then the entire rating system is meaningless. Well, you say, they found other issues with testing beyond what they look at for the ratings. But, that's exactly the point. If the ratings don't adequately reflect the factors which determine whether they can recommend something or not, then what exactly is their entire testing and rating system based on? And, if we can't trust their smartphone ratings, which of their other ratings can we trust?
The answer is obviously, none. Consumer Reports is engaged in something very like pseudo-science. They pretend they go through this rigorous and objective testing process, but this incident shows that their rating criteria are either completely arbitrary and irrelevant, or that their recommendations are based on entirely subjective factors, and the whole ratings process is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If it's a scandal and a fraud that the media are looking for, they need look no further than Consumer Reports.
Comments
Since the "death grip" problem is worse in low signal areas and Mossberg has consistently pointed out that AT&T "operates a network that has trouble connecting and maintaining calls in many cities," the problem does exist. I tried an iPhone 4 out in my house - where the signal is 1 bar if I am extremely lucky - and easily replicated the "death grip" phenomenon.
I personally think Apple was forced to come up with this antenna design to try to make up for AT&T's many deficiencies. They need another network yesterday.
The higher fat-content in certain whining American trolls increases the skin conductivity with the between the two antennas. It can usually be resolved by avoiding sitting their fat backsides on leather sofas all day and night and venturing out in the daylight.
It has been blown out of proportion. It's obvious there are people out there with an agenda.
If you say so. But there are other voices out there who say differently.
And you're one of them. Constantly at that! Get rid of your phone (if you actually own one) and go away already.
This article leans me towards using the better Telstra network.
(Nice deals on both... Upfront $150(Telstra) or $120(Vodafone) - then $49/mth for about 400 minutes.)
If you say so. But there are other voices out there who say differently.
Have you been on the interweb before?
The iPhone 4 is absolutely amazing product.
The battery life is now --- finally! --- in line with what industry offers in general. But is a charge speed astounding!
The reception capabilities are indisputably superior to previous generations of the phone. I can give calls to my folks from places like basements and underground parking lots, from which with the 3G I could only dream to.
Camera. I stopped to sync third party camera applications.
Display. Thank you Apple, I can read on my iPhone without eye strain again. It's great.
God almighty, did the industrial design of the case ail me in the beginning. But it appeared to be only a whim just like that anger at your grocery shop personnel upon they've moved shelves and you've lost your habitual stuff from the view. Well, I'm getting used to industrial design too and even starting to find it elegant.
I still do not like Apple having changed home button usage patterns. I still see no big point in multitasking, however, it's good to see how fast suspended applications come to run.
So, I think gawkers committed a real crime with spoiling the launch of such a product in public opinion. And I think they should pay.
What is interesting about the part quoted below is that Mossberg's claim that the iPhone 4 is worse in areas with low signals is exactly the opposite of what Anandtech said in their review of the iPhone 4. Gruber said something similar. I am at a loss to explain the discrepancy but it is intriguing that different people have such different experiences.
Sadash, Anandtech claimed it is better in low-signal areas only if a bumper/case is used.
Sadash, Anandtech claimed it is better in low-signal areas only if a bumper/case is used.
shadash is correct, most are reporting that the iPhone 4 is better in low signal areas.
Anand and Brian wrote:
The Antenna is Improved
From my day of testing, I've determined that the iPhone 4 performs much better than the 3GS in situations where signal is very low, at -113 dBm (1 bar). Previously, dropping this low all but guaranteed that calls would drop, fail to be placed, and data would no longer be transacted at all. I can honestly say that I've never held onto so many calls and data simultaneously on 1 bar at -113 dBm as I have with the iPhone 4, so it's readily apparent that the new baseband hardware is much more sensitive compared to what was in the 3GS. The difference is that reception is massively better on the iPhone 4 in actual use.
They then added:
With my bumper case on, I made it further into dead zones than ever before, and into marginal areas that would always drop calls without any problems at all. It's amazing really to experience the difference in sensitivity the iPhone 4 brings compared to the 3GS, and issues from holding the phone aside, reception is absolutely definitely improved. I felt like I was going places no iPhone had ever gone before. There's no doubt in my mind this iPhone gets the best cellular reception yet, even though measured signal is lower than the 3GS.
