There are a lot of fanboy responses here ripping on Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports is a reputable organization. Their product reviews are typically very well researched, and carry weight among buyers who like to find out more about products before they buy. I'd bet that most Apple product users are early adopters, so it's no surprise that they don't understand this segment of the market.
So we've got an ongoing antenna issue with Apple iPhones, they report it, so you conclude that the website is irrelevant. Awesome stuff.
It's not that simple. I am a thirty-year CR subscriber--first the paper and now the electronic version. I had been thinking of dropping my subscription for a several years before the iPhone 4 hit the market. Most times I would go to the site to check on a product I was thinking of buying I found the information lacking in the following ways. 1) the product I was interested in wasn't tested, 2) the brand I was looking at wasn't included in the test, 3) the test results were cursory, 4) the times I did buy a recommended product I often found the product severely lacking in ways that were not identified in the testing. In other words, I am finding that either I take what they say with a grain of salt, or don't bother to even check. If it weren't for the automatic renewal I would probably have cancelled by now. The iPhone 4 thing is no surprise to me at all. The sad thing is for many years CR wasn't this way at all. I don't know what has changed with them, but something has, and it has nothing to do with the iPhone.
All RF signals can be attenuated by standing in front of, holding antennas, etc. The problem here is that they do appear to have something to prove against Apple. I work in the Wireless RF field and I can tell you all cell phones have signal problems. iPhones do not in general have any more signal problems than any other cell phone. iPhones with the external antennas perform better even with these so called attenuation problems than most other phones due to most phones having their antennas totally inside. Most cell phone manufacturers call it good to have an antenna with a -6db return loss. This simply means very inefficient performance. The iPhone antennas perform much better than those with internal antennas.
That's what I figured, that the benefits of moving the antenna outside outweigh the drawbacks. The question is, can they make it even better by tackling the contact issue?
It's not that simple. I am a thirty-year CR subscriber--first the paper and now the electronic version. I had been thinking of dropping my subscription for a several years before the iPhone 4 hit the market. Most times I would go to the site to check on a product I was thinking of buying I found the information lacking in the following ways. 1) the product I was interested in wasn't tested, 2) the brand I was looking at wasn't included in the test, 3) the test results were cursory, 4) the times I did buy a recommended product I often found the product severely lacking in ways that were not identified in the testing. In other words, I am finding that either I take what they say with a grain of salt, or don't bother to even check. If it weren't for the automatic renewal I would probably have cancelled by now. The iPhone 4 thing is no surprise to me at all. The sad thing is for many years CR wasn't this way at all. I don't know what has changed with them, but something has, and it has nothing to do with the iPhone.
I think there is a market for a site that focuses on testing CE throughouly. From HW to SW, from physical durability, to security, to battery life to ease of use for the techtarded. Something thorough and complete the way the iFixit made an art of the teardown.
I can see this company/site also linking to and comparing to other reviews by the major tech writers today, but also encompassing other electronics that would cross into CR?s territory, but not so much as to include toothpaste and peanut butter.
There are a lot of fanboy responses here ripping on Consumer Reports.
On this issue it's more than deserved.
Quote:
Consumer Reports is a reputable organization. Their product reviews are typically very well researched, and carry weight among buyers who like to find out more about products before they buy.
Their testing methodology - that of which they shared, anyway, is laughable.
It's funny that vendors who were publicly poking fun of Apple suddenly stopped when scans of their owners manuals showing users how not to hold their phones - in manners amazingly similar to Apple's instructions - started to surface.
It's a total non-issue and why Apple didn't change the design. Indeed, the external antenna design - aside from the extremely small use case of gripping the phone a particular way - beats the pants off of my 3GS - which I still have and occasionally use with a pay-as-you-go SIM.
The real "fix" is putting an extendable antenna back on the phones, but we know how well those were rejected early on
The iPhone 4 has the additional challenge of letting contact with the antenna interfere with the flow of the electrical signal in the antenna itself.
