Why would someone who cares about design create a metal bumper that they had to know would block the antennas? Why is this review so positive? Was this post supposed to come out on April Fools' Day?
After reading the article the bumper sounded great. I thought, "maybe I'll splurge and spend $15 on a bumper instead of $5". $80 is ridiculous, even offensive. $20 would even be too much.
Especially for a bumper which has been shown to have a 20 db impact on reception. 20 db is HUGE - far, far more than the 5-10% they're claiming.
Sorry, $79 for a case is too expensive, especially considering the loss of signal. After the 'antenna-gate' mess surrounding iPhone 4, why would they design a case that essentially creates the same effect?
"decrease in reception strength of about -20 dBm, "
This is sloppy and the author can't be right. The sentence may also be a double negative. 20dB is a horrific reduction in signal. They can't have meant that. -20dB IS a reduction. decreasing by -20dB means increasing. -20 dBm (note the m) is an absolute measurement, not a delta. The sentence is like saying reducing by sea-level when they meant reducing TO sea-level. The correct wording might have been "decrease in reception TO about -20dBm". Dunno. -20dBm means 100th of a milliWatt. That's an awfully large signal to be expecting to receive. If the cellphone is truly that insensitive with the cover on, I wouldn't expect it to work unless you were leaning against the cell-tower. As I understand it , decent receive sensitivity is around -120dBm which means a 1000000000000th of a milliwatt. See the difference?
So, reducing by 20dB is horrific, likened to to putting the phone in a engineering shielded box. Reducing it to -20dBm is more like clipping the radio out altogether!
On the iPhone, the gaps in the metal are not "through which radio waves can pass". This is ignorant. The reason the gaps are there are so the separate pieces of metal can serve as antenna. What the author said is much like saying that an old fashioned car antenna has the rubber insulator at the base to let the radio waves pass. Also wrong. What the rubber insulator at the base is for is so the antenna is separate electrically from the body of the car. Same with the gaps in the cellphone body.
By putting aluminum willy-nilly around the antenna of the cellphone, the shape of the radiation pattern of the antennas is very badly affected. This kind of tosses out the "design effort" Apple put into making the antennas in the first place. You do NOT want to put metal around the cellphone. This is truly awful. The good news is that your cellphone won't be broken by slamming it into a rock. The bad news is that its usefulness as a cellphone is reduced. Doh!
My rubber and plastic bumper case for iPhone 5 weighs [B][SIZE=4]7.76 grams[/SIZE][/B]--or a tad less if totally clean--which is nearly half the weight of "m"s and cost $10 on Amazon in October 2012. I wouldn't want it any heavier, nor would I want metal interfering with reception. No data to support it, but I believe the rubber and plastic combination also provides better shock protection than aluminum.
Typical 2013 reporting style is exhibited here: echo the subject's words without verification. [B][SIZE=4]The Designed by m is almost twice the weight of other bumpers.[/SIZE][/B] It certainly is "incredible" that the weight of the m is nearly half that of others... because it's not.
I wouldn't buy it, nor any bumper at any price because the iPhone by itself fits perfectly into my belt holster. Anything around the edges or back would cause it not to fit the holster
While the design may be good, the weight ,performance drop and high price definitely kills this accessory.
Why would I want to take away from the reception or increase the weight of the phone so much. The heavier the iphone is the harder it hits the ground and more likely to break.
Bottom Line: These guys haven't accomplished anything.
Is this article actually an advert or is it a paid placement?
Why would I buy a very expensive casing for my phone that very effectively dampens its radio transmission/reception anyway? This isn't 'news' and if it deserves a place anywhere on this site, it should be on the 'back page'. Sorry, but that's my opinion.
It does read like a paid ad. Sometimes this site's editorial management is inscrutable, a site that wants to be taken at all seriously would avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
My rubber and plastic bumper case for iPhone 5 weighs 7.76 grams--or a tad less if totally clean--which is nearly half the weight of "m"s and cost $10 on Amazon in October 2012. I wouldn't want it any heavier, nor would I want metal interfering with reception. No data to support it, but I believe the rubber and plastic combination also provides better shock protection than aluminum.
I don't believe aluminum provides more than a small percentage as much shock protection as plastic or rubber.
Mapp told <em>AppleInsider</em> the mantra of his company is to create products with a "clean, simple but awesome design." Sounds a bit like something Apple's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design Jonathan Ive would say.
no, actually, it does not sound like something Sir Jonathan Ive would say. methinks he can come up with better words than "awesome".
80 bucks for piece of metal that reduces performance and does jack to actually protect the phone if you drop it, and AI considers that a "4 out of 5" product? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous, even for an Apple product.
Jeez guys, cannot you just appreciate that is a finely crafted product ? It's refreshing to me that in this world where cheap price is worshiped over quality, that there are actually people who still believe in being "craftsmen" rather than just laborers. I wonder if they could just machine small slots in the case where it covers the iPhone antenna windows?
The headline made me think "wow, some sort of breakthrough material or bumper design/look that (somehow) hasn't been done yet? Cool...I'll check this out!"
Not really.
Seriously...it's a bumper. There aren't too many ways to do one, when you think about it (and still have it be legitimately classified as a "bumper"). So the big front-end buildup proved to be a little excessive.
And the breathless gushing came across like a Harry Knowles movie review (which is something no one should ever strive for), which was my second "yeah...I don't know".
The antenna blocking/performance hit and insane price were straws three and four.
