'Consumer Reports' Smacks Verizon iPhone Over Antenna Issues

[iMeanIt]

Antenna, Shmantenna!

OMG! This is such a non-issue it's just plain stupid! I'm sitting here at an Amateur Astronomy Star Party being held on a remote, undeveloped FL Key island. I've got "one-bar" of signal-strength on my new Verizon iPhone, and it's working like a charm. In fact, it never failed to find service during the last 4 days of driving over 1500 miles, and never dropped a call on me during that (or any other) time.

Not only that, right now (with the "one-bar" of service), I'm using it (here in my tent) as a wireless hotspot, and am getting perfectly acceptable and fast service on my MacBook Pro - surfing, downloading music, and using Skype-Out to call India and Sri Lanka!

I guess when your at the top of your game (like Apple is), it's easy for little rags like CR to take pot-shots - 'probably in hopes of improving their own pitiful circulation and waning relevance.

 

[hssky97]

RLY Consumer Reports? QUIT COMPLAININ'

 

[kdarling]

OMG! This is such a non-issue it's just plain stupid! I'm sitting here at an Amateur Astronomy Star Party being held on a remote, undeveloped FL Key island. I've got "one-bar" of signal-strength on my new Verizon iPhone, and it's working like a charm.

As well it should. With CDMA, the number of bars is far less important than the number (or lack) of users on the cell tower you're using on that remote island.

In fact, it never failed to find service during the last 4 days of driving over 1500 miles, and never dropped a call on me during that (or any other) time.

Typical Verizon.

I guess when your at the top of your game (like Apple is), it's easy for little rags like CR to take pot-shots - 'probably in hopes of improving their own pitiful circulation and waning relevance.

The same reasoning is used when people praise Apple. Face it, people stick "iPhone" in blog titles just to get traffic

 

[LarryC]

Concurrently you can read my response above where I said that there is indeed a problem, yes the numbers did go down, but it rarely will affect you in a real world situation. You see the bars drop down to 2 or 3 when you grip it, what you're not (smart enough to?) realize(ing) is that your phone is still working just fine.



-2 for the cover up.

This is my greatest fear realized. Someone has figured out my deepest and darkest secret. I just don't have the intelligence to know a very simple thing. Now that you have me all figured out, I suppose I can just relax now. Thank you for relieving me of that horrible burden. And no, I just not joking about that person needing real help. Believe it or not! I was joking when I suggested that perhaps the two of you could ride there together.

 

[notabadname]

No special grip technique for my phone, and no signal problem.

 

[125037]

This is my greatest fear realized. Someone has figured out my deepest and darkest secret. I just don't have the intelligence to know a very simple thing. Now that you have me all figured out, I suppose I can just relax now. Thank you for relieving me of that horrible burden. And no, I just not joking about that person needing real help. Believe it or not! I was joking when I suggested that perhaps the two of you could ride there together.

No problem.

 

[chrono1081]

In other words, CR writers were thinking this:

"How can we make headlines again?"

+1. I've seen Consumer Reports recommend crap waaaaay too many times for me to ever even consider them a relevant source. Roughly 10 (or more) years ago when I worked at Circuit City we used to dread "Consumer Reports People" (which were customers who would only listen to their CR magazines instead of the commissioned sales people who knew their stuff inside and out).

Anyway it always turned into CR recommending some crap product that the sales person would desperately try to sway the person away from buying. The person would buy it anyway and end up returning it because it was junk and that sales person would lose the commission.

Needless to say for that reason I never recommend people to read consumer reports, if they do take it with a grain of salt. Far too many bad recommendations have been made by that magazine. (Granted not all of their recommendations are bad but enough are to be very wary).

 

[notabadname]

I just wish they would duplicate the video Apple once had of a Droid doing the same thing. I don't think the effort is there to see if you can induce signal loss on most phones. It just became "viral" to discover weaknesses on the iPhone, and media outlets like to ride the easy marketing wave. Consumer Reports moves a lot of issues off the stand by capitalizing on this type of story. Cover stories about the most efficient dishwasher don't interest people.