Please stop spewing misinformation. High Frequency Radio energy does not flow like electricity. Indeed, it's properties are quite different. Proximity to the antenna is the major factor, and it's subject to the inverse square law. Even a "small" distance such as that provided by the bumper case provides a huge difference in performance. It has little to nothing to do with "bridging" the gap.
Interesting that Consumer Reports cannot recommend this hottest, biggest selling smartphone in the history of smartphones. It looks like they want to be contrarians to appear relevant.
"The problem is similar to the one we confirmed in July with the AT&T version of Apple's newest smart phone," the post reads. "It can occur when you hold either version of the phone in a specific but quite natural way in which a gap in the phone's external casing is covered.
What problem?
This is the best goddamn phone my wife ever had and minus iTunes slow loading on her crappy notebook, everything is just perfect. Quality, Built, Design, OS.. all top notch.
No attenuation whatsoever. (Yes, I tried.. so hard)
So the rule is you can only post about products that are available for you to buy? You may want to stop posting on this site then since it specializes in news and rumors about products none of us can buy yet.
Does it? Nothing on this site is about shipping products? Wow, you must not come here much, I mean, after all we are talking about the CDMA iPhone, which I understood was available for sale.
But in saying that, why does an Australian care about an American only magazine talking about an American only released product?
My iPhone works in my house where my old Blackberry was iffy, the Blackberry worked fine in the small drop call zone near my house where the iPhone drops calls routinely....GoFigure
Consumer Reports hasn't been a reputable organization for at least 30 years. Their product reviews are not well researched and carry weight only with people who know nothing about the subject. Their product reviews, most often, evaluate items on irrelevant criteria, or improperly weight the criteria they do use. Other phones have been shown, by others, to have similar problems, but CR isn't testing all phones for this problem, just the iPhone. Their review is as illegitimate as their entire organization is.
And, what, you ask is their motivation to keep hyping this in the press? They are "independent", right? So we must be able to trust them?
Their positions and salary depend on how many subscribers they bring in. In the iPhone 4 they've created what they think will be a cash cow for them out of an issue that's a non-issue and hope to increase their subscriber rolls as a result. Essentially, they've become the page hit whores that so many bloggers and news sites became long ago.
Or alternatively, they are correct, the iphone 4 does have a flaw which has been replicated in the Verizon version and you all are too blinkered to admit it. If they had come out and said it was fine you would be trumpeting the report from the rooftops.
Virtually every call? you mean more than 50%? Occurring in different places? I would say you had a defective unit. Not AT&T's fault, not Apple's fault, just a part of product manufacturing where there is always a defect rate no matter how small it may be.
Yes, more than 50%, almost all (definately more than 60% of the calls dropped). It didn't seem to matter where I was, dropped calls occurred everywhere. I would talk to people on the iPhone 4, the call would drop, I'd call back, usually that call would drop, people would ask me 'what's wrong with your phone?' I'd get tired of the dropped calls (and people asking 'what's wrong with your phone); I'd finally call them back from a land line.
I put up with it for 3 1/2 weeks (you only get 1 month to return the phone), I had to make an executive decision to either keep it or return it. By this time, all the antenna-gate stuff was coming out. I decided to return it, despite loving everything about the phone but the dropped calls. I figured there was an antenna design problem.
Maybe I had a defective phone but after 3 1/2 weeks, I only had a few days left before my one month return policy expired. I wasn't going to chance being stuck with a problem phone.
Curious........around the holidays (Christmas 2010), I went to the local Apple Store; I thought I might give the iPhone 4 another try. Maybe they fixed the antenna...... I started to talk with an Apple store employee. I told her of my iPhone 4 experience from June/July, all the dropped calls and returning the phone. Her reply was that if I expected a new iPhone 4 to be as good at not dropping calls as the current 3GS I was using, I would be very disappointed.
