I swear if someone discovered that the iPhone 4 lost a bar of reception once the phone was stuffed forcibly into a body cavity, then Consumer Reports would sagely advise against it.
The fact of the matter is the iPhone has the best reception of any phone I have ever owned. And then some.
I like listening to radio shows, streaming, on 3G.
With the iPhone 3G they would break up in buildings. Fair enough. Concrete & steel get in the way of those electromagnetic impulses.
But with the iPhone 4, it works in those buildings. Flawlessly. Without a stutter.
Better still, it worked in the elevator.
This wasn't a glass elevator. We are talking a a solid-metal faraday-cage style elevator. It continued to stream my nice Radio 4 Raymond Chandler drama.
I therefore suggest Consumer Reports should attempt the experiment suggested in my first paragraph.
That is easy. With the iPhone you can replicate the issue by touching too easily defined areas, namely the gap between the two outside metal bands. Other phones suffer the same attenuation issues, but it isn't as easy to define the spots where you can hold the phones to replicate the issue. That is what makes the tests fraudulent. I can replicate the issue on both my co-worker's Nexus and my brother in law's Droid.
However, you have to hold the phones a certain manner for it to happen. With these phones it isn't as obvious how to hold the phones. I actually think the iPhone is superior in this regard because you know exactly where to touch the phone for the issue to happen. With the other phones it can happen accidentally because you might be holding them the wrong way and not even know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
I understand that the media is overhyping the attenuation factor, but I am still curious why the other phones they tested don't have the same amount of degradation.
There are a lot of fanboy responses here ripping on Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports is a reputable organization.
USED TO BE. After I read through the flack on the AT&T iPhone 4 non-issue, got burned on a CR highly rated weed trimmer (B&D GH1000) and saw CR crafting a fresh debacle for the Verizon iPhone, I decided to cut my CR subscription short? explaining in great detail to them why.
Read this. See if you agree. Somewhat detailed, but then facts usually are. Even if you disagree, I won't think you're a CR fanboy.
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.
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.
I understand that the media is overhyping the attenuation factor, but I am still curious why the other phones they tested don't have the same amount of degradation.
To answer the second part of your post first, it's quite simple, other phones don't let you contact the metal antenna directly. Go stick your finger in a light socket if anyone doesn't think human flesh can affect the flow of an electrical signal. All phones will suffer signal degradation if something, like flesh, is blocking the electromagnetic (radio) signal from reaching the antenna in the first place. 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. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that a case helps alleviate the problem. A thin case won't do anything to prevent the radio signal "blocking", but it does prevent the electrical signal interference. Just like wearing insulated gloves will save your life when you stick your finger in a light socket. (Please don't actually stick your finger in a light socket. I don't want get sued by your survivors! )
That said...
I think CR is making two critical mistakes in their conclusions. First, the problem is not significant enough to warrant not including the iPhone on their recommended list, for either ATT or Verizon. Every device has flaws, pros and cons. To suggest that this flaw is so much worse than other usabilty flaws on other phones is silly.
Second, they are comparing the iPhone 4 to, well, the iPhone 4. And it's all relative. They don't list the actual signal strengths other phones were receiving or how sensitive their receivers are. Only that the iPhone lost more signal. But what if the iPhone had better reception to begin with? For example, supposed the iPhone was twice as good at signal reception as another phone. But then it lost 25% effectiveness due to this flaw. Do the math, and the iPhone is still 50% better than that other phone. Getting the antenna farther from the noisy EM environment inside the case may well outweight this minor issue. So, overall better performance in exchange for a rarely experienced nuisance.
People who claim this issue doesn't exist at all also need to take a step back. There have been enough 1st-person, customer reported experiences to confirm there is an issue. But like all things related to cell phones, your experience may vary. Just because you can't confirm the issue yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist for some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001
IF they are correct, it is surprising that Apple did not correct this issue. That said, I have the ATT model and it has not been a real issue for me.
Ask any consumer products liability lawyer why Apple didn't change their product design. It's not a big enough issue that there was any threat of recall. Apple never promised a specified level of reception performance that they failed to deliver on. The carrier's own coverage maps are so unreliable that you'd never have a case against Apple for something this minor.
