Consumer Reports Still Not Recommending iPhone 4

[muchadoaboutnot]

I'm unimpressed by the way Jobs handled the press conference.

My guess? Apple is going to fix the issue via a non-conductive coating (if they haven't already, that's in the rumor mill) on newly produced phones. They don't want to acknowledge that there really is an issue though. That's why they're only doing the cases through September, it's because they WILL fix the issue but they won't fess up to it. I imagine this is to keep up the perception that the company doesn't make flawed devices and to avoid lawsuits.

Cases mitigate the problem, much like how many IE flaws can be mitigated by disabling JavaScript. However, it's not a true fix.

 

[-hh]

Again, antenna attenuation will not happen with a single touch of a fingertip. The issues you get when you hold a phone tightly with a relatively large mass of flesh and when you can cause signal loss because of the touch of a single finger are two very different things. No matter how many times you pretend they are the same you just embarrass yourself every single time.

and again, if you would take your own advice you wouldn't be posting at all.

Ahem.

FWIW, I don't think that there's any technical doubt regarding the question of a human interation potentially degrading (by whatever means) the performance of an antenna on a cellphone.

However, what all of that technical minutia comes down to is the macroscopic question of product system performance.

The simple bottom line is that if an external antenna design has more upside gain than downside losses, it is going to be the preferred design solution.


For example, consider two notional systems:

System "A" is nominally able to reliably receive a -120 dB signal strength, and whose design is vulnerable to a 20dB 'attenuation' loss. What this means is that its worst-case performance is that it will only be able to reliably receive a -120 - (-20) = -100 dB signal.

System "B" is nominally able to reliably receive a -100 dB signal strength, and its design is significantly less vulnerable to 'attenuation' losses: only -3 dB. Amongst other things, what this means is that its worst-case performance is that it will only be able to reliably receive a -100 - (-3) = -97 dB signal.


So which system design solution would you say is 'preferrable' (at least for these parameters)?

FWIW, please note that I am emphatically not claiming that these numbers are illustrative of anyone's actual real world product: I'm merely illustrating that the magnitude of an 'attenuation' loss isn't the only consideration present.

Simply put, the bottom line is the bottom line, and intermediate metrics are often useful, but they're still not the bottom line. Here, the bottom line is the overall system performance for actually connecting.


-hh


-hh

 

[Max(IT)]

Again, your confusion makes no sense. That one network signal can be so strong it gets 5 bars even without a functional antenna and another not is well known - that video is just a display of ignorance by it's creator nothing more

you didn't watch the video, right ?
Because if you did, you could have notice that the test started with 3 BARS, not 5.
So the signal strength in that video is NOT STRONG (we are speaking about the new 4.0.1 representation) AT ALL.
The ignorance is only on your part, because YOU ARE NOT BRIDGING ANYTHING.

And, again, try to "bridge" the antennas on the top spot, and show me your results .... if you own an iphone 4 ...

Ahem.

FWIW, I don't think that there's any technical doubt regarding the question of a human interation potentially degrading (by whatever means) the performance of an antenna on a cellphone.

However, what all of that technical minutia comes down to is the macroscopic question of product system performance.

The simple bottom line is that if an external antenna design has more upside gain than downside losses, it is going to be the preferred design solution.


For example, consider two notional systems:

System "A" is nominally able to reliably receive a -120 dB signal strength, and whose design is vulnerable to a 20dB 'attenuation' loss. What this means is that its worst-case performance is that it will only be able to reliably receive a -120 - (-20) = -100 dB signal.

System "B" is nominally able to reliably receive a -100 dB signal strength, and its design is significantly less vulnerable to 'attenuation' losses: only -3 dB. Amongst other things, what this means is that its worst-case performance is that it will only be able to reliably receive a -100 - (-3) = -97 dB signal.


So which system design solution would you say is 'preferrable' (at least for these parameters)?

FWIW, please note that I am emphatically not claiming that these numbers are illustrative of anyone's actual real world product: I'm merely illustrating that the magnitude of an 'attenuation' loss isn't the only consideration present.

Simply put, the bottom line is the bottom line, and intermediate metrics are often useful, but they're still not the bottom line. Here, the bottom line is the overall system performance for actually connecting.


-hh


-hh

exactly that.
AN external antenna is clearly more subject to attenuation/detuning, but has a much better signal to noise ratio.
It is a trade off. Do we know if the pros could compensate for the cons ? No, we don't know, and surely the haters/bashers/whiners like him don't know either.
But what we do know is that iphone 4 could manage to keep connection/make calls at a very low level like -120 dB, where most of the other phones just show "no signal" ...

