Apple Posts Video of iPhone 4 Press Conference, Antenna Information Pages

[inhrntlyunstabl]

Wrong. If I super death grip my T-mobile mytouch slide with two hands I loose one bar. My Motorola F3 was designed with antennas at both ends of the phone, so there is never a problem there. I never had a single hand placement signal loss issue with my first generation iPhone, and as far as I know my wife never had such issues with her iPhone 3G.

Bad design is bad design, period. Making excuses for Apple making such an obvious design blunder is just sad, especially when they have ~25 billion in the bank. It's not like they couldn't have afforded enough people to design this thing right.

And that is signal loss, of 1 bar. Get in a dead zone (only 1 bar showing) and you might drop a call. Never in a dead zone, you'll never care - never drop a call. THIS IS THE WHOLE argument. The 3GS suffers this too. You can have signal loss w/o seeing ANY drop in bars.

People on this site need to spend some time reading, in their entirety, including the conversations there that include engineers (some even from AT&T).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review (16 pages)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3821/iphone-4-redux-analyzing-apples-ios-41-signal-fix (4 pages)

What I find so hard to believe is that people (on this site and the news sites) think 5 bars = 5 bars without understanding what's behind that representation. I loved this post that mimics my frustration:

"but since i do work for AT&T, and since i have talked to AT&T customers, i know that they DO care about the bars. i cannot tell you how many times people will tell me, "hey, i am only getting one bar on my cell phone at my office".
and i say, "well, can you make and receive calls?"
and they say, "Yes".
then i say, "well, can you connect to the internet on your phone without any problems?"
and they say, "Yes".
then i say, "well, what is the problem, then, sir?"
then they say, "but i am only getting one bar!" then i just smile to myself and try not to scream. it's almost like the famous old "who's on first" routine, but in real life."

I agree with his further comments that Apple (like Anandtech hacks into the iPhone and others for comparisons) provide the full dB readout instead of the bars. Then everyone would see the thing jumping around like crazy and they'd have to understand it's not just your hand position, it's location, objects between you and the cell tower, interference from other RF sources, etc. Then folks could argue with Apple more intelligently by saying the average dB loss in my area where I live or work is too great given the average dB signal strength of x (from the readout on their phone) provided by AT&T.

But to argue that every phone except the iPhone 4 doesn't experience any signal loss is naive.

 

[thebez]

But most phones do not suffer signal loss in any appreciable way, so that argument is effectively a lie.

They do. Get your facts straight. Ever single phone suffers some signal loss when held, put near electronics, etc. For you to claim this is untrue is a flat out lie or you are living in a different world. Check your facts, do some of your own testing and REALIZE signal loss doesn't mean dropped calls. Boy, if you can't understand that argument, god help you.

Did you not see the part where I said appreciable, do you not know what appreciable means, or did you just choose to ignore it?

 

[thebez]

And that is signal loss, of 1 bar. Get in a dead zone (only 1 bar showing) and you might drop a call. Never in a dead zone, you'll never care - never drop a call. THIS IS THE WHOLE argument. The 3GS suffers this too. You can have signal loss w/o seeing ANY drop in bars.
...

Again you take only part of what I said and ignore the rest. Please, re-read the key sentence which you are referring to:

"If I super death grip my T-mobile mytouch slide with two hands I loose one bar."

Did you miss the "super death grip", or the "two hands" part? In order to loose that one bar I had to cover up over 75% of the phone. It only takes one thumb (or finger) to show considerable signal loss on the iPhone 4. Please, PLEASE, show me any other phone on the market today that has anywhere near as big of an attenuation issue. Go ahead, I'll wait.

But to argue that every phone except the iPhone 4 doesn't experience any signal loss is naive.

Again, the key word is appreciable.

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appreciable:

appreciable [əˈpriːʃɪəbəl -ʃəbəl]
adj
sufficient to be easily seen, measured, or noticed

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

ALL TOGETHER NOW!

APPLE PREVENTS US FROM RE-SELLING OUR APPS IF WE LEAVE

I have a large catalog of apps that I would lose. I would not mind re-selling the licensees I bought to use them, like users who leave other OS'es can do (e.g. OS X or Windows). If Apple would let this occur, then the mantra of "leave if you don't like it" is 100% acceptable. Otherwise, why should I give up two years of purchases, for the sole reason that Apple has given us a phone that many cannot use in your left hands.

1. You got two years worth of use out of those apps.

2. That's part and parcel with digital products. You can't resell them. You didn't know that? That's why I don't have any eBooks or DRM'd video.

