Yes. This obviously is the case. Never mind that the iPhone 4S has both GSM and CDMA in one device. You're obviously right, and we should all bow to your wisdom.
Not sure how you can tell it did.
I'm not sure you want an answer to that.
Ok have it your way.
All reports of antenna problems were orchestrated by "shills" who purchased the 4 just to fabricate imaginary problems.
Apple's decision to offer free bumpers was nothing more than a coincidence (as is the current out of court settlement).
Nokia intentionally built a connection flaw into the Lumia just so that they could fix it in a matter of days and offer those affected a $100. Darn those sneaky Fins, anything to make themselves look better than Apple
All reports of antenna problems were orchestrated by "shills" who purchased the 4 just to fabricate imaginary problems.
You can't believe that this is what I've said.
Quote:
Apple's decision to offer free bumpers was nothing more than a coincidence (as is the current out of court settlement).
Coincidence? No. Evidence of a defect? No. Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
I have years upon years of evidence to prove that. The most recent of which being the exchange of six year old iPod nanos for modern models, for free, because of an actual defect. I would think that a free Bumper for every user to placate the <1% of users that even so much as claimed there was an antenna problem is a far less substantial than the actual replacement programs Apple does.
Quote:
Nokia intentionally built a connection flaw into the Lumia just so that they could fix it in a matter of days and offer those affected a $100. Darn those sneaky Fins, anything to make themselves look better than Apple
I know nothing of this nor know why it's being brought up…
Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
I have years upon years of evidence to prove that. The most recent of which being the exchange of six year old iPod nanos for modern models, for free, because of an actual defect.
They aren't replacing the nanos out of the goodness of their hearts. They're replacing them because they lost a class action lawsuit. A defect they have been denying for years.
Does this look like a company with the best customer service?
Coincidence? No. Evidence of a defect? No. Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
Yeah right....Apple was just feeling generous and gave out free cases for no reason! Apple almost never admit fault unless they absolutely have to and by giving our the free that's exactly what they did.
1) Are you denying that the iPhone 4 suffers signal loss when held which is any worse than that experienced by other phones?
2) If you are denying that, then how do you refute the signal loss figures which AnandTech obtained?
Yes, as previously noted ad nauseum the iPhone 4 WHEN HELD can connect and maintain calls when others can't. Again, you're looking at a dB value without actually understanding what the **** the means just like the asshats that only look at the CPU megahertz and camera megapixels.
Yes, as previously noted ad nauseum the iPhone 4 WHEN HELD can connect and maintain calls when others can't. Again, you're looking at a dB value without actually understanding what the **** the means just like the asshats that only look at the CPU megahertz and camera megapixels.
You are not addressing my points.
My argument is about whether there is a flaw with the antenna on the iPhone 4, as compared to other phones.
My argument is not about whether the iPhone 4 has any other strengths or features which allow it to connect or maintain calls where others can't, in spite of any possible problem with the antenna.
My argument is solely about the alleged flaw with the antenna. Whether the baseband or software has strengths which counteract any flaw with the antenna is not relevant to what I am saying.
It's a very very simple question, providing you don't complicate it. Is there a flaw with the antenna, or is there not?
My argument is about whether there is a flaw with the antenna on the iPhone 4, as compared to other phones.
My argument is not about whether the iPhone 4 has any other strengths or features which allow it to connect or maintain calls where others can't, in spite of any possible problem with the antenna.
My argument is solely about the alleged flaw with the antenna. Whether the baseband or software has strengths which counteract any flaw with the antenna is not relevant to what I am saying.
External antenna was a dumb move on Apple's part? Nope!
iPhone 4 was not able to connect to a network when held in the hand? Nope!
iPhone 4 was able to connect where other phones could not because the dB range was wider than other devices? Yep!
iPhone 4 antenna was an improvement over the 3GS, according to Anand? Yep!
iPhone 4 was never recalled, was flagship phone longer than any other iPhone, and has sold more units than any other iPhone? Yep, yep and yep?
There! I've addressed (yet again) your asinine points about the iPhone 4's fatal design flaws.
There! I've addressed (yet again) your asinine points about the iPhone 4's fatal design flaws.
You have not addressed the points about the antenna at all.
What you've done is deflected them by talking about other strong points with the phone's signal reception and about the phone's commercial success. You keep making these points, yet I'm not actually disputing them! I know that the phone was really successful, and I know that the phone can connect where other phones can't!