Also note that many sites, including AnandTech,have reported that bars actually went up at times from touching the antenna. I think one thing is certain, despite all media frenzy this design is superior, will be improved because the inherent benefits far outweigh any cons, and will likely be adopted by other vendors wanting to maximize their space, limit their size, and improve their total antenna performance.
I wonder what Jimmy Fallon did with his iPhone 4. Did he end up keeping it or go over to the Android world? As for Mossberg, I notice the same thing too at times. The "death grip/touch" at times actually does give me one more bar. Odd.
This is not that odd. The articles/blogs at large are making the case that touching the antenna shorts it. But the real effect is change in electrical impedance, and the change is not always tantamount to shorting. If it were so, then all TV rabbit ears would fail whenever touched, which is not the case (not the best analogy, but perhaps one that people might understand).
What is odd is that no true antenna expert has written a real technical treatise on this. The closest thing to a proper engineering analysis that has been published is the piece by Anandtech. But even that addresses the software and not the hardware design. This has led to the Consumers piece being the most authoritative sounding one. Too bad.
continued to laud Apple's iPhone 4 as "the best device in its class,"
I wonder did Mosberge reach this conclusion after also using the Samsung Wave and Galaxy S for an equal length of time? I believe the wave is not available in the US?
They are currently the top ranked phones on GSM arena by customer ratings - in that order..
On Testfreaks, the two top ranked phones are the HTC Desire and Galaxy S.
Consumer Reports - take a hint from Mossberg... It's not too late to say, "hey, turns out it's a pretty damn good phone!" of course, that wouldn't drive web traffic and press coverage.
Exactly, even a brief apology to all the people they put into trouble wouldn't harm them.
http://www.votos.com/poll/1204_How_d...f_the_iphone_4
If you say so. But there are other voices out there who say differently.
The vocal minority. How many times do you go to hundreds of websites after a purchase to spread around how much you're pleased with what you just bought? No, just the complaints are spread around. That makes any issue appear greatly inflated.
Don't get your hopes up- this will not sink Apple or the iPhone. The press is the only one perpetuating the problem, for their own gain, and that's keeping some people from purchasing until an acceptable fix is produced. Some.
That's only because he grew up next to Three Mile Island.
I can't understand what's wrong with AT&T network. How can be the so many places with poor reception? In my country (smaller than US of course) we don't have these problems. Our operators have almost 100% signal coverage. I am travelling through my country and through Europe, but personally I know only one place (in the mountains) where is bad mobile operator signal.
When I saw US movies where users can't make a phone call on a road, I was thinking, that it's not real problem. Now I see that it's real. It's problem also for other US mobile operators?
I am watching "antennagate" from the beginning and I must say that I didn't read bad reviews (reception issue) in Europe, only in the US. It's seems to me like only US problem.
That's because here in the U.S. we are a fickle bunch who love to hate things.
If you say so. But there are other voices out there who say differently.
There's always voices. People love stuff like Vista, they can constantly laugh at it, when to be quite honest with you there is nothing really wrong with it. The only mistake Vista made was confusing all the hardware manufactures and developers on when it would be coming out (if they had used common sense they would have released a Vista version anyway, but a lot of these hardware makers have no common sense within them).
PS: I just got my free bumper. It fits nicely and my phone still fits in my holster. We'll see if it was any effect.
iPhone is released here in a few hours, I'm trying to decide which network to use. The one that's renown as being the best (Telstra) - but gets 500MB data, or the one that I've got now that drops to 2G a lot and loses calls fairly often really (Vodafone)... but gets 1.5GB of data and is about to roll out new better frequencies...
This article leans me towards using the better Telstra network.
(Nice deals on both... Upfront $150(Telstra) or $120(Vodafone) - then $49/mth for about 400 minutes.)
telstra with bonus data and extra data packs: (eg. $49 cap)
A$49 + 1gb = $39 + $19.50 =$58.50
A$49 + 3gb = $63.50
A$49 + 6gb = $78.50
i'm not upgrading this cycle, but the only thing attractive about continuing on 3 is the international calls included in the cap. even that probably won't be enough to keep me there next year.
i've heard only good reports of iPhone 4 on telstra (from ppl who purchased in the UK)...