Who in the holy hell would pay $80 for something that makes their iPhone perform WORSE? Brainless, "if it's expensive it's automatically good!", form-over-function hipster types, I suppose? But even they sometimes have moments of clarity and good sense.
And, judging by the photos, it's not that "sleekly integrated" and "looks like it's part of the iPhone" as the article tries to make it seem.
Has the 1980's crack epidemic resurfaced at AI HQ? Because somebody's smoking some.
I don't give a rip how "exquisitely designed" or cleverly marketed something is. If it's carrying a nutball price AND creates more problems than it solves, that's not a product or service I want to throw in with. Either of those by themselves would seriously limit its appeal, but here we have both working in tandem...and it's getting this borderline-orgasmic write-up and a 4-out-of-5-stars rating?
"You mean I get to pay 3-4x what I normally would for such a product AND my phone reception gets to suck too? Cool...where do I sign?!?" -- Nobody, ever
"You mean I get to pay 3-4x what I normally would for such a product AND my phone reception gets to suck too? Cool...where do I sign?!?" -- Nobody, ever
Comments
Especially for a bumper which has been shown to have a 20 db impact on reception. 20 db is HUGE - far, far more than the 5-10% they're claiming.
This is sloppy and the author can't be right. The sentence may also be a double negative.
20dB is a horrific reduction in signal. They can't have meant that. -20dB IS a reduction. decreasing by -20dB means increasing. -20 dBm (note the m) is an absolute measurement, not a delta. The sentence is like saying reducing by sea-level when they meant reducing TO sea-level.
The correct wording might have been "decrease in reception TO about -20dBm". Dunno. -20dBm means 100th of a milliWatt. That's an awfully large signal to be expecting to receive. If the cellphone is truly that insensitive with the cover on, I wouldn't expect it to work unless you were leaning against the cell-tower. As I understand it , decent receive sensitivity is around -120dBm which means a 1000000000000th of a milliwatt. See the difference?
So, reducing by 20dB is horrific, likened to to putting the phone in a engineering shielded box. Reducing it to -20dBm is more like clipping the radio out altogether!
On the iPhone, the gaps in the metal are not "through which radio waves can pass". This is ignorant. The reason the gaps are there are so the separate pieces of metal can serve as antenna. What the author said is much like saying that an old fashioned car antenna has the rubber insulator at the base to let the radio waves pass. Also wrong. What the rubber insulator at the base is for is so the antenna is separate electrically from the body of the car. Same with the gaps in the cellphone body.
By putting aluminum willy-nilly around the antenna of the cellphone, the shape of the radiation pattern of the antennas is very badly affected. This kind of tosses out the "design effort" Apple put into making the antennas in the first place. You do NOT want to put metal around the cellphone. This is truly awful. The good news is that your cellphone won't be broken by slamming it into a rock. The bad news is that its usefulness as a cellphone is reduced. Doh!
Typical 2013 reporting style is exhibited here: echo the subject's words without verification. [B][SIZE=4]The Designed by m is almost twice the weight of other bumpers.[/SIZE][/B] It certainly is "incredible" that the weight of the m is nearly half that of others... because it's not.
Ironic that the iPhone 4 bumper supposedly resolves a signal problem, while this one creates one.
Now, if only Apple had made something that looks like this, we could be on to a winner !
While the design may be good, the weight ,performance drop and high price definitely kills this accessory.
Why would I want to take away from the reception or increase the weight of the phone so much. The heavier the iphone is the harder it hits the ground and more likely to break.
Bottom Line: These guys haven't accomplished anything.
Classic!
It does read like a paid ad. Sometimes this site's editorial management is inscrutable, a site that wants to be taken at all seriously would avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
I don't believe aluminum provides more than a small percentage as much shock protection as plastic or rubber.
no, actually, it does not sound like something Sir Jonathan Ive would say. methinks he can come up with better words than "awesome".
then i stopped reading the advert ...
I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous, even for an Apple product.
thank you, Designed by m, for your second post.
A strange article.
The headline made me think "wow, some sort of breakthrough material or bumper design/look that (somehow) hasn't been done yet? Cool...I'll check this out!"
Not really.
Seriously...it's a bumper. There aren't too many ways to do one, when you think about it (and still have it be legitimately classified as a "bumper"). So the big front-end buildup proved to be a little excessive.
And the breathless gushing came across like a Harry Knowles movie review (which is something no one should ever strive for), which was my second "yeah...I don't know".
The antenna blocking/performance hit and insane price were straws three and four.
Who in the holy hell would pay $80 for something that makes their iPhone perform WORSE? Brainless, "if it's expensive it's automatically good!", form-over-function hipster types, I suppose? But even they sometimes have moments of clarity and good sense.
And, judging by the photos, it's not that "sleekly integrated" and "looks like it's part of the iPhone" as the article tries to make it seem.
Has the 1980's crack epidemic resurfaced at AI HQ? Because somebody's smoking some.
I don't give a rip how "exquisitely designed" or cleverly marketed something is. If it's carrying a nutball price AND creates more problems than it solves, that's not a product or service I want to throw in with. Either of those by themselves would seriously limit its appeal, but here we have both working in tandem...and it's getting this borderline-orgasmic write-up and a 4-out-of-5-stars rating?
"You mean I get to pay 3-4x what I normally would for such a product AND my phone reception gets to suck too? Cool...where do I sign?!?" -- Nobody, ever
sorry, all of your text wouldn't fit on one card.
Every -10dB is 10 times less signal.
so -20dB is 100 times less signal.
Yeah, you can keep this useless product.