 

[BobVB]

The ignorance is only on your part, because YOU ARE NOT BRIDGING ANYTHING.

Ha! Then why do you not get the same massive drop in signal if the finger is touched just a millimeter lower, without bridging the gap? It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same falsehood, its still not true. This is not a mass attenuation issue, if it was Apple would be publishing videos showing single finger signal losses on other phones. Shoot they won't even do it on an 3GS.

And, again, try to "bridge" the antennas on the top spot, and show me your results .... if you own an iphone 4 ...

We all ready know from the tear downs that that that strip of metal is grounded in the mid right so it only only the bottom part could even act as a UTMS antenna, we already know that the FCC wouldn't pass a phone that was using the top part of the band as UTMS antenna. Why would you even think that was important or relevant to the issue? Again, if it is mere mass attenuation why doesn't the problem manifest with a single finger just a millimeter below the gap, but does easily with the same finger that bridges the gap?

The question is do you really own an iPhone 4? I've had Apple products since my Apple ][, have 2 first-day-Macs in the shed, first day iPod, owned all models of iPhones - you are the one who comes off as just a 'I like to argue because I love the sound of my own voice' kind of guy. Why do you insist that this is mass attenuation of the antenna with every single bit of evidence shows that it is not?

 

[firewood]

The other single finger tip loss is if you try to take a photo with your finger over the camera lens. Another serious design flaw. Move your finger a few millimeters, and suddenly you can take photos again!

But no one does that. (Except me: I've got a photos to prove. But it's not enough to make me want to return my i4.). And no one makes phone calls that way either...

That's why no one will care about single finger tip shorting after this blogger PR stunt dies down. Just about whether you can make a call or not. And:
A: Some people won't be able to make call with a i4 that they could with their previous phone (say a 3GS).
B: Some people will be able to make calls with an i4 that they couldn't with some other phone (put me in this category).
The only thing that counts is the relative size of these two categories. If you're in category A, tough luck. Caveat Emptor. Buy another phone. If you're in category B, congratulations. You win.

 

[cmaier]

The other single finger tip loss is if you try to take a photo with your finger over the camera lens. Another serious design flaw. Move your finger a few millimeters, and suddenly you can take photos again!

But no one does that. (Except me: I've got a photos to prove. But it's not enough to make me want to return my i4.). And no one makes phone calls that way either...

Except steve jobs.

 

[BobVB]

The other single finger tip loss is if you try to take a photo with your finger over the camera lens. Another serious design flaw. Move your finger a few millimeters, and suddenly you can take photos again!

I think everyone agrees if they had put the lens where the gap is there would be similar complaints. I totally agree with your analogy.

The rest of your reply has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Max(IT)]

Ha! Then why do you not get the same massive drop in signal if the finger is touched just a millimeter lower, without bridging the gap? It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same falsehood, its still not true. This is not a mass attenuation issue, if it was Apple would be publishing videos showing single finger signal losses on other phones. Shoot they won't even do it on an 3GS.

it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same falsehood, it's still not true: you are not bridging anything.
It is attenuation and detuning due to the direct connection with the antenna, the same you see on almost every phone, at an higher magnitude because the antenna is external. The same external antenna, on the other way, allows for a better reception (-121 dB, a value you keep ignoring on purpose ....).

We all ready know from the tear downs that that that strip of metal is grounded in the mid right so it only only the bottom part could even act as a UTMS antenna, we already know that the FCC wouldn't pass a phone that was using the top part of the band as UTMS antenna. Why would you even think that was important or relevant to the issue? Again, if it is mere mass attenuation why doesn't the problem manifest with a single finger just a millimeter below the gap, but does easily with the same finger that bridges the gap?

it is A SINGLE PIECE OF METAL, dude. If you ground it in the mid, you basically ground the whole antenna. The antenna is on the left side, from the top corner to the bottom, so it's perfectly ok for Fcc regulations.
You should have the capability to "bridge" it on the top gap, in the same way you pretend to "bridge" it on the lower gap. But it doesn't work that way.
Do you know why? BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT BRIDGING ANYTHING.

The question is do you really own an iPhone 4? I've had Apple products since my Apple ][, have 2 first-day-Macs in the shed, first day iPod, owned all models of iPhones - you are the one who comes off as just a 'I like to argue because I love the sound of my own voice' kind of guy. Why do you insist that this is mass attenuation of the antenna with every single bit of evidence shows that it is not?