 

[tigress666]

+1. I've seen Consumer Reports recommend crap waaaaay too many times for me to ever even consider them a relevant source. Roughly 10 (or more) years ago when I worked at Circuit City we used to dread "Consumer Reports People" (which were customers who would only listen to their CR magazines instead of the commissioned sales people who knew their stuff inside and out).

Anyway it always turned into CR recommending some crap product that the sales person would desperately try to sway the person away from buying. The person would buy it anyway and end up returning it because it was junk and that sales person would lose the commission.

Needless to say for that reason I never recommend people to read consumer reports, if they do take it with a grain of salt. Far too many bad recommendations have been made by that magazine. (Granted not all of their recommendations are bad but enough are to be very wary).

Heh, the one time we listened to CR we weren't impressed with what we got (a washing machine). Next year, CR didn't recommend it and had a worse review... Gee, thanks guys.

 

[TebWeb]

I've had the Verizon iPhone for a few weeks now, and to be honest, I haven't noticed any reception problems. I use it in a case, but tried it without case to see if I could affect reception with my hands. Couldn't find a difference no matter how I held it or clasped my hands around.

I actually discovered the opposite. I tried this in my local supermarket, which in the past has been a dead zone for my last 2 LG phones, yet the iPhone seemed to always have service of at least one bar everywhere in the store.

Laboratory testing aside, in my "real world consumer usage" I can't find any issues with reception.

 

[-hh]

Nahh... I gave up on them when I was looking at cars and one I was interested in scored high across the board, yet the recommended another manufacture's vehicle because they felt the other manufacture had a better reliability record. So, they seem to test, score and then recommend whatever they want.

I dropped my CR subscription (of many years) when they were self-contradictory on a feature between two automobile reviews during the same calendar year: they said it was incarnate Evil on an Audi, then praised it on a Mercedes.

I think Consumer Reports is hinging their entire criticism on one specific FACT. That bringing the gap in the antennae will... under the right conditions... interfere with cellphone reception. They claim to have tried the same thing on a variety of other phones but don't show how or where they determined to "bridge" anything to produce the same effect.

Because everything hinges on this criticism, the question becomes... how much does this affect average consumers? If this only effects 1-5% of consumers in everyday usage, is it enough to simply NOT recommend, given all of the enormous benefits the phone obviously has?

Unfortunately, I find myself feeling sorry for them. They've staked an aspect of their reputation on making a BIG deal of a SMALL matter. If Apple can't make iPhones fast enough, its clear their opinions don't really matter in this area.

If this were a substantive issue, and not a distraction, I would have returned my iPhone immediately. CR did not catch any problem initially, but then came back and noticed the "effect" and now can't stop staring at it. That's more a neurosis than an example of detailed, quality reporting.

CR's testing is likely adequate technically to withstand Apple lawyers, but you're absolutely right: the problem (and thus, CR's credibility hit) is the lack of appropriate context.

Context includes not only how (un)realistic it may to be to hold a particular cellphone "Just So", but also if the Lab Test Results actually follow-through to manifest themselves in real world situations.

What this means is that from a Professional Engineering Ethics perspective, that's where CR has crossed the line...and as such, no reason to feel sorry for them: they've dug their own hole.

Of course, better reliability should have no influence in buying a car.

And once you know Statistics, you'll know where CR's Survey methods for Automobile 'Reliability' are flawed. Their approach has a Self Selection Bias which due to its subject nature has a statistical equivalent of a positive feedback loop which magnifies claimed differences. Suffice to say that non-enthusiast "Car as Appliance" owners are statistically prone to under-reporting their maintenance costs, whereas other marquees attract "Attention To Detail" enthusiasts, who will statistically report more (because it is more complete).

Consumer reports has been around since the 1930's. They're not some "tech blog" as others have thrown out there.
Calling them biased is beyond a joke.
They are the most impartial product review company in existence.