But if they had significantly redesigned the Verizon iPhone, many people, and their lawyers, would look at it as an admission of guilt and start filing class action lawsuits. Even if Apple was confident they'd win every case, they would still have to invest a lot of time, money, and marketing muscle to fight the accusations.
But I bet you won't be able to directly contact the metal antenna of the iPhone 5.
Usually when seeing this kind of a vendetta, and I say vendetta because I do not believe that CR has given all other phones the same testing, it is about money.
Apple is probably not slipping CR any backdoor money or some other quid pro quo. Who knows it may be as simple as not supplying them with samples to study or buying their staff phones and contracts.
Unfortunately that's the way the business world can work.
I used to be a CR fan but often found that their reviewed products were not models that I could find anywhere in the real world.
Hmmm...
See many black helicopters hovering over your house at night?
Wear a foil cap to keep them from reading your (few) brainwaves?
Avoid the tapwater 'cause the fluoride brainwashes you?
CR isn't saying "don't buy this phone". In fact they rated it very highly.
What kind of consumer reporting entity would they be if they DIDN't point out that touching a spot on the phone could make it totally fail at it's primary function (in weak signal spots)? I say kudos to them for continuing to draw attention to this.
See many black helicopters hovering over your house at night?
Wear a foil cap to keep them from reading your (few) brainwaves?
Avoid the tapwater 'cause the fluoride brainwashes you?
CR isn't saying "don't buy this phone". In fact they rated it very highly.
What kind of consumer reporting entity would they be if they DIDN't point out that touching a spot on the phone could make it totally fail at it's primary function (in weak signal spots)? I say kudos to them for continuing to draw attention to this.
If they'd been the ones to discover it maybe they'd deserve some respect. However, they saw the internet firestorm, did some rather unscientific testing, and got their names in the news by jumping on the bandwagon. I firmly believe they would never have found this "issue" on their own.
If they'd been the ones to discover it maybe they'd deserve some respect. However, they saw the internet firestorm, did some rather unscientific testing, and got their names in the news by jumping on the bandwagon. I firmly believe they would never have found this "issue" on their own.
That's absurd.
Their customer base isn't the tech-savvy crowd who might follow this issue on Wired or Apple Insider.
Their customer base is the general non-tech-savvy public who might not have heard of the flap at all. So including the information was exactly proper for them to do--no matter who discovered it.
I hope all of you LOVE the AT&T iPhone 4, I WANTED TO, with all my heart. Maybe AT&T failed me, maybe it wasn't Apple, as I said earlier. The only thing that led me to believe it was an iPhone problem vs an AT&T problem was that I had absolutely no problems with my 3GS iPhone (and before that a 3G iPhone) before I got the iPhone 4 (when virtually every call got dropped.......Apple problem or AT&T problem???). I LOVED everything about the iPhone 4 on AT&T.....except almost all calls dropped.
Their customer base isn't the tech-savvy crowd who might follow this issue on Wired or Apple Insider.
Their customer base is the general non-tech-savvy public who might not have heard of the flap at all. So including the information was exactly proper for them to do--no matter who discovered it.
They didn't just include it. They championed the cause...which has turned out to be as significant as SARS and the swine flu. They just look petty now.
I hope all of you LOVE the AT&T iPhone 4, I WANTED TO, with all my heart. Maybe AT&T failed me, maybe it wasn't Apple, as I said earlier. The only thing that led me to believe it was an iPhone problem vs an AT&T problem was that I had absolutely no problems with my 3GS iPhone (and before that a 3G iPhone) before I got the iPhone 4 (when virtually every call got dropped.......Apple problem or AT&T problem???). I LOVED everything about the iPhone 4 on AT&T.....except almost all calls dropped.
Is that an AT&T problem or an Apple problem?
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.
I hope all of you LOVE the AT&T iPhone 4, I WANTED TO, with all my heart. Maybe AT&T failed me, maybe it wasn't Apple, as I said earlier. The only thing that led me to believe it was an iPhone problem vs an AT&T problem was that I had absolutely no problems with my 3GS iPhone (and before that a 3G iPhone) before I got the iPhone 4 (when virtually every call got dropped.......Apple problem or AT&T problem???). I LOVED everything about the iPhone 4 on AT&T.....except almost all calls dropped.