But my basic question still remains... does the iPhone 4, when held, suffer greater signal loss in decibels than other comparable phones due to the design of its antenna?
Also, note that I've never said that the phone had a 'fatal design flaw'. That's obviously not the case, because the phone was so successful. I'm not arguing that the flaw was fatal, just that there was a flaw.
Yeah right....Apple was just feeling generous and gave out free cases for no reason! Apple almost never admit fault unless they absolutely have to and by giving our the free that's exactly what they did.
There was a reason, but it's not the fanciful reason you think it is. It's simple economics and marketing. Note they didn't change the design, issue a recall, or continue giving away cases. It was a radical and innovative design that they continued with in their next iPhone 4S despite the claims that it was stupid to put the antenna on the outside or that no other wireless device suffers from RF loss when you block the RF.
There was a reason, but it's not the fanciful reason you think it is. It's simple economics and marketing. Note they didn't change the design, issue a recall, or continue giving away cases. It was a radical and innovative design that they continued with in their next iPhone 4S
As I've said before, they didn't continue with the design on the 4S. The 4S has two separate cellular antennas where the 4 has one. It looks the same on the outside but on the inside it's considerably different.
But my basic question still remains... does the iPhone 4, when held, suffer greater signal loss in decibels than other comparable phones due to the design of its antenna?
What about decibels are that difficult to understand. You keep saying that the range of the decibel change means it's fatal flaw but you are either trying really hard to ignore that the dB range is only viable in accordance to the levels at what the device can function or you just don't have a rudimentary understanding of HS-level science.
You can lengthen the string on a yo-yo and yet it still works fine, perhaps even better than before, yet you are claiming that additional drop due to the wider usable range means that the yo-yo is fatally flawed. That's how fraking stupid your position is.
PS: I'm still on an iPhone 4 and it has no case. Guess what? It works just fine.
As I've said before, they didn't continue with the design on the 4S. The 4S has two separate cellular antennas where the 4 has one. It looks the same on the outside but on the inside it's considerably different.
So your position now is that because they improved the design that the previous design was fatally flawed? Based on that logic then all previous anything are fatally flawed when they are improved upon in subsequent updates. Brilliant¡
What about decibels are that difficult to understand. You keep saying that the range of the decibel change means it's fatal flaw but you are either trying really hard to ignore that the dB range is only viable in accordance to the levels at what the device can function or you just don't have a rudimentary understanding of HS-level science.
1) I have never used the words 'fatal flaw'. I don't believe that the flaw was 'fatal' and I've never argued that it was.
2) I completely acknowledge the fact that the range of the decibel change might not affect the functioning of the device. Whether it does or doesn't isn't relevant to what I'm arguing. I'm just asking whether you agree that the range of decibel change indicates a flaw with the antenna, when seen in isolation from any other elements of the phone. You seem to be coming up with all sorts of creative arguments to avoid admitting it.
So your position now is that because they improved the design that the previous design was fatally flawed? Based on that logic then all previous anything are fatally flawed when they are improved upon in subsequent updates. Brilliant¡
Nah, I don't think that. I'm not using the change to support my argument that the previous design was flawed. I've got no idea why they changed it other than that it's a superior system, which is a good enough reason in itself.
I'm saying that you can't use the continuity in the design to support the argument that there was no flaw, because they did change the design.
What about decibels are that difficult to understand. You keep saying that the range of the decibel change means it's fatal flaw but you are either trying really hard to ignore that the dB range is only viable in accordance to the levels at what the device can function or you just don't have a rudimentary understanding of HS-level science.
1) I have never used the words 'fatal flaw'. I don't believe that the flaw was 'fatal' and I've never argued that it was.
2) I completely acknowledge the fact that the range of the decibel change might not affect the functioning of the device. Whether it does or doesn't isn't relevant to what I'm arguing. I'm just asking whether you agree that the range of decibel change indicates a flaw with the antenna, when seen in isolation from any other elements of the phone. You seem to be coming up with all sorts of creative arguments to avoid admitting it.
I'm curious about the apparent fascination with the term "flaw" that this argument has engendered. All antenna designs represent performance compromises. If, in the iPhone 4, Apple designed an antenna/receiver combination that performs extremely well in actual use, does one metric, namely a larger signal strength drop at the receiver front end from an uncorrelated initial strength, make the design flawed? Or just that design's particular tradeoff to get the target performance, which is presumably what actually counts. That's assuming that the issue is real - I've never actually been able to replicate it on my IP4.