Which used to be true back in the 1930s. I interfaced with them professionally in the 1990s and was not at all impressed. Unfortunately, mere impartiality does not automatically impart having technical expertise.

Consumer Reports may have lost something in some of your eyes -- but I doubt you are subscribers, and I doubt they care. For people who subscribe and rely on their ratings, this is another example of them basing recommendations on their test results.

The reason I dropped my CR subscription was because I was able to see that they were making far too many technical errors.

I suspect any phone with the antenna in a position where the hand can cover it is more susceptible to this ... perhaps not as bad considering the iPhone's design, but does CR test many other phones?

That's half of the right question to ask. The second half is if their level of scrutiny was the same. Ethically, both answers have to be "Yes" in order to maintain professional standards of objectivity...and CR's answers aren't presently obvious, except that we know that historically, this was not so for IIRC the CR's evaluation of the Suzuki Samurai .


-hh

 

[mrochester]

Context includes not only how (un)realistic it may to be to hold a particular cellphone "Just So", but also if the Lab Test Results actually follow-through to manifest themselves in real world situations.

I think we can say for certainty that the lab test results CR have found manifest themselves in real world situations. I'm sure you can't have missed all of those people who have reception problems when that black seam is touched (deliberately or accidently)! When at work or home, my signal is just so that touching the black seam kills it completely. That's precisely what CR have tested happening IRL so I can vouch that their research into the matter is correct.

Should they give the device a 'not recommended' because of this? Well really, that's entitely up to them. I guess CR feel the issue so fundamentally affects what the iPhone is about (i.e., a phone) that they feel they can't recommend it as a result.

 

[k995]

I dropped my CR subscription (of many years) when they were self-contradictory on a feature between two automobile reviews during the same calendar year: they said it was incarnate Evil on an Audi, then praised it on a Mercedes.

So? How its implemented is just as important, perhaps audi got it wrong and mercedes right?

CR's testing is likely adequate technically to withstand Apple lawyers, but you're absolutely right: the problem (and thus, CR's credibility hit) is the lack of appropriate context.

Context includes not only how (un)realistic it may to be to hold a particular cellphone "Just So", but also if the Lab Test Results actually follow-through to manifest themselves in real world situations.

Funny how many people taking down the CR report without ever reading it :

Seem pretty natural to me.

What this means is that from a Professional Engineering Ethics perspective, that's where CR has crossed the line...and as such, no reason to feel sorry for them: they've dug their own hole.

A PRE perspective?

The saw it, measured and proved it can happen in a quit normal situation, on top of that plenty of people reported it.

And once you know Statistics, you'll know where CR's Survey methods for Automobile 'Reliability' are flawed.

The iphone isnt a car?


Cr is right to call this out, just as it was right with the iphone 4 the first time.

Its strange how you keep going on CR isnt consistent when they pointed this out the last time and are just pointing towards the same design error the first iphone 4 had.

 

[inhalexhale]

I really don't understand why anyone would think CR would bash apple just "to make headlines". They rate all Apple products (Macbooks, iMacs, previous iPhones, etc.) at the top of their categories/ product recommendations. The only product they don't recommend is the iPhone 4, and it's for something people have been experiencing.

 

[-hh]

So? How its implemented is just as important, perhaps audi got it wrong and mercedes right?

Didn't you just criticize others for speculating without reading?

Funny how many people taking down the CR report without ever reading it :
...
Seem pretty natural to me.

What "Seems" doesn't matter: what matters is contextual performance data. The CR blog report provided utterly no Engineering Data...just a "trust us".

The saw it, measured and proved it can happen in a quit normal situation, on top of that plenty of people reported it.

Where has the detailed objective test data been published? Should I go check in my ASME Journals or the IEEE Journals?

Its strange how you keep going on CR isnt consistent when they pointed this out the last time and are just pointing towards the same design error the first iphone 4 had.