I couldn't care less about what you have/had. Your "evidence" is flawed in its basis.
Attenuation and detuning is different from bridging two antennas with a finger.

The other single finger tip loss is if you try to take a photo with your finger over the camera lens. Another serious design flaw. Move your finger a few millimeters, and suddenly you can take photos again!

But no one does that. (Except me: I've got a photos to prove. But it's not enough to make me want to return my i4.). And no one makes phone calls that way either...

That's why no one will care about single finger tip shorting after this blogger PR stunt dies down. Just about whether you can make a call or not. And:
A: Some people won't be able to make call with a i4 that they could with their previous phone (say a 3GS).
B: Some people will be able to make calls with an i4 that they couldn't with some other phone (put me in this category).
The only thing that counts is the relative size of these two categories. If you're in category A, tough luck. Caveat Emptor. Buy another phone. If you're in category B, congratulations. You win.

Exactly.

 

[Worf]

omg iPhone 4 is the most amazing thing ever how could anyone say anything bad about it especially after Steve Jobs himself held a press conference today to even give out free bumpers for every1

<3

Who can argue with this logic? Who I tell you!!!

 

[mrochester]

it is A SINGLE PIECE OF METAL, dude. If you ground it in the mid, you basically ground the whole antenna. The antenna is on the left side, from the top corner to the bottom, so it's perfectly ok for Fcc regulations.
You should have the capability to "bridge" it on the top gap, in the same way you pretend to "bridge" it on the lower gap. But it doesn't work that way.
Do you know why? BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT BRIDGING ANYTHING.

The UMTS antenna is on the right hand side of the phone. It runs from the top, all the way down the right hand side, along the bottom, and a short way up the left hand side.

 

[BobVB]

The UMTS antenna is on the right hand side of the phone. It runs from the top, all the way down the right hand side, along the bottom, and a short way up the left hand side.

Tear downs show it is ground out about 1/3 the way up from the right side only the bottom part is acting as the UMTS antenna.

Again he can't explain why only touching the gap causes the massive single drop on a fingertip touch yet doing the same where it does just a millimeter lower does not.

He's just trolling - I've never understood what they get out of it - guess it's just an Internet form of vandalism.

 

[mrochester]

Tear downs show it is ground out about 1/3 the way up from the right side only the bottom part is acting as the UMTS antenna.

Again he can't explain why only touching the gap causes the massive single drop on a fingertip touch yet doing the same where it does just a millimeter lower does not.

He's just trolling - I've never understood what they get out of it - guess it's just an Internet form of vandalism.

If that's the case, it means the bottom left gap is the only point on the device where the UMTS antenna meets the wifi/bluetooth antenna. It seems way too much of a coincidence that that happens to be the same point that causes a problem!

 

[Max(IT)]

The UMTS antenna is on the right hand side of the phone. It runs from the top, all the way down the right hand side, along the bottom, and a short way up the left hand side.

You are right, my mistake.
BTW it doesn't change anything. It is a single piece of metal. If you can "bridge" it on the lower left gap, you should do the same on the upper left gap. And that doesn't happen.

Tear downs show it is ground out about 1/3 the way up from the right side only the bottom part is acting as the UMTS antenna.

Again he can't explain why only touching the gap causes the massive single drop on a fingertip touch yet doing the same where it does just a millimeter lower does not.

He's just trolling - I've never understood what they get out of it - guess it's just an Internet form of vandalism.

And , again, you can't ground "one side" of a single piece of metal. If you ground it at 1/3 of its length, you basically grounds the whole antenna.
So your explanation is useless, and YOU are the one trolling here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EfawQj-Rto&feature=youtube_gdata

This is what you call "massive drop", when using a network that isn't the ****** AT&T ...

 

[Vulpinemac]

Tear downs show it is ground out about 1/3 the way up from the right side only the bottom part is acting as the UMTS antenna.

Again he can't explain why only touching the gap causes the massive single drop on a fingertip touch yet doing the same where it does just a millimeter lower does not.

He's just trolling - I've never understood what they get out of it - guess it's just an Internet form of vandalism.

At least I could explain it, if I chose; I used to teach about RF signal propagation and reception.

And , again, you can't ground "one side" of a single piece of metal. If you ground it at 1/3 of its length, you basically grounds the whole antenna.

And yes you can, since you're not doing an 'Earth' ground. RF propagation works a little differently from DC circuit flow. Actually, a lot differently.

I suggest you two look up the science behind Dipole Antenna and RF Propagation. Maybe then you would both better understand what's happening.