Or alternatively, they are correct, the iphone 4 does have a flaw which has been replicated in the Verizon version and you all are too blinkered to admit it. If they had come out and said it was fine you would be trumpeting the report from the rooftops.
After my bad experience with iPhone 4 and/or AT&T, I'm waiting for the iPhone 5. I'll stay with AT&T because talking on the cell phone AND being able to surf the web at the same time is a deal breaker for me!
I've read the iPhone 5 has a redesigned antenna, different camera, better battery life, more speed, faster processor, etc., I can only hope, they (Apple), gets this one right!
Or alternatively, they are correct, the iphone 4 does have a flaw which has been replicated in the Verizon version and you all are too blinkered to admit it. If they had come out and said it was fine you would be trumpeting the report from the rooftops.
Seems like it just needs to be rethought entirely. I'm not sure if the iPad design would be any better for reception or even pass FCC guidelines but I think it would make a for a neat phone:
No shattering, no scratching, easy to hold as it's curved, no cracking back plastic like 3G/3GS, no complaining about a white model, no light interference on the camera.
I've read the iPhone 5 has a redesigned antenna, different camera, better battery life, more speed, faster processor, etc., I can only hope, they (Apple), gets this one right!
Same goes for the iPhone 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. Most, if not all, of the items you mentioned will be updated each year. Even the displays are updated each year even though the display resolution stayed the same for 3 years.
Or alternatively, they are correct, the iphone 4 does have a flaw which has been replicated in the Verizon version and you all are too blinkered to admit it. If they had come out and said it was fine you would be trumpeting the report from the rooftops.
If they had said it was fine, we'd all be completely ignoring them, which is exactly why they've said that while it's their highest rated phone, they can't recommend it, to generate headlines. Think about that -- it's their highest rated phone, but they don't recommend it --- and what it says about their entire review process. Isn't something inherently wrong with their review process, even if we assume their non-recommendation is legitimate?
Comments
There are a lot of fanboy responses here ripping on Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports is a reputable organization. Their product reviews are typically very well researched, and carry weight among buyers who like to find out more about products before they buy. I'd bet that most Apple product users are early adopters, so it's no surprise that they don't understand this segment of the market.
So we've got an ongoing antenna issue with Apple iPhones, they report it, so you conclude that the website is irrelevant. Awesome stuff.
It's not that simple. I am a thirty-year CR subscriber--first the paper and now the electronic version. I had been thinking of dropping my subscription for a several years before the iPhone 4 hit the market. Most times I would go to the site to check on a product I was thinking of buying I found the information lacking in the following ways. 1) the product I was interested in wasn't tested, 2) the brand I was looking at wasn't included in the test, 3) the test results were cursory, 4) the times I did buy a recommended product I often found the product severely lacking in ways that were not identified in the testing. In other words, I am finding that either I take what they say with a grain of salt, or don't bother to even check. If it weren't for the automatic renewal I would probably have cancelled by now. The iPhone 4 thing is no surprise to me at all. The sad thing is for many years CR wasn't this way at all. I don't know what has changed with them, but something has, and it has nothing to do with the iPhone.
All RF signals can be attenuated by standing in front of, holding antennas, etc. The problem here is that they do appear to have something to prove against Apple. I work in the Wireless RF field and I can tell you all cell phones have signal problems. iPhones do not in general have any more signal problems than any other cell phone. iPhones with the external antennas perform better even with these so called attenuation problems than most other phones due to most phones having their antennas totally inside. Most cell phone manufacturers call it good to have an antenna with a -6db return loss. This simply means very inefficient performance. The iPhone antennas perform much better than those with internal antennas.
That's what I figured, that the benefits of moving the antenna outside outweigh the drawbacks. The question is, can they make it even better by tackling the contact issue?