 

[LagunaSol]

well said. this is such an overblown issue its not even funny. people are looking to crap on the apple parade for any reason.

I smell Microsoft's FUD machine starting to churn as they prepare for the Windows Phone Series Embedded Compact Series 7 Series For Sure launch.

Amazing the vast gulf between actual returns and customer complaints to Apple (i.e. "Reality") and the foaming-at-the-mouth hysteria in the media (i.e. "Fantasy").

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

1. You got two years worth of use out of those apps.

Time is irrelevant. If you bought it, you should be able to resell it. It's that simple.

2. That's part and parcel with digital products. You can't resell them. You didn't know that? That's why I don't have any eBooks or DRM'd video.

This is simply an example of how countries like the U.S. have let the corporations dictate law instead of representing the people like they're supposed to. I think many of them should go to prison for selling out to bribery like that, but since they make the laws, they can skirt them.

In an case, we USED to have some fair use type laws and court decisions in this country once upon a time. But them someone got the idea that "digital" is somehow fundamentally "different" from analog (it's not reallly; they're just two different methods of representing data). Suddenly we have things like the DMCA which contradicts previous laws and court decisions on things like fair use and we have laywers screaming foul when someone points that out to them (again like digital is somehow different, particularly when it's lossy compressed digital, it's NO DIFFERENT AT ALL from analog, which is lossy by nature).

Then you have this "licensed" concept as opposed to ownership of the media you purchase. You don't own that DVD. Well, you own the plastic and aluminum substrate, but you don't own the movie. You own a license to watch it and ONLY on that one disc. If Hollywood had it's way, it would be illegal to even sell your DVD. Don't think they haven't tried; remember DIVX discs and the self-destructive rentals they came up with whereby the die started to degrade after being exposed to the laser. It was landfill fodder, but that's OK. It's all about money, after all.

Yes, nowadays, if corporations don't like it, they just make something up in their "license" and you're screwed. Imagine a BD agreement with each movie that says something like, "By buying this BD disc, you have agreed to never sell it as the license to view it is non-transferable." Or perhaps with the new players having a way to call back out on the Net, they might tie that movie to ONLY play on YOUR specific player (they don't want you lending the movie to friends to watch at their house and probably would like you to buy one copy for each room in your house that has a player to boot). Sound ridiculous? Think again. They've been thinking about it for some time. The only thing keeping them at bay in the slightest is the ease of getting pirated copies online. They know if they go too far people will simply stop buying movies period. But if they could get rid of that possibiity, they wouldn't hesitate a second to insitute draconian policies like that because all they can see is $$$$, not morality, ethics or the slightest concern for people or consumer rights.

 

[ralphyman]

930th ?

What puzzles me is why is Steve only giving out free bumper cases until September 30th ? Is he sure that all phones after that date won't have the antenna issue anymore ? Any hardware fix/upgrade planned for that date ?
...

 

[tcgjeukens]

Effort versus Result

The whole idea of shedding a light on the 100mUSD testing facility, in my opinion, is to cloud the fact that the antenna does not perform well in live situations.

No matter how hard you scream about your intentions or effort, it is the result that matters.
Though I switched from Nokia to the iPhone 1G, I back Nokia's statement on testing the device in user environments.
Guess that they could have given the honours to Gizmodo ??

Apple: stop whining and fix the antenna issue in mark 2.

Coen

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

Time is irrelevant. If you bought it, you should be able to resell it. It's that simple.

Actually no time is not irrelevant as anything bought depreciates over time. Besides which the original user received 2 years of value from the product.

This is simply an example of how countries like the U.S. have let the corporations dictate law instead of representing the people like they're supposed to. I think many of them should go to prison for selling out to bribery like that, but since they make the laws, they can skirt them.

In an case, we USED to have some fair use type laws and court decisions in this country once upon a time. But them someone got the idea that "digital" is somehow fundamentally "different" from analog (it's not reallly; they're just two different methods of representing data). Suddenly we have things like the DMCA which contradicts previous laws and court decisions on things like fair use and we have laywers screaming foul when someone points that out to them (again like digital is somehow different, particularly when it's lossy compressed digital, it's NO DIFFERENT AT ALL from analog, which is lossy by nature).

Then you have this "licensed" concept as opposed to ownership of the media you purchase. You don't own that DVD. Well, you own the plastic and aluminum substrate, but you don't own the movie. You own a license to watch it and ONLY on that one disc. If Hollywood had it's way, it would be illegal to even sell your DVD. Don't think they haven't tried; remember DIVX discs and the self-destructive rentals they came up with whereby the die started to degrade after being exposed to the laser. It was landfill fodder, but that's OK. It's all about money, after all.