I'm curious about the apparent fascination with the term "flaw" that this argument has engendered. All antenna designs represent performance compromises. If, in the iPhone 4, Apple designed an antenna/receiver combination that performs extremely well in actual use, does one metric, namely a larger signal strength drop at the receiver front end from an uncorrelated initial strength, make the design flawed? Or just that design's particular tradeoff to get the target performance, which is presumably what actually counts. That's assuming that the issue is real - I've never actually been able to replicate it on my IP4.
Adding to that, let's not forget that this entire issue came about not because the public at large was reading AnandTech and focused on the signal variance compared to other devices, but because the arbitrarily defined bars showed a drop from being gripped a certain way and not being held at all.
It's amazing that in 2012 people are still thinking that the bars have actual meaning outside of more or less dB and have absolutely zero effect on the ability to make, receive or maintain a call in and of themselves. As I previously noted, Apple did mess up with the iPhone 4, but it was a lack of attention to detail in not adjusting the way the bars are being represented which is why this whole issue got started in the first place.
PS: I understand when the average person doesn't have a clue about how technology works but when someone comes to a technology-based internet forum I do expect them to have a better understanding of technology. Sadly, I expect too much of some forum posters.
Coincidence? No. Evidence of a defect? No. Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
I have years upon years of evidence to prove that. The most recent of which being the exchange of six year old iPod nanos for modern models, for free, because of an actual defect. I would think that a free Bumper for every user to placate the <1% of users that even so much as claimed there was an antenna problem is a far less substantial than the actual replacement programs Apple does.
I know nothing of this nor know why it's being brought up…
Apologies, the suggestion that all complaints were by shills came from jragosta and not you.You were replying to my reply to him so I merged my responses.
Not sure how you define "best customer service on the planet". I would agree that AntennaGate aside Apple do (often) have very good customer services but would suggest that replacing a low value nano because of a class action is perhaps not quite as good as, for example, Belkin's lifetime waranty... I have had 7 year old routers that died of old age that were swapped out for the cureent equivilent. As an aside, I have had reason to complain about intentional misselling of AppleCare.
I mention Nokia to show an example of a firm that seems to have learned lessons from the AntennaGate debacle.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes. This obviously is the case. Never mind that the iPhone 4S has both GSM and CDMA in one device. You're obviously right, and we should all bow to your wisdom.
Not sure how you can tell it did.
I'm not sure you want an answer to that.
Ok have it your way.
All reports of antenna problems were orchestrated by "shills" who purchased the 4 just to fabricate imaginary problems.
Apple's decision to offer free bumpers was nothing more than a coincidence (as is the current out of court settlement).
Nokia intentionally built a connection flaw into the Lumia just so that they could fix it in a matter of days and offer those affected a $100. Darn those sneaky Fins, anything to make themselves look better than Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
All reports of antenna problems were orchestrated by "shills" who purchased the 4 just to fabricate imaginary problems.
You can't believe that this is what I've said.
Quote:
Apple's decision to offer free bumpers was nothing more than a coincidence (as is the current out of court settlement).
Coincidence? No. Evidence of a defect? No. Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
I have years upon years of evidence to prove that. The most recent of which being the exchange of six year old iPod nanos for modern models, for free, because of an actual defect. I would think that a free Bumper for every user to placate the <1% of users that even so much as claimed there was an antenna problem is a far less substantial than the actual replacement programs Apple does.
Quote:
Nokia intentionally built a connection flaw into the Lumia just so that they could fix it in a matter of days and offer those affected a $100. Darn those sneaky Fins, anything to make themselves look better than Apple
I know nothing of this nor know why it's being brought up…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
I have years upon years of evidence to prove that. The most recent of which being the exchange of six year old iPod nanos for modern models, for free, because of an actual defect.
They aren't replacing the nanos out of the goodness of their hearts. They're replacing them because they lost a class action lawsuit. A defect they have been denying for years.
Does this look like a company with the best customer service?
Phone 4 Settlement https://www.iphone4settlement.com/
MagSafe Power Adapter Settlement https://www.adaptersettlement.com/
Ipod Settlement http://www.appleipodsettlement.com
Apple Inc. Securities Settlement https://www.applesecuritiessettlement.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles77
The countdown is for 96 days from now. What thinks ye that be for?