In testing the new Verizon CDMA iPhone 4, Consumer Reports has found that Apple's new smartphone experiences the same signal degrading antenna issue found in the GSM model released last year.
On the company's electronics blog on Friday, Consumer Reports
....Lots of stuff about irrelevant company deleted for brevity...
Even with all of the controversy, Apple's iPhone 4 was still the hottest selling handset of 2010. Over the holiday buying season, Apple sold a record 16.2 million iPhones in three months alone.
They must be so sad the phone they are obsessed with hating is the #1 handset in the world. Must be doubly dad that it has one of (if not the) highest customer satisfaction rating. It must be hard to look in the mirror and realize how irrelevant you are every day.
Their customer base isn't the tech-savvy crowd who might follow this issue on Wired or Apple Insider.
Their customer base is the general non-tech-savvy public who might not have heard of the flap at all. So including the information was exactly proper for them to do--no matter who discovered it.
Actually, with them knowing their customers would be largely ignorant of the real issues, they had a responsibility to do real reporting and not just try and get some cheap publicity.
Have you actually read any of the reasoning? Looked at their test methodology? They did anyone who trusts them a disservice.
They must be so sad the phone they are obsessed with hating is the #1 handset in the world. Must be doubly dad that it has one of (if not the) highest customer satisfaction rating. It must be hard to look in the mirror and realize how irrelevant you are every day.
They aren't "obsessed with hating"! They gave it the highest score of any comparable smartphone.
To answer the second part of your post first, it's quite simple, other phones don't let you contact the metal antenna directly. Go stick your finger in a light socket if anyone doesn't think human flesh can affect the flow of an electrical signal. All phones will suffer signal degradation if something, like flesh, is blocking the electromagnetic (radio) signal from reaching the antenna in the first place. 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. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that a case helps alleviate the problem. A thin case won't do anything to prevent the radio signal "blocking", but it does prevent the electrical signal interference. Just like wearing insulated gloves will save your life when you stick your finger in a light socket. (Please don't actually stick your finger in a light socket. I don't want get sued by your survivors! )
That said...
I think CR is making two critical mistakes in their conclusions. First, the problem is not significant enough to warrant not including the iPhone on their recommended list, for either ATT or Verizon. Every device has flaws, pros and cons. To suggest that this flaw is so much worse than other usabilty flaws on other phones is silly.
Second, they are comparing the iPhone 4 to, well, the iPhone 4. And it's all relative. They don't list the actual signal strengths other phones were receiving or how sensitive their receivers are. Only that the iPhone lost more signal. But what if the iPhone had better reception to begin with? For example, supposed the iPhone was twice as good at signal reception as another phone. But then it lost 25% effectiveness due to this flaw. Do the math, and the iPhone is still 50% better than that other phone. Getting the antenna farther from the noisy EM environment inside the case may well outweight this minor issue. So, overall better performance in exchange for a rarely experienced nuisance.
People who claim this issue doesn't exist at all also need to take a step back. There have been enough 1st-person, customer reported experiences to confirm there is an issue. But like all things related to cell phones, your experience may vary. Just because you can't confirm the issue yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist for some people.
Ask any consumer products liability lawyer why Apple didn't change their product design. It's not a big enough issue that there was any threat of recall. Apple never promised a specified level of reception performance that they failed to deliver on. The carrier's own coverage maps are so unreliable that you'd never have a case against Apple for something this minor.
But if they had significantly redesigned the Verizon iPhone, many people, and their lawyers, would look at it as an admission of guilt and start filing class action lawsuits. Even if Apple was confident they'd win every case, they would still have to invest a lot of time, money, and marketing muscle to fight the accusations.
But I bet you won't be able to directly contact the metal antenna of the iPhone 5.
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.
The antenna issue is a testament to how much people love Apple. Consumer Reports are being pretty hard nosed about it, but they are essentially correct. Despite what Apple says, I can attest to the fact that the problem does exist in low coverage areas, while competing smart phones don't have an issue. Apple should have swallowed its pride and fixed the issue immediately, instead of what they did: issue bumpers and then sell another phone with the same issue. We can only hope that Apple fixes the issue once and for all with the iPhone 5.
