You might be misunderstanding what he said. Each model year is being labeled a new generation of phone as follows:
1st Gen- Original iPhone 2007
2nd Gen- iPhone 3G 2008
3rd Gen- iPhone 3Gs 2009
4th Gen- iPhone 4 2010
5th Gen- iPhone XXX 2011
So the phone that comes out this June/July is the 5th gen iPhone. The next phone may or may not be very different from the 4, but it is still technically 5th gen.
The next version of the iPhone will be the 5th generation, regardless of whether it's called iPhone 5, iPhone 4G or iPhone 4GS. (Unless the "next" version is considered the Verizon iPhone which might be essentially the same as the IP4 and more of a 4.5 gen than really 5th.)
I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.
I think Apple will call the next version iPhone 4G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I could be misremembering this, but I believe there are only 2 "metal sections" (the cellular and wifi/bluetooth antennas) in the current IP4 design. Some of the "gaps" are merely cosmetic and the "sections" are actually joined internally. So, the number and position of "gaps" doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot about the actual antenna design.
You are right. There are only two sections and three gaps. The only real gaps are the two separating the two section and the third one is for symmetry. I think All Apple need to do is make the third gap real making three sections instead of two. The bottom section could be used as a third antenna (maybe GPS?!) or just left alone as separator. But again, an idiot will come and bridge the top gap
My question is th placement suggests that they are putting th antenna at the top where hands won't hit it. But as I recall, the reason for a bottom antenna is that US require the antenna to be at the bottom
Antennas were moved to the bottom because testing of radiation levels is done with respect to the middle of a human head. An antenna located near the ear has a much higher reading than one located down near the mouth.
In the old days phones had antennas that stuck above the phone where they were farther from the middle of the head, but people wanted more compact phones so the antennas were chopped off and put inside the case or made retractable. Most people didn't bother pulling out their retractable antennas (or they broke them) putting the signal right beside the ear.
Of course burying the antenna down on the bottom of a phone is one of the worst possible places for reception, but phone companies don't care about reception they care about passing certification tests. Customers apparently don't care about reception either because they did nothing but complain when antennas stuck out the top.
I think this is pretty probable. It looks like the top part of the iPhone can be used as the WI-FI and Bluetooth antenna and the whole bottom part that almost goes around the whole phone is going to be network antenna. This way if the hand is covering only the bottom part of the phone now it will have the rest of the metal to connect through.
Plus it now looks symmetrical. Two black bands on one side and the other side.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iPhone 5 will keep the form factor of iPhone 4. Apple did it once with 3G, why not again.
I hope you are wrong to some degree, and Apple does make some minor changes. It seems clear that they are addressing the antenna issues which is great, but it seems to me they still need to change the glass back panel. Yes it is a gorgeous design, and I liked it immediately, but it is still too fragile. There have been lots of cracked screens for those not using a case. I think they need to change the back panel to some sort of metal and then use their patent for putting antennas behind the apple logo. I don't want to be forced to keep a gorgeous gadget in a marginally ugly case. It kindof defeats the purpose of all that cool industrial design.
The next version of the iPhone will be the 5th generation, regardless of whether it's called iPhone 5, iPhone 4G or iPhone 4GS. (Unless the "next" version is considered the Verizon iPhone which might be essentially the same as the IP4 and more of a 4.5 gen than really 5th.)
Will the 5G iPhone have a 4G radio that work in my G6?
I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.
What am I missing?
The problem did not came from the junction itself, but by the fact that covering it made a bridge between the two metallic bands therefore changing the resonance frequency of the antenna that could no longer receive the network field. Making more junctions would allow more antennas on each iPhone, so that even if you cover one, another keeps on working.
I think Apple will call the next version iPhone 4G.
I don?t see any evidence of LTE coming to slim smartphones until at least 2012. Therefore, I don?t think they?d call it ?4G? unless they make a larger display iPhone, but I don?t think that see a window until 2013.
I don?t see any evidence of LTE coming to slim smartphones until at least 2012. Therefore, I don?t think they?d call it ?4G? unless they make a larger display iPhone, but I don?t think that see a window until 2013.
I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.
I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.
I?m not a fan of using letter and number combinations that look more like an internal model number than a marketing name, but using a number and the letter ?G? to represent generation I?m okay with and it?s pretty standard.
Verizon is deftly using it to refer to their 4th generation network overhaul though some are upset because they falsely assume that ?4G? can only refer to the ITU definition despite Verizon making no such claim to it being ?ITU 4G? and with the ?xG? predating all cellphone service.