Tbh, this smells a lot more like a Microsoft campaign than Samsung.
96 days is about 3 months. 3 months is about July. July or sometime in summer. Perhaps OS X Mountain Lion? Just thinking about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
Erm does that include "junk" made with Samsung components?
BTW next time get a Miele washing machine if you want quality, Electrolux are crap by comparison.
Also iPad display and the iPhone processors made by Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Coincidence? No. Evidence of a defect? No. Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
Yeah right....Apple was just feeling generous and gave out free cases for no reason! Apple almost never admit fault unless they absolutely have to and by giving our the free that's exactly what they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Coincidence? No. Evidence of a defect? No. Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
OK, let's be as clear as possible about this.
1) Do you deny that the iPhone 4 suffers signal loss when held which is worse than that experienced by other phones?
2) If you are denying that, then how do you refute the signal loss figures which AnandTech obtained?
Yes, as previously noted ad nauseum the iPhone 4 WHEN HELD can connect and maintain calls when others can't. Again, you're looking at a dB value without actually understanding what the **** the means just like the asshats that only look at the CPU megahertz and camera megapixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Yes, as previously noted ad nauseum the iPhone 4 WHEN HELD can connect and maintain calls when others can't. Again, you're looking at a dB value without actually understanding what the **** the means just like the asshats that only look at the CPU megahertz and camera megapixels.
You are not addressing my points.
My argument is about whether there is a flaw with the antenna on the iPhone 4, as compared to other phones.
My argument is not about whether the iPhone 4 has any other strengths or features which allow it to connect or maintain calls where others can't, in spite of any possible problem with the antenna.
My argument is solely about the alleged flaw with the antenna. Whether the baseband or software has strengths which counteract any flaw with the antenna is not relevant to what I am saying.
It's a very very simple question, providing you don't complicate it. Is there a flaw with the antenna, or is there not?
External antenna was a dumb move on Apple's part? Nope!
iPhone 4 was not able to connect to a network when held in the hand? Nope!
iPhone 4 was able to connect where other phones could not because the dB range was wider than other devices? Yep!
iPhone 4 antenna was an improvement over the 3GS, according to Anand? Yep!
iPhone 4 was never recalled, was flagship phone longer than any other iPhone, and has sold more units than any other iPhone? Yep, yep and yep?
There! I've addressed (yet again) your asinine points about the iPhone 4's fatal design flaws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There! I've addressed (yet again) your asinine points about the iPhone 4's fatal design flaws.
You have not addressed the points about the antenna at all.
What you've done is deflected them by talking about other strong points with the phone's signal reception and about the phone's commercial success. You keep making these points, yet I'm not actually disputing them! I know that the phone was really successful, and I know that the phone can connect where other phones can't!
But my basic question still remains... does the iPhone 4, when held, suffer greater signal loss in decibels than other comparable phones due to the design of its antenna?
Also, note that I've never said that the phone had a 'fatal design flaw'. That's obviously not the case, because the phone was so successful. I'm not arguing that the flaw was fatal, just that there was a flaw.
There was a reason, but it's not the fanciful reason you think it is. It's simple economics and marketing. Note they didn't change the design, issue a recall, or continue giving away cases. It was a radical and innovative design that they continued with in their next iPhone 4S despite the claims that it was stupid to put the antenna on the outside or that no other wireless device suffers from RF loss when you block the RF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There was a reason, but it's not the fanciful reason you think it is. It's simple economics and marketing. Note they didn't change the design, issue a recall, or continue giving away cases. It was a radical and innovative design that they continued with in their next iPhone 4S
As I've said before, they didn't continue with the design on the 4S. The 4S has two separate cellular antennas where the 4 has one. It looks the same on the outside but on the inside it's considerably different.
What about decibels are that difficult to understand. You keep saying that the range of the decibel change means it's fatal flaw but you are either trying really hard to ignore that the dB range is only viable in accordance to the levels at what the device can function or you just don't have a rudimentary understanding of HS-level science.
You can lengthen the string on a yo-yo and yet it still works fine, perhaps even better than before, yet you are claiming that additional drop due to the wider usable range means that the yo-yo is fatally flawed. That's how fraking stupid your position is.