Historically, CR avoids publication in professional peer reviewed technical journals.

I really don't understand why anyone would think CR would bash apple just "to make headlines". They rate all Apple products (Macbooks, iMacs, previous iPhones, etc.) at the top of their categories/ product recommendations. The only product they don't recommend is the iPhone 4, and it's for something people have been experiencing.

Currently, CR is soliciting for personal stories of unintended accelerations in Toyota automobiles and in doing so, they even explicitly state that their sampling is not scientific.

And language such as "...further humanize the growing safety concern..." smacks of preselection (Conclusion first, supporting data later).



-hh

 

[dethmaShine]

It's interesting to see so many people take issue with Consumer Reports directly, saying how insignificant they've become and how unqualified they are to test electronics.

CR consistently ranks Apple at the top of their articles on computers, both portables and desktops, and has been doing so for many, many years.

Based on the logic of these posters, maybe the public should take a closer look at offerings from Dell, HP, etc...

I agree. But I guess, I would need to be biased here, saying that CR is wrong with the iPhone and right with the desktops/laptops. I am not very sure how someone would comprehend that or even call me a fanboy, but I HAVE used the iPhone and it doesn't attenuate that badly or even at all.

There are plenty of other reviews that recommend the phone but there's hardly a tech site that doesn't put apple desktops/laptops at the top. So, all I can say is that there's something wrong with CR and the way they are trying to test these phones. Maybe in some situations they drop the signal but in real/normal situations, its hardly been an issue.

 

[k995]

Didn't you just criticize others for speculating without reading?

How can I read it when he describes it as "a feature" ? Perhaps if he would have given a link.

This discussion still is about CR report on iphone 4 wich he clearly didnt read, seems strange.

What "Seems" doesn't matter: what matters is contextual performance data. The CR blog report provided utterly no Engineering Data...just a "trust us".

That this is happening with this iphone 4 and the previous has been established by a great number of people. What would some db numbers matter? The problem is real, CR isnt the only one saying this.

Where has the detailed objective test data been published? Should I go check in my ASME Journals or the IEEE Journals?

So you are saying the bar indication on the iphone is useless? A dropped cal is something that has to be proven?

Strange you dont demand the same from CR or others who claim the browser experience is among the best . Without detailed objective test data ...

Historically, CR avoids publication in professional peer reviewed technical journals.

Wich doesnt matter, I see very little reviews of smartphones in "professional peer reviewed technical journals"

Currently, CR is soliciting for personal stories of unintended accelerations in Toyota automobiles and in doing so, they even explicitly state that their sampling is not scientific.

And language such as "...further humanize the growing safety concern..." smacks of preselection (Conclusion first, supporting data later).

And again the iphone isnt a car and this has nothing to do with that article.

 

[k995]

So, all I can say is that there's something wrong with CR and the way they are trying to test these phones. Maybe in some situations they drop the signal but in real/normal situations, its hardly been an issue.

Anyone with an iphone can duplicate this. Luckely most people live in area's with enough coverage that this doesnt matter.

That still doesnt mean its not a problem to some.

 

[-hh]

Strange you dont demand the same from CR or others who claim the browser experience is among the best . Without detailed objective test data ...

Would you please be so kind as to immediately provide a citation for where I personally ever said that, or withdraw your libelous claim?

For the record, I frankly do not care if CR recommends the Mac. I also don't care about most all the rest of their reviews. What I do care is when they misapply up the Scientific Method, because that hurts my profession.

And in today's news cycle, the reports are now out:

"AnandTech founder Anand Shimpi criticized the Consumer Reports study for failing to provide data to support its findings. Consumer Reports spokeswoman Melissa Valentino declined to offer the group's test results, only saying that the Verizon iPhone and the AT&T iPhone performed "similarly" in tests."