Typically I?ll right it backwards in front of the iPhone to denote the generation of the device, but that?s just me. e.g.: G1 iPhone or G6 iPod Nano.
Perhaps it's time Apple start making the antenna system diversity. This means that there will be TWO antennas serving the same purpose and the phone simply pick the antenna with the better reception to use at any given time. What is diversity? Go here: http://proaudiosuperstore.com/faq.ht...versity%20mean
In the example of a microphone system, the microphone is the transmitter and the antenna, box, and all that stuff, would be the receiver. In the cellular phone system, the phone towers are transmitters and our cell phones are receivers. So a diversity antenna system would be awesome!
I could be misremembering this, but I believe there are only 2 "metal sections" (the cellular and wifi/bluetooth antennas) in the current IP4 design. Some of the "gaps" are merely cosmetic and the "sections" are actually joined internally. So, the number and position of "gaps" doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot about the actual antenna design.
You are right, they could be cosmetic.
They don't really look like it to me but it's certainly possible. Even more reason that discussion about the significance of the bands is really the wrong question.
I'm going to hang my hat on the idea that if they were *all* cosmetic, then the bands wouldn't be there at all, so therefore the antenna is still on the outside but reconfigured in some way. They all look like real gaps on the video too so I'm still going to stick to my original assumption that nothing about the area that previously caused the supposed problems has been changed.
I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.
It seems like you are suggesting that Apple should match the numbers to the "generation" of the phone, which has never been the case so to start doing it now would make it even more confusing.
The numbers have always referred to the technology and *not* the generation up until "iPhone 4" which was the first to have it's number match it's generation, so it's more likely the next number will reference the technology (4G) than the generation next time also.
Sounds about right. I'd say, if one correctly predicted that the antenna will be redesigned, they should be allowed to say "I told you so!"...
Nah, you only have the right to say "I told you so" when you can prove that they changed the design of the antenna. These pictures and video don't really show that.
The so-called "problem" was bridging that gap between the two antennas, which by all appearances appears to be completely unchanged on this model. It might be different, but it looks the same to me even when you enlarge it.
The burden of proof is on the naysayers here and I see nothing yet that indicates they "addressed the issue" of the antenna design in that area. Show me proof that the troublesome band has been replaced with a cosmetic version and then you can say "I told you so."
Perhaps it's time Apple start making the antenna system diversity. This means that there will be TWO antennas serving the same purpose and the phone simply pick the antenna with the better reception to use at any given time. What is diversity? Go here: http://proaudiosuperstore.com/faq.ht...versity%20mean
In the example of a microphone system, the microphone is the transmitter and the antenna, box, and all that stuff, would be the receiver. In the cellular phone system, the phone towers are transmitters and our cell phones are receivers. So a diversity antenna system would be awesome!
You said they’d tweak the HW. Well, yeah, they tweak the HW every year. Since the antenna design is different with each new iPhone model does that mean that each new iPhone is proof that the previous model had a faulty antenna design? Of course not. It only means that Apple is progressing their designs.
The people sfocal is referring to are the ones that went Chicken Little over the externally placed antenna. Most of whom seem to think that Apple would be forced to go back to an internally placed antenna, that the *new* iPhone would be out in September after the free Bumper program ended, and/or that Apple would be forced to recall each and every iPhone 4 that was sold.
To add to the confusion, who's to say what they got their hands on was a proto of the iphone 4. Apple goes through various design iteration and this just could be one of them.
Or if it is the VZ phone then that means no facetime for VZ customer. so what they an Apple decision of a VZ decision, either way the VZ customers could be getting less features than the run of the world
Nah, you only have the right to say "I told you so" when you can prove that they changed the design of the antenna. These pictures and video don't really show that.
The so-called "problem" was bridging that gap between the two antennas, which by all appearances appears to be completely unchanged on this model. It might be different, but it looks the same to me even when you enlarge it.
The burden of proof is on the naysayers here and I see nothing yet that indicates they "addressed the issue" of the antenna design in that area. Show me proof that the troublesome band has been replaced with a cosmetic version and then you can say "I told you so."
All I said was that the antenna will be redesigned, or tweaked (read my original post). I don't have proof yet, as we don't know how the new iPhone will look in the end, but the fact remains that I told you so, and I can repeat it as many times as I like. There is a chance that eventually I will have been wrong all along, the design will be unchanged, and I will look like a fool. I am taking this chance.
Comments
So the 5th gen iPhone is going to look like the 4th gen, basically? I don't think.