I can't understand what's wrong with AT&T network. How can be the so many places with poor reception? In my country (smaller than US of course) we don't have these problems. Our operators have almost 100% signal coverage. I am travelling through my country and through Europe, but personally I know only one place (in the mountains) where is bad mobile operator signal.
When I saw US movies where users can't make a phone call on a road, I was thinking, that it's not real problem. Now I see that it's real. It's problem also for other US mobile operators?
I am watching "antennagate" from the beginning and I must say that I didn't read bad reviews (reception issue) in Europe, only in the US. It's seems to me like only US problem.
In the US AT&T (cingular) took the punch and went GSM like many Europe phone networks were doing, and put up new generation GSM antenna's across the country as fast as they could. Of course companies like Verision adopted the typical Microsoft way of thinking 'If it ain't broke, don't improve it' and kept with old CDMA tech because it had strong signal and so did many other phone makers.
THEN
iPhone came out, on Cingular, ON GSM. But 'pah', it's a million pound phone, only Apple geeks in big cites will buy that, while in Starbucks sipping urine. Despite this iPhone sells well....
THEN
App Store comes out and iPhone 3G comes out, BAM, the iPhone is an even bigger hit growing the NEED for GSM in the States. Oh dear who will save these archaic phone companies?
...well...
ANDROID! Android comes out along with it's 20th century ways of thinking (open source). You can now have a open phone that looks better than a Tux Phone. WOW open source is so amazing, you can have all the Porn you want etc.
...but...
Android with it's open source way of thinking isn't setting the world on fire (as I predicted), it's gaining market share. But for what? To become another Windows? I think so. It's eating at MS currently, but if MS market Windows Phone REALLY well... then Androids down the lake without a paddle.
No ads on the Consumer Reports web site. None in the magazine either. In fact you can't even look at the content of the web site without being a member.
Confounding, I know.
Well, you can't look at the content behind the paywall without being a member. They do have freely available content, such as their flip-flopping blog entries on this topic. I think two things are pretty clear:
1. Consumer Reports, like most blogs and news sites that jumped on this particular bandwagon, was driven in significant part by a desire to stir up controversy and drive traffic to their site. In their case it wasn't to increase ad revenue, but traffic to their site doubtlessly drives subscriptions to the content behind their paywall. There is an obvious conflict of interest here, highlighted by their handling of the issue, that calls into question their motives. Remember, employees at non-profits don't work for free, and their compensation, just like everyone else's (unless you work on Wall St) depends on how much money their employer pulls in.
2. Consumer Reports has no idea what they are doing evaluating smartphones. Not all that surprising since I think most people have had the experience with CR that reviews of things you know about usually make no sense. (Meaning that it's likely that reviews of things you don't know about may not make sense either.)
But, the more serious problem is that, from a purely objective standpoint, this particular review process is so obviously broken. The iP4 has the highest rating of any smartphone, yet is not recommended. Now CR does a little song and dance number to try to explain this, but what exactly do their ratings mean if recommendations aren't based on them? Is this an objective process or not?
The answer is that it is obviously not an objective process. If it were, their ratings and recommendations would agree, rather than contradict. In fact, if they can't recommend the iP4 based on their ratings, then the entire rating system is meaningless. Well, you say, they found other issues with testing beyond what they look at for the ratings. But, that's exactly the point. If the ratings don't adequately reflect the factors which determine whether they can recommend something or not, then what exactly is their entire testing and rating system based on? And, if we can't trust their smartphone ratings, which of their other ratings can we trust?
The answer is obviously, none. Consumer Reports is engaged in something very like pseudo-science. They pretend they go through this rigorous and objective testing process, but this incident shows that their rating criteria are either completely arbitrary and irrelevant, or that their recommendations are based on entirely subjective factors, and the whole ratings process is nothing but smoke and mirrors. If it's a scandal and a fraud that the media are looking for, they need look no further than Consumer Reports.