Follow the link and you'll find test data from AnandTech (not CR). Here's one highlight:

"Cupping Tightly" dB attenuation (loss)

AT&T iPhone 4 24.6
HTC Nexus One 17.7
Verizon iPhone 4 16.5
BlackBerry Torch 15.9
Droid X 15.0
iPhone 3GS 14.3


If the "not treated any differently" claims are true, then there should be CR blog reports where they've already published reports on the attenuation problems on the Nexus One, and Blackberry Torch....right?


-hh

 

[mrochester]

Would you please be so kind as to immediately provide a citation for where I personally ever said that, or withdraw your libelous claim?

For the record, I frankly do not care if CR recommends the Mac. I also don't care about most all the rest of their reviews. What I do care is when they misapply up the Scientific Method, because that hurts my profession.

And in today's news cycle, the reports are now out:

"AnandTech founder Anand Shimpi criticized the Consumer Reports study for failing to provide data to support its findings. Consumer Reports spokeswoman Melissa Valentino declined to offer the group's test results, only saying that the Verizon iPhone and the AT&T iPhone performed "similarly" in tests."


Follow the link and you'll find test data from AnandTech (not CR). Here's one highlight:

"Cupping Tightly" dB attenuation (loss)

AT&T iPhone 4 24.6
HTC Nexus One 17.7
Verizon iPhone 4 16.5
BlackBerry Torch 15.9
Droid X 15.0
iPhone 3GS 14.3


If the "not treated any differently" claims are true, then there should be CR blog reports where they've already published reports on the attenuation problems on the Nexus One, and Blackberry Torch....right?


-hh

I was under the impression that CRs report is 'touching the seam' whereas Anandtech's report is 'cupping tightly'. 2 different ways of holding the device, 2 different results.

 

[kdarling]

"Cupping Tightly" dB attenuation (loss)

AT&T iPhone 4 24.6
...
iPhone 3GS 14.3

As someone else pointed out, the unique iPhone antenna problem is about touching a single spot with a finger, not covering the entire phone.

As for the numbers above, they mean that the ATT iPhone 4 could only pick up 1/10th of the same signal as an iPhone 3GS.

 

[-hh]

I was under the impression that CRs report is 'touching the seam' whereas Anandtech's report is 'cupping tightly'. 2 different ways of holding the device, 2 different results.

As someone else pointed out, the unique iPhone antenna problem is about touching a single spot with a finger, not covering the entire phone.

Without CR's test details & data, this will continue to be speculative, and susceptible to "Gaming" of procedural specifics to create the desired results.

Anandtech was good enough to publish values, plus they did actually test their entire group of phones in multiple (four) different orientations...not only a death grip, but also held 'naturally', in a case and merely laying on one's palm.

As for the numbers above, they mean that the ATT iPhone 4 could only pick up 1/10th of the same signal as an iPhone 3GS.

True, but by the same token, we can point to the same data and also say truthfully that the VZW 4's antenna gain results in an 85% better (higher) signal strength vs the ATT 4. Still feel comfortable with characterizing the two as being "Similar"?

In any case, the end-item customer doesn't care about dB's changes on the antenna subsystem: he cares about system performance as measured by dropped calls, etc.

The fact is that none of these antenna subsystem observations (or 'claims' in the case of CR) are able to deterministically predict that a deployed system will then have to have 10x (or 1/10th, or +85%) the rate of dropped calls. The basic reasons why is because: (a) we're ignoring context & use case; (b) antenna gain is merely one subsystem.

To illustrate further, Anandtech's data also shows that all (except the iPhone 3GS) cellphones incurred a greater than 50% signal loss (more than -3dB) from merely being "held in open palm". And please note that this loss was present even on those cellphones with internal antennas.

So what are the implications of this datapoint? Afterall, if no one can even touch their cellphone without degrading its antenna performance by more than 50%, does this have to then mean that all cellphones are bad?

Well, if we insist on wearing our "subsystem" blinders, there's simply no other conclusion available for us...even though we know that this is in fact wrong.

Live by pedentry ... and die by pedentry.


-hh