It's not that simple. I am a thirty-year CR subscriber--first the paper and now the electronic version. I had been thinking of dropping my subscription for a several years before the iPhone 4 hit the market. Most times I would go to the site to check on a product I was thinking of buying I found the information lacking in the following ways. 1) the product I was interested in wasn't tested, 2) the brand I was looking at wasn't included in the test, 3) the test results were cursory, 4) the times I did buy a recommended product I often found the product severely lacking in ways that were not identified in the testing. In other words, I am finding that either I take what they say with a grain of salt, or don't bother to even check. If it weren't for the automatic renewal I would probably have cancelled by now. The iPhone 4 thing is no surprise to me at all. The sad thing is for many years CR wasn't this way at all. I don't know what has changed with them, but something has, and it has nothing to do with the iPhone.
I think there is a market for a site that focuses on testing CE throughouly. From HW to SW, from physical durability, to security, to battery life to ease of use for the techtarded. Something thorough and complete the way the iFixit made an art of the teardown.
I can see this company/site also linking to and comparing to other reviews by the major tech writers today, but also encompassing other electronics that would cross into CR?s territory, but not so much as to include toothpaste and peanut butter.
There are a lot of fanboy responses here ripping on Consumer Reports.
On this issue it's more than deserved.
Consumer Reports is a reputable organization. Their product reviews are typically very well researched, and carry weight among buyers who like to find out more about products before they buy.
Their testing methodology - that of which they shared, anyway, is laughable.
It's funny that vendors who were publicly poking fun of Apple suddenly stopped when scans of their owners manuals showing users how not to hold their phones - in manners amazingly similar to Apple's instructions - started to surface.
It's a total non-issue and why Apple didn't change the design. Indeed, the external antenna design - aside from the extremely small use case of gripping the phone a particular way - beats the pants off of my 3GS - which I still have and occasionally use with a pay-as-you-go SIM.
The real "fix" is putting an extendable antenna back on the phones, but we know how well those were rejected early on
The iPhone 4 has the additional challenge of letting contact with the antenna interfere with the flow of the electrical signal in the antenna itself.
Please stop spewing misinformation. High Frequency Radio energy does not flow like electricity. Indeed, it's properties are quite different. Proximity to the antenna is the major factor, and it's subject to the inverse square law. Even a "small" distance such as that provided by the bumper case provides a huge difference in performance. It has little to nothing to do with "bridging" the gap.
And even less to do with CR's "conclusions"
Interesting that Consumer Reports cannot recommend this hottest, biggest selling smartphone in the history of smartphones. It looks like they want to be contrarians to appear relevant.
The glass is 1.7% empty
...non-issue, got burned on a CR highly rated weed trimmer (B&D GH1000)...
You should have done what I did, took note of what the council workers were using in parks and on sides of roads.
Bought a Tanaka 10 years ago, changed the air and petrol filters and the spark plug a couple of times, starts first pull, hasn't missed a beat.
"The problem is similar to the one we confirmed in July with the AT&T version of Apple's newest smart phone," the post reads. "It can occur when you hold either version of the phone in a specific but quite natural way in which a gap in the phone's external casing is covered.
What problem?
This is the best goddamn phone my wife ever had and minus iTunes slow loading on her crappy notebook, everything is just perfect. Quality, Built, Design, OS.. all top notch.
No attenuation whatsoever. (Yes, I tried.. so hard)
So the rule is you can only post about products that are available for you to buy? You may want to stop posting on this site then since it specializes in news and rumors about products none of us can buy yet.
Does it? Nothing on this site is about shipping products? Wow, you must not come here much, I mean, after all we are talking about the CDMA iPhone, which I understood was available for sale.
But in saying that, why does an Australian care about an American only magazine talking about an American only released product?
Consumer Reports hasn't been a reputable organization for at least 30 years. Their product reviews are not well researched and carry weight only with people who know nothing about the subject. Their product reviews, most often, evaluate items on irrelevant criteria, or improperly weight the criteria they do use. Other phones have been shown, by others, to have similar problems, but CR isn't testing all phones for this problem, just the iPhone. Their review is as illegitimate as their entire organization is.