Why not, the 3G and 3GS are very close.
You mean the iPhone 4GS.
5th Generation will come in 2012.
You might be misunderstanding what he said. Each model year is being labeled a new generation of phone as follows:
1st Gen- Original iPhone 2007
2nd Gen- iPhone 3G 2008
3rd Gen- iPhone 3Gs 2009
4th Gen- iPhone 4 2010
5th Gen- iPhone XXX 2011
So the phone that comes out this June/July is the 5th gen iPhone. The next phone may or may not be very different from the 4, but it is still technically 5th gen.
You mean the iPhone 4GS.
5th Generation will come in 2012.
The next version of the iPhone will be the 5th generation, regardless of whether it's called iPhone 5, iPhone 4G or iPhone 4GS. (Unless the "next" version is considered the Verizon iPhone which might be essentially the same as the IP4 and more of a 4.5 gen than really 5th.)
What am I missing?
I could be misremembering this, but I believe there are only 2 "metal sections" (the cellular and wifi/bluetooth antennas) in the current IP4 design. Some of the "gaps" are merely cosmetic and the "sections" are actually joined internally. So, the number and position of "gaps" doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot about the actual antenna design.
You are right. There are only two sections and three gaps. The only real gaps are the two separating the two section and the third one is for symmetry. I think All Apple need to do is make the third gap real making three sections instead of two. The bottom section could be used as a third antenna (maybe GPS?!) or just left alone as separator. But again, an idiot will come and bridge the top gap
Why not? The 2nd and 3rd phones had the same body
My question is th placement suggests that they are putting th antenna at the top where hands won't hit it. But as I recall, the reason for a bottom antenna is that US require the antenna to be at the bottom
Antennas were moved to the bottom because testing of radiation levels is done with respect to the middle of a human head. An antenna located near the ear has a much higher reading than one located down near the mouth.
In the old days phones had antennas that stuck above the phone where they were farther from the middle of the head, but people wanted more compact phones so the antennas were chopped off and put inside the case or made retractable. Most people didn't bother pulling out their retractable antennas (or they broke them) putting the signal right beside the ear.
Of course burying the antenna down on the bottom of a phone is one of the worst possible places for reception, but phone companies don't care about reception they care about passing certification tests. Customers apparently don't care about reception either because they did nothing but complain when antennas stuck out the top.
I think this is pretty probable. It looks like the top part of the iPhone can be used as the WI-FI and Bluetooth antenna and the whole bottom part that almost goes around the whole phone is going to be network antenna. This way if the hand is covering only the bottom part of the phone now it will have the rest of the metal to connect through.
Plus it now looks symmetrical. Two black bands on one side and the other side.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iPhone 5 will keep the form factor of iPhone 4. Apple did it once with 3G, why not again.
I hope you are wrong to some degree, and Apple does make some minor changes. It seems clear that they are addressing the antenna issues which is great, but it seems to me they still need to change the glass back panel. Yes it is a gorgeous design, and I liked it immediately, but it is still too fragile. There have been lots of cracked screens for those not using a case. I think they need to change the back panel to some sort of metal and then use their patent for putting antennas behind the apple logo. I don't want to be forced to keep a gorgeous gadget in a marginally ugly case. It kindof defeats the purpose of all that cool industrial design.
The next version of the iPhone will be the 5th generation, regardless of whether it's called iPhone 5, iPhone 4G or iPhone 4GS. (Unless the "next" version is considered the Verizon iPhone which might be essentially the same as the IP4 and more of a 4.5 gen than really 5th.)
Will the 5G iPhone have a 4G radio that work in my G6?
I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.
What am I missing?
The problem did not came from the junction itself, but by the fact that covering it made a bridge between the two metallic bands therefore changing the resonance frequency of the antenna that could no longer receive the network field. Making more junctions would allow more antennas on each iPhone, so that even if you cover one, another keeps on working.
I think Apple will call the next version iPhone 4G.
I don?t see any evidence of LTE coming to slim smartphones until at least 2012. Therefore, I don?t think they?d call it ?4G? unless they make a larger display iPhone, but I don?t think that see a window until 2013.
I don?t see any evidence of LTE coming to slim smartphones until at least 2012. Therefore, I don?t think they?d call it ?4G? unless they make a larger display iPhone, but I don?t think that see a window until 2013.
I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.
I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.
I?m not a fan of using letter and number combinations that look more like an internal model number than a marketing name, but using a number and the letter ?G? to represent generation I?m okay with and it?s pretty standard.