I sold my iPhone 4 and got a new HTC Inspire 4G, which I love. It has a much larger screen and Android is way more configurable. Maybe I should have kept my iPhone 3GS. Overall, it was a better phone than the iPhone 4, despite having a lower quality screen.
It is not true that that competing phone do not suffer from attenuation. All cell phones suffer attenuation when held. I see this every time I am in the lab when cell phones are being tested for FCC acceptance. This attenuation is compensated for when cell phones are designed. All cell phone antennas are very inefficient. The attenuation in iPhone 4 still allows for a better signal than with an internal only antenna.
Comments
The fact of the matter is the iPhone has the best reception of any phone I have ever owned. And then some.
I like listening to radio shows, streaming, on 3G.
With the iPhone 3G they would break up in buildings. Fair enough. Concrete & steel get in the way of those electromagnetic impulses.
But with the iPhone 4, it works in those buildings. Flawlessly. Without a stutter.
Better still, it worked in the elevator.
This wasn't a glass elevator. We are talking a a solid-metal faraday-cage style elevator. It continued to stream my nice Radio 4 Raymond Chandler drama.
I therefore suggest Consumer Reports should attempt the experiment suggested in my first paragraph.
C.
However, you have to hold the phones a certain manner for it to happen. With these phones it isn't as obvious how to hold the phones. I actually think the iPhone is superior in this regard because you know exactly where to touch the phone for the issue to happen. With the other phones it can happen accidentally because you might be holding them the wrong way and not even know it.
I understand that the media is overhyping the attenuation factor, but I am still curious why the other phones they tested don't have the same amount of degradation.
There are a lot of fanboy responses here ripping on Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports is a reputable organization.
USED TO BE. After I read through the flack on the AT&T iPhone 4 non-issue, got burned on a CR highly rated weed trimmer (B&D GH1000) and saw CR crafting a fresh debacle for the Verizon iPhone, I decided to cut my CR subscription short? explaining in great detail to them why.
Read this. See if you agree. Somewhat detailed, but then facts usually are. Even if you disagree, I won't think you're a CR fanboy.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._iphone_4.html
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.
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.
I understand that the media is overhyping the attenuation factor, but I am still curious why the other phones they tested don't have the same amount of degradation.
To answer the second part of your post first, it's quite simple, other phones don't let you contact the metal antenna directly. Go stick your finger in a light socket if anyone doesn't think human flesh can affect the flow of an electrical signal. All phones will suffer signal degradation if something, like flesh, is blocking the electromagnetic (radio) signal from reaching the antenna in the first place. 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. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that a case helps alleviate the problem. A thin case won't do anything to prevent the radio signal "blocking", but it does prevent the electrical signal interference. Just like wearing insulated gloves will save your life when you stick your finger in a light socket. (Please don't actually stick your finger in a light socket. I don't want get sued by your survivors!
That said...
I think CR is making two critical mistakes in their conclusions. First, the problem is not significant enough to warrant not including the iPhone on their recommended list, for either ATT or Verizon. Every device has flaws, pros and cons. To suggest that this flaw is so much worse than other usabilty flaws on other phones is silly.
Second, they are comparing the iPhone 4 to, well, the iPhone 4. And it's all relative. They don't list the actual signal strengths other phones were receiving or how sensitive their receivers are. Only that the iPhone lost more signal. But what if the iPhone had better reception to begin with? For example, supposed the iPhone was twice as good at signal reception as another phone. But then it lost 25% effectiveness due to this flaw. Do the math, and the iPhone is still 50% better than that other phone. Getting the antenna farther from the noisy EM environment inside the case may well outweight this minor issue. So, overall better performance in exchange for a rarely experienced nuisance.
People who claim this issue doesn't exist at all also need to take a step back. There have been enough 1st-person, customer reported experiences to confirm there is an issue. But like all things related to cell phones, your experience may vary. Just because you can't confirm the issue yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist for some people.
IF they are correct, it is surprising that Apple did not correct this issue. That said, I have the ATT model and it has not been a real issue for me.