PS: I'm still on an iPhone 4 and it has no case. Guess what? It works just fine.
So your position now is that because they improved the design that the previous design was fatally flawed? Based on that logic then all previous anything are fatally flawed when they are improved upon in subsequent updates. Brilliant¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What about decibels are that difficult to understand. You keep saying that the range of the decibel change means it's fatal flaw but you are either trying really hard to ignore that the dB range is only viable in accordance to the levels at what the device can function or you just don't have a rudimentary understanding of HS-level science.
1) I have never used the words 'fatal flaw'. I don't believe that the flaw was 'fatal' and I've never argued that it was.
2) I completely acknowledge the fact that the range of the decibel change might not affect the functioning of the device. Whether it does or doesn't isn't relevant to what I'm arguing. I'm just asking whether you agree that the range of decibel change indicates a flaw with the antenna, when seen in isolation from any other elements of the phone. You seem to be coming up with all sorts of creative arguments to avoid admitting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So your position now is that because they improved the design that the previous design was fatally flawed? Based on that logic then all previous anything are fatally flawed when they are improved upon in subsequent updates. Brilliant¡
Nah, I don't think that. I'm not using the change to support my argument that the previous design was flawed. I've got no idea why they changed it other than that it's a superior system, which is a good enough reason in itself.
I'm saying that you can't use the continuity in the design to support the argument that there was no flaw, because they did change the design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What about decibels are that difficult to understand. You keep saying that the range of the decibel change means it's fatal flaw but you are either trying really hard to ignore that the dB range is only viable in accordance to the levels at what the device can function or you just don't have a rudimentary understanding of HS-level science.
1) I have never used the words 'fatal flaw'. I don't believe that the flaw was 'fatal' and I've never argued that it was.
2) I completely acknowledge the fact that the range of the decibel change might not affect the functioning of the device. Whether it does or doesn't isn't relevant to what I'm arguing. I'm just asking whether you agree that the range of decibel change indicates a flaw with the antenna, when seen in isolation from any other elements of the phone. You seem to be coming up with all sorts of creative arguments to avoid admitting it.
I'm curious about the apparent fascination with the term "flaw" that this argument has engendered. All antenna designs represent performance compromises. If, in the iPhone 4, Apple designed an antenna/receiver combination that performs extremely well in actual use, does one metric, namely a larger signal strength drop at the receiver front end from an uncorrelated initial strength, make the design flawed? Or just that design's particular tradeoff to get the target performance, which is presumably what actually counts. That's assuming that the issue is real - I've never actually been able to replicate it on my IP4.
Adding to that, let's not forget that this entire issue came about not because the public at large was reading AnandTech and focused on the signal variance compared to other devices, but because the arbitrarily defined bars showed a drop from being gripped a certain way and not being held at all.
It's amazing that in 2012 people are still thinking that the bars have actual meaning outside of more or less dB and have absolutely zero effect on the ability to make, receive or maintain a call in and of themselves. As I previously noted, Apple did mess up with the iPhone 4, but it was a lack of attention to detail in not adjusting the way the bars are being represented which is why this whole issue got started in the first place.
PS: I understand when the average person doesn't have a clue about how technology works but when someone comes to a technology-based internet forum I do expect them to have a better understanding of technology. Sadly, I expect too much of some forum posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You can't believe that this is what I've said.
Coincidence? No. Evidence of a defect? No. Standard operating procedure for the company with the best customer service on the planet? Yes.
I have years upon years of evidence to prove that. The most recent of which being the exchange of six year old iPod nanos for modern models, for free, because of an actual defect. I would think that a free Bumper for every user to placate the <1% of users that even so much as claimed there was an antenna problem is a far less substantial than the actual replacement programs Apple does.
I know nothing of this nor know why it's being brought up…
Apologies, the suggestion that all complaints were by shills came from jragosta and not you.You were replying to my reply to him so I merged my responses.
Not sure how you define "best customer service on the planet". I would agree that AntennaGate aside Apple do (often) have very good customer services but would suggest that replacing a low value nano because of a class action is perhaps not quite as good as, for example, Belkin's lifetime waranty... I have had 7 year old routers that died of old age that were swapped out for the cureent equivilent. As an aside, I have had reason to complain about intentional misselling of AppleCare.
I mention Nokia to show an example of a firm that seems to have learned lessons from the AntennaGate debacle.