Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

3G iPhone Rev B

who said anything about a rev B?

there were 3 versions of the 1st iPhone...4GB, 8GB, 16GB. All had the same hardware.
 
The article is stating there may be a hardware issue and should a firmware update not fix it entirely wouldn't the iPhone with the fixed chip be the 3G iPhone rev b?
 
15 noveltybread said:
The article is stating there may be a hardware issue and should a firmware update not fix it entirely wouldn't the iPhone with the fixed chip be the 3G iPhone rev b?
Click to expand...

again, who said anything about a fixed chip??

"Apple has not yet acknowledged the existence of 3G connection issues with the new iPhone and declined to comment for either article, leaving the details of the problem and Apple's plans for addressing it uncertain and subject to speculation for the time being."
 
Part of the role of the Infineon chip is to check whether there's enough 3G bandwidth available in a given area. If 3G isn't available or there isn't enough bandwidth, the iPhone will be shifted to a slower network. One source says Apple programmed the Infineon chip to demand a more powerful 3G signal than the iPhone really requires. So if too many people try to make a call or go on the Internet in a given area, some of the devices will decide there's insufficient power and switch to the slower network—even if there is enough 3G bandwidth available.
Click to expand...
This explanation doesn't make sense. If I walk outside of my office right now, my bars would increase 3-fold. However, all my coworkers with their 3G phones are getting full bars inside the office.

The chip is obviously too weak to receive adequate 3G signals inside any building...
 
ubersalad said:
This explanation doesn't make sense. If I walk outside of my office right now, my bars would increase 3-fold. However, all my coworkers with their 3G phones are getting full bars inside the office.

The chip is obviously too weak to receive adequate 3G signals inside any building...
Click to expand...
The signal bars are programmed by apple to correspond to signal strength that the chip is receiving. They could make the thing ALWAYS say 1 bar no matter what your "real" signal strength is if they wanted to, or they could program it to say 5 bars when, in fact, your chip is receiving such a low signal that it couldn't possibly function. So, the signal BARS really don't mean much if they aren't calibrated properly by apple to correspond to the actual signal strength that the chip is receiving versus what it needs in order to function properly. I think it's possible that Apple hasn't correlated the signal strength properly to the bars, and probably not just to the bars, but other parts of the firmware too (ie the part that decides if 3G is so weak that it should switch to edge) and that is part of the problem. Perhaps they didn't have a full understanding of the minimum signal requirements of the chip when they programmed it (or the information they had on the chip was inaccurate/conservative), or maybe the information was correct and they were just being extra conservative. Anyway, I think that is what the part of the quote in your post meant when it said "Apple programmed the Infineon chip to demand a more powerful 3G signal than the iPhone really requires." And this is probably what they will address with a firmware update. Whether or not it is true and/or will help everyone that is having problems remains to be seen.
 
ubersalad said:
This explanation doesn't make sense. If I walk outside of my office right now, my bars would increase 3-fold. However, all my coworkers with their 3G phones are getting full bars inside the office.

The chip is obviously too weak to receive adequate 3G signals inside any building...
Click to expand...

Right, because every single cell phone manufacturer uses the same method of calculating signal strength and converting it to the universally comparable and precise unit of "bars". :rolleyes:
 
pj rage said:
The signal bars are programmed by apple to correspond to signal strength that the chip is receiving. They could make the thing ALWAYS say 1 bar no matter what your "real" signal strength is if they wanted to, or they could program it to say 5 bars when, in fact, your chip is receiving such a low signal that it couldn't possibly function. So, the signal BARS really don't mean much if they aren't calibrated properly by apple to correspond to the actual signal strength that the chip is receiving versus what it needs in order to function properly. I think it's possible that Apple hasn't correlated the signal strength properly to the bars, and probably not just to the bars, but other parts of the firmware too (ie the part that decides if 3G is so weak that it should switch to edge) and that is part of the problem. Perhaps they didn't have a full understanding of the minimum signal requirements of the chip when they programmed it (or the information they had on the chip was inaccurate/conservative), or maybe the information was correct and they were just being extra conservative. Anyway, I think that is what the part of the quote in your post meant when it said "Apple programmed the Infineon chip to demand a more powerful 3G signal than the iPhone really requires." And this is probably what they will address with a firmware update. Whether or not it is true and/or will help everyone that is having problems remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
I understand that "bars" are essentially meaningless. However, it is true that I cannot receive or make calls inside the office/home, but walking outside would make the difference.
 
ubersalad said:
I understand that "bars" are essentially meaningless. However, it is true that I cannot receive or make calls inside the office/home, but walking outside would make the difference.
Click to expand...

Well that certainly is a problem then.

I was having a problem with my first iPhone 3G...the battery life was extremely poor, and I got it swapped out for one with a very solid battery. It might just be a defective unit. Maybe try brining it into the store?
 
15 noveltybread said:
The article is stating
Click to expand...

rumor and speculation. That's all the article is stating.

The truth is, we won't know until an update or a recall (or neither) actually occurs.