Ask any consumer products liability lawyer why Apple didn't change their product design. It's not a big enough issue that there was any threat of recall. Apple never promised a specified level of reception performance that they failed to deliver on. The carrier's own coverage maps are so unreliable that you'd never have a case against Apple for something this minor.
But if they had significantly redesigned the Verizon iPhone, many people, and their lawyers, would look at it as an admission of guilt and start filing class action lawsuits. Even if Apple was confident they'd win every case, they would still have to invest a lot of time, money, and marketing muscle to fight the accusations.
But I bet you won't be able to directly contact the metal antenna of the iPhone 5.
That is all.
Usually when seeing this kind of a vendetta, and I say vendetta because I do not believe that CR has given all other phones the same testing, it is about money.
Apple is probably not slipping CR any backdoor money or some other quid pro quo. Who knows it may be as simple as not supplying them with samples to study or buying their staff phones and contracts.
Unfortunately that's the way the business world can work.
I used to be a CR fan but often found that their reviewed products were not models that I could find anywhere in the real world.
Hmmm...
See many black helicopters hovering over your house at night?
Wear a foil cap to keep them from reading your (few) brainwaves?
Avoid the tapwater 'cause the fluoride brainwashes you?
CR isn't saying "don't buy this phone". In fact they rated it very highly.
What kind of consumer reporting entity would they be if they DIDN't point out that touching a spot on the phone could make it totally fail at it's primary function (in weak signal spots)? I say kudos to them for continuing to draw attention to this.
Hmmm...
See many black helicopters hovering over your house at night?
Wear a foil cap to keep them from reading your (few) brainwaves?
Avoid the tapwater 'cause the fluoride brainwashes you?
CR isn't saying "don't buy this phone". In fact they rated it very highly.
What kind of consumer reporting entity would they be if they DIDN't point out that touching a spot on the phone could make it totally fail at it's primary function (in weak signal spots)? I say kudos to them for continuing to draw attention to this.
If they'd been the ones to discover it maybe they'd deserve some respect. However, they saw the internet firestorm, did some rather unscientific testing, and got their names in the news by jumping on the bandwagon. I firmly believe they would never have found this "issue" on their own.
If they'd been the ones to discover it maybe they'd deserve some respect. However, they saw the internet firestorm, did some rather unscientific testing, and got their names in the news by jumping on the bandwagon. I firmly believe they would never have found this "issue" on their own.
That's absurd.
Their customer base isn't the tech-savvy crowd who might follow this issue on Wired or Apple Insider.
Their customer base is the general non-tech-savvy public who might not have heard of the flap at all. So including the information was exactly proper for them to do--no matter who discovered it.
Is that an AT&T problem or an Apple problem?
That's absurd.
Their customer base isn't the tech-savvy crowd who might follow this issue on Wired or Apple Insider.
Their customer base is the general non-tech-savvy public who might not have heard of the flap at all. So including the information was exactly proper for them to do--no matter who discovered it.
They didn't just include it. They championed the cause...which has turned out to be as significant as SARS and the swine flu. They just look petty now.
I hope all of you LOVE the AT&T iPhone 4, I WANTED TO, with all my heart. Maybe AT&T failed me, maybe it wasn't Apple, as I said earlier. The only thing that led me to believe it was an iPhone problem vs an AT&T problem was that I had absolutely no problems with my 3GS iPhone (and before that a 3G iPhone) before I got the iPhone 4 (when virtually every call got dropped.......Apple problem or AT&T problem???). I LOVED everything about the iPhone 4 on AT&T.....except almost all calls dropped.
Is that an AT&T problem or an Apple problem?
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.
Is that an AT&T problem or an Apple problem?
In testing the new Verizon CDMA iPhone 4, Consumer Reports has found that Apple's new smartphone experiences the same signal degrading antenna issue found in the GSM model released last year.
On the company's electronics blog on Friday, Consumer Reports
....Lots of stuff about irrelevant company deleted for brevity...
Even with all of the controversy, Apple's iPhone 4 was still the hottest selling handset of 2010. Over the holiday buying season, Apple sold a record 16.2 million iPhones in three months alone.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
They must be so sad the phone they are obsessed with hating is the #1 handset in the world. Must be doubly dad that it has one of (if not the) highest customer satisfaction rating. It must be hard to look in the mirror and realize how irrelevant you are every day.