And, what, you ask is their motivation to keep hyping this in the press? They are "independent", right? So we must be able to trust them?
Their positions and salary depend on how many subscribers they bring in. In the iPhone 4 they've created what they think will be a cash cow for them out of an issue that's a non-issue and hope to increase their subscriber rolls as a result. Essentially, they've become the page hit whores that so many bloggers and news sites became long ago.
Or alternatively, they are correct, the iphone 4 does have a flaw which has been replicated in the Verizon version and you all are too blinkered to admit it. If they had come out and said it was fine you would be trumpeting the report from the rooftops.
Virtually every call? you mean more than 50%? Occurring in different places? I would say you had a defective unit. Not AT&T's fault, not Apple's fault, just a part of product manufacturing where there is always a defect rate no matter how small it may be.
Yes, more than 50%, almost all (definately more than 60% of the calls dropped). It didn't seem to matter where I was, dropped calls occurred everywhere. I would talk to people on the iPhone 4, the call would drop, I'd call back, usually that call would drop, people would ask me 'what's wrong with your phone?' I'd get tired of the dropped calls (and people asking 'what's wrong with your phone); I'd finally call them back from a land line.
I put up with it for 3 1/2 weeks (you only get 1 month to return the phone), I had to make an executive decision to either keep it or return it. By this time, all the antenna-gate stuff was coming out. I decided to return it, despite loving everything about the phone but the dropped calls. I figured there was an antenna design problem.
Maybe I had a defective phone but after 3 1/2 weeks, I only had a few days left before my one month return policy expired. I wasn't going to chance being stuck with a problem phone.
Curious........around the holidays (Christmas 2010), I went to the local Apple Store; I thought I might give the iPhone 4 another try. Maybe they fixed the antenna...... I started to talk with an Apple store employee. I told her of my iPhone 4 experience from June/July, all the dropped calls and returning the phone. Her reply was that if I expected a new iPhone 4 to be as good at not dropping calls as the current 3GS I was using, I would be very disappointed.
Or alternatively, they are correct, the iphone 4 does have a flaw which has been replicated in the Verizon version and you all are too blinkered to admit it. If they had come out and said it was fine you would be trumpeting the report from the rooftops.
Spot on!
iPhone 5 is just around the corner though.
I've read the iPhone 5 has a redesigned antenna, different camera, better battery life, more speed, faster processor, etc., I can only hope, they (Apple), gets this one right!
Or alternatively, they are correct, the iphone 4 does have a flaw which has been replicated in the Verizon version and you all are too blinkered to admit it. If they had come out and said it was fine you would be trumpeting the report from the rooftops.
Seems like it just needs to be rethought entirely. I'm not sure if the iPad design would be any better for reception or even pass FCC guidelines but I think it would make a for a neat phone:
No shattering, no scratching, easy to hold as it's curved, no cracking back plastic like 3G/3GS, no complaining about a white model, no light interference on the camera.
I've read the iPhone 5 has a redesigned antenna, different camera, better battery life, more speed, faster processor, etc., I can only hope, they (Apple), gets this one right!
Same goes for the iPhone 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. Most, if not all, of the items you mentioned will be updated each year. Even the displays are updated each year even though the display resolution stayed the same for 3 years.
Or alternatively, they are correct, the iphone 4 does have a flaw which has been replicated in the Verizon version and you all are too blinkered to admit it. If they had come out and said it was fine you would be trumpeting the report from the rooftops.
If they had said it was fine, we'd all be completely ignoring them, which is exactly why they've said that while it's their highest rated phone, they can't recommend it, to generate headlines. Think about that -- it's their highest rated phone, but they don't recommend it --- and what it says about their entire review process. Isn't something inherently wrong with their review process, even if we assume their non-recommendation is legitimate?