Verizon is deftly using it to refer to their 4th generation network overhaul though some are upset because they falsely assume that ?4G? can only refer to the ITU definition despite Verizon making no such claim to it being ?ITU 4G? and with the ?xG? predating all cellphone service.
Typically I?ll right it backwards in front of the iPhone to denote the generation of the device, but that?s just me. e.g.: G1 iPhone or G6 iPod Nano.
In the example of a microphone system, the microphone is the transmitter and the antenna, box, and all that stuff, would be the receiver. In the cellular phone system, the phone towers are transmitters and our cell phones are receivers. So a diversity antenna system would be awesome!
I could be misremembering this, but I believe there are only 2 "metal sections" (the cellular and wifi/bluetooth antennas) in the current IP4 design. Some of the "gaps" are merely cosmetic and the "sections" are actually joined internally. So, the number and position of "gaps" doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot about the actual antenna design.
You are right, they could be cosmetic.
They don't really look like it to me but it's certainly possible. Even more reason that discussion about the significance of the bands is really the wrong question.
I'm going to hang my hat on the idea that if they were *all* cosmetic, then the bands wouldn't be there at all, so therefore the antenna is still on the outside but reconfigured in some way. They all look like real gaps on the video too so I'm still going to stick to my original assumption that nothing about the area that previously caused the supposed problems has been changed.
I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.
It seems like you are suggesting that Apple should match the numbers to the "generation" of the phone, which has never been the case so to start doing it now would make it even more confusing.
The numbers have always referred to the technology and *not* the generation up until "iPhone 4" which was the first to have it's number match it's generation, so it's more likely the next number will reference the technology (4G) than the generation next time also.
Sounds about right. I'd say, if one correctly predicted that the antenna will be redesigned, they should be allowed to say "I told you so!"...
Nah, you only have the right to say "I told you so" when you can prove that they changed the design of the antenna. These pictures and video don't really show that.
The so-called "problem" was bridging that gap between the two antennas, which by all appearances appears to be completely unchanged on this model. It might be different, but it looks the same to me even when you enlarge it.
The burden of proof is on the naysayers here and I see nothing yet that indicates they "addressed the issue" of the antenna design in that area. Show me proof that the troublesome band has been replaced with a cosmetic version and then you can say "I told you so."
Perhaps it's time Apple start making the antenna system diversity. This means that there will be TWO antennas serving the same purpose and the phone simply pick the antenna with the better reception to use at any given time. What is diversity? Go here: http://proaudiosuperstore.com/faq.ht...versity%20mean
In the example of a microphone system, the microphone is the transmitter and the antenna, box, and all that stuff, would be the receiver. In the cellular phone system, the phone towers are transmitters and our cell phones are receivers. So a diversity antenna system would be awesome!
Great idea!
Sounds about right. I'd say, if one correctly predicted that the antenna will be redesigned, they should be allowed to say "I told you so!"
Because hey, I told you so!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...73&postcount=2
You said they’d tweak the HW. Well, yeah, they tweak the HW every year. Since the antenna design is different with each new iPhone model does that mean that each new iPhone is proof that the previous model had a faulty antenna design? Of course not. It only means that Apple is progressing their designs.
The people sfocal is referring to are the ones that went Chicken Little over the externally placed antenna. Most of whom seem to think that Apple would be forced to go back to an internally placed antenna, that the *new* iPhone would be out in September after the free Bumper program ended, and/or that Apple would be forced to recall each and every iPhone 4 that was sold.
Or if it is the VZ phone then that means no facetime for VZ customer. so what they an Apple decision of a VZ decision, either way the VZ customers could be getting less features than the run of the world
Nah, you only have the right to say "I told you so" when you can prove that they changed the design of the antenna. These pictures and video don't really show that.
The so-called "problem" was bridging that gap between the two antennas, which by all appearances appears to be completely unchanged on this model. It might be different, but it looks the same to me even when you enlarge it.
The burden of proof is on the naysayers here and I see nothing yet that indicates they "addressed the issue" of the antenna design in that area. Show me proof that the troublesome band has been replaced with a cosmetic version and then you can say "I told you so."
All I said was that the antenna will be redesigned, or tweaked (read my original post). I don't have proof yet, as we don't know how the new iPhone will look in the end, but the fact remains that I told you so, and I can repeat it as many times as I like. There is a chance that eventually I will have been wrong all along, the design will be unchanged, and I will look like a fool. I am taking this chance.
Cheers.