That's absurd.
Their customer base isn't the tech-savvy crowd who might follow this issue on Wired or Apple Insider.
Their customer base is the general non-tech-savvy public who might not have heard of the flap at all. So including the information was exactly proper for them to do--no matter who discovered it.
Actually, with them knowing their customers would be largely ignorant of the real issues, they had a responsibility to do real reporting and not just try and get some cheap publicity.
Have you actually read any of the reasoning? Looked at their test methodology? They did anyone who trusts them a disservice.
They must be so sad the phone they are obsessed with hating is the #1 handset in the world. Must be doubly dad that it has one of (if not the) highest customer satisfaction rating. It must be hard to look in the mirror and realize how irrelevant you are every day.
They aren't "obsessed with hating"! They gave it the highest score of any comparable smartphone.
Why bother reporting on the garbage that comes from that irrelevant site?
totally agree, Consumer reports who?
To answer the second part of your post first, it's quite simple, other phones don't let you contact the metal antenna directly. Go stick your finger in a light socket if anyone doesn't think human flesh can affect the flow of an electrical signal. All phones will suffer signal degradation if something, like flesh, is blocking the electromagnetic (radio) signal from reaching the antenna in the first place. 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. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that a case helps alleviate the problem. A thin case won't do anything to prevent the radio signal "blocking", but it does prevent the electrical signal interference. Just like wearing insulated gloves will save your life when you stick your finger in a light socket. (Please don't actually stick your finger in a light socket. I don't want get sued by your survivors!
That said...
I think CR is making two critical mistakes in their conclusions. First, the problem is not significant enough to warrant not including the iPhone on their recommended list, for either ATT or Verizon. Every device has flaws, pros and cons. To suggest that this flaw is so much worse than other usabilty flaws on other phones is silly.
Second, they are comparing the iPhone 4 to, well, the iPhone 4. And it's all relative. They don't list the actual signal strengths other phones were receiving or how sensitive their receivers are. Only that the iPhone lost more signal. But what if the iPhone had better reception to begin with? For example, supposed the iPhone was twice as good at signal reception as another phone. But then it lost 25% effectiveness due to this flaw. Do the math, and the iPhone is still 50% better than that other phone. Getting the antenna farther from the noisy EM environment inside the case may well outweight this minor issue. So, overall better performance in exchange for a rarely experienced nuisance.
People who claim this issue doesn't exist at all also need to take a step back. There have been enough 1st-person, customer reported experiences to confirm there is an issue. But like all things related to cell phones, your experience may vary. Just because you can't confirm the issue yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist for some people.
Ask any consumer products liability lawyer why Apple didn't change their product design. It's not a big enough issue that there was any threat of recall. Apple never promised a specified level of reception performance that they failed to deliver on. The carrier's own coverage maps are so unreliable that you'd never have a case against Apple for something this minor.
But if they had significantly redesigned the Verizon iPhone, many people, and their lawyers, would look at it as an admission of guilt and start filing class action lawsuits. Even if Apple was confident they'd win every case, they would still have to invest a lot of time, money, and marketing muscle to fight the accusations.
But I bet you won't be able to directly contact the metal antenna of the iPhone 5.
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.
The antenna issue is a testament to how much people love Apple. Consumer Reports are being pretty hard nosed about it, but they are essentially correct. Despite what Apple says, I can attest to the fact that the problem does exist in low coverage areas, while competing smart phones don't have an issue. Apple should have swallowed its pride and fixed the issue immediately, instead of what they did: issue bumpers and then sell another phone with the same issue. We can only hope that Apple fixes the issue once and for all with the iPhone 5.
I sold my iPhone 4 and got a new HTC Inspire 4G, which I love. It has a much larger screen and Android is way more configurable. Maybe I should have kept my iPhone 3GS. Overall, it was a better phone than the iPhone 4, despite having a lower quality screen.
It is not true that that competing phone do not suffer from attenuation. All cell phones suffer attenuation when held. I see this every time I am in the lab when cell phones are being tested for FCC acceptance. This attenuation is compensated for when cell phones are designed. All cell phone antennas are very inefficient. The attenuation in iPhone 4 still allows for a better signal than with an internal only antenna.