That said, if this IS a handset hardware problem (and I still have my doubts on that), or even if it isn't and the network is to blame, the analyst who insisted a firmware update will do nothing to fix the problem is actually very wrong. Modern UMTS/3G radios are software driven, and can be tweaked quite a bit through the baseband firmware to change their performance characteristics. For the most part, the only thing that is fully hardware dictated are the frequencies at which the radio transmits. What and how that radio transmits on those hard-coded frequencies can be modified quite a bit. This is largely why CDMA carriers have an easy time upgrading their 3G equipment: a firmware update and ta-da! You've got EVDO revision A. the W-CDMA aspect of 3G on AT&T makes that part of the network very similar in its adaptability. 2 G GSM is less adaptable, but isn't totally stuck, either.

But the analyst is just that, an analyst. Not an expert. If the analyst truly knew something about handset engineering, he'd be earning a lot more money by designing and making handsets, not by writing speculative investor's notes about them.
 
scaredpoet said:
rumor and speculation. That's all the article is stating.

The truth is, we won't know until an update or a recall (or neither) actually occurs.

That said, if this IS a handset hardware problem (and I still have my doubts on that), or even if it isn't and the network is to blame, the analyst who insisted a firmware update will do nothing to fix the problem is actually very wrong. Modern UMTS/3G radios are software driven, and can be tweaked quite a bit through the baseband firmware to change their performance characteristics. For the most part, the only thing that is fully hardware dictated are the frequencies at which the radio transmits. What and how that radio transmits on those hard-coded frequencies can be modified quite a bit. This is largely why CDMA carriers have an easy time upgrading their 3G equipment: a firmware update and ta-da! You've got EVDO revision A. the W-CDMA aspect of 3G on AT&T makes that part of the network very similar in its adaptability. 2 G GSM is less adaptable, but isn't totally stuck, either.

But the analyst is just that, an analyst. Not an expert. If the analyst truly knew something about handset engineering, he'd be earning a lot more money by designing and making handsets, not by writing speculative investor's notes about them.
Click to expand...

Funny. I suggest you do some research first before making things up.

You want to compare analyst's salaries vs. engineer salaries?

You do know that analysts (especially analysts at investment banks who cover a particular sector) make salaries in the multi-millions right?

The day I see an engineer make a salary of $10 million dollars.
 
swy05 said:
Funny. I suggest you do some research first before making things up.
Click to expand...

Ohh, looks like I hit a nerve with one of the newbies. :)

You want to compare analyst's salaries vs. engineer salaries?
Click to expand...

We could, but at the end of the day, this thread has nothing to do with what analysts make, but rather what they know.

I'll agree with you on this much: they make a LOT more than they know.

You do know that analysts (especially analysts at investment banks who cover a particular sector) make salaries in the multi-millions right?
Click to expand...

The top 1%, yes. Quite a few of them end up also giving out wrong information, and then they get sued, investigated and fined. Then they end up with far less than millions.

And you DO know that engineers - especially some of the top 1% at big companies - make multiple millions off patent royalties, and by later starting their own companies. Right?

Anyway, don't hijack the thread. The fact remains: the analyst note doesn't cite anything authoritative. It's speculation. As is a lot of things that analysts guess about when it comes to Apple. False hopes (or despair) based on this is pointless.

After all, isn't Apple supposed to be out of business by now? And where's our iPhone battery recall? And where are our tablet Macs?
 
You know, I was wondering how much mileage, time wise, that Apple would be able to buy just by showing More Bars with a Software Update for the Same signal they now receive from the GPS chip. Would it be enough time for them to start producing iPhones with better chipsets?

I know, I know, Apple would NEVER do that.
 
MBHockey said:
Right, because every single cell phone manufacturer uses the same method of calculating signal strength and converting it to the universally comparable and precise unit of "bars". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think it is reasonable to expect that the bars displayed should be a fairly accurate depcition of signal strength since ATT markets its service with the slogan "More bars, more places."
 
MBHockey said:
Well that certainly is a problem then.

I was having a problem with my first iPhone 3G...the battery life was extremely poor, and I got it swapped out for one with a very solid battery. It might just be a defective unit. Maybe try brining it into the store?
Click to expand...

Yes, I will give that a shot.
 
scaredpoet said:
The top 1%, yes. Quite a few of them end up also giving out wrong information, and then they get sued, investigated and fined. Then they end up with far less than millions.

And you DO know that engineers - especially some of the top 1% at big companies - make multiple millions off patent royalties, and by later starting their own companies. Right?
Click to expand...


On average analysts make far more money than engineers do. End of discussion. Is it justified? Probably not. Analysts can get sued, so can engineers. What's your point?

Gasp! Analysts can start their own companies too. It's called hedge funds and private equity firms. This time, they won't be making millions. They'll be making billions.

I'm not trying to derail a thread. Just picking apart your statements.
 
Then attack the statements that have actual bearing on the thread. Or can you not? Probably the latter. So instead you go on a tirade, evidently over some personal agenda you may have about analysts. And that's called hijacking a thread.

Now, contribute something useful or go don't contribute at all and go lick your personal wounds elsewhere, please.
 
scaredpoet said:
Then attack the statements that have actual bearing on the thread. Or can you not? Probably the latter. So instead you go on a tirade, evidently over some personal agenda you may have about analysts. And that's called hijacking a thread.

Now, contribute something useful or go don't contribute at all and go lick your personal wounds elsewhere, please.
Click to expand...

I just pointed something out in your statement. Nothing hostile. Just a simple statement.

And then you went and had a hernia.

Have a fantastic day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back