Yes, nowadays, if corporations don't like it, they just make something up in their "license" and you're screwed. Imagine a BD agreement with each movie that says something like, "By buying this BD disc, you have agreed to never sell it as the license to view it is non-transferable." Or perhaps with the new players having a way to call back out on the Net, they might tie that movie to ONLY play on YOUR specific player (they don't want you lending the movie to friends to watch at their house and probably would like you to buy one copy for each room in your house that has a player to boot). Sound ridiculous? Think again. They've been thinking about it for some time. The only thing keeping them at bay in the slightest is the ease of getting pirated copies online. They know if they go too far people will simply stop buying movies period. But if they could get rid of that possibiity, they wouldn't hesitate a second to insitute draconian policies like that because all they can see is $$$$, not morality, ethics or the slightest concern for people or consumer rights.

(emphasis mine) It's 2010. We all know this. No one forces anyone to buy a digital product and in a lot of cases, the physical product is still available for sale and of comparable price to the digital product.

And digital is different from physical. It's different ways to represent the same data. That's the difference. You're talking about buying a DVD, I'm talking about buying a movie from iTunes. They're two totally different things.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Actually no time is not irrelevant as anything bought depreciates over time. Besides which the original user received 2 years of value from the product.

WTF does deprecation have to do with whether or not you're allowed to sell something??? The second part just repeats the same fallacy from the previous post. It's no more valid this time than it was the last time. I don't care if someone gets 50 years use out of something. If it still has value (e.g. many cars, coins, antiques in general, etc.), then you should be able to sell it for market value. It's just that simple. Having some company say you cannot sell your music collection because it happens to be stored on your hard drive instead of a polycarbonate/aluminum substrate disc is LUDICROUS. The songs don't care WHAT they are "stored" on for goodness sake. The plastic disc has no real value by itself even brand new if you cannot record to it and you're not allowed to play it.

(emphasis mine) It's 2010. We all know this. No one forces anyone to buy a digital product and in a lot of cases, the physical product is still available for sale and of comparable price to the digital product.

Yeah, I don't see much "analog" software or computers floating around these days and that includes music. Just try and find a place that sells much on LP or cassette anymore.

Face it. These are STUPID LAWS and they need to be repealed. The problem is getting a Congress that is honest enough to represent the people that elected them instead of those who have massive cash reserves to bribe them (typically Corporations). I no longer have any respect for the Supreme Court even given they just betrayed this country by ruling that Corporations are people and can spend as much as they want on political campaigns. Yeah, Joe Average really stands to have a chance to get elected when his competition has virtually unlimited advertising funds from those that want to push the corporate agenda to screw the common man in favor of the top 2-5% ultra-rich. Yeah, that's fair. That's "democracy" alright...more like an Oligarchy.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

WTF does deprecation have to do with whether or not you're allowed to sell something??? The second part just repeats the same fallacy from the previous post. It's no more valid this time than it was the last time. I don't care if someone gets 50 years use out of something. If it still has value (e.g. many cars, coins, antiques in general, etc.), then you should be able to sell it for market value. It's just that simple. Having some company say you cannot sell your music collection because it happens to be stored on your hard drive instead of a polycarbonate/aluminum substrate disc is LUDICROUS. The songs don't care WHAT they are "stored" on for goodness sake. The plastic disc has no real value by itself even brand new if you cannot record to it and you're not allowed to play it.

Market value includes depreciation. Why do you think used items are cheaper? Except in rare instances.

Yeah, I don't see much "analog" software or computers floating around these days and that includes music. Just try and find a place that sells much on LP or cassette anymore.

Face it. These are STUPID LAWS and they need to be repealed. The problem is getting a Congress that is honest enough to represent the people that elected them instead of those who have massive cash reserves to bribe them (typically Corporations). I no longer have any respect for the Supreme Court even given they just betrayed this country by ruling that Corporations are people and can spend as much as they want on political campaigns. Yeah, Joe Average really stands to have a chance to get elected when his competition has virtually unlimited advertising funds from those that want to push the corporate agenda to screw the common man in favor of the top 2-5% ultra-rich. Yeah, that's fair. That's "democracy" alright...more like an Oligarchy.

I was in Best Buy the other day and they had a whole shelf for LPs. Metallica's last album was released as an LP as well. Miles Davis super deluxe 50th anniversary release of Kind of Blue included an LP. Radiohead's pay what you want digitally released In Rainbows was released as an LP.

I'm not talking "analog" I'm talking physical medium which is different from a digital medium. And the rest of your diatribe is completely off topic.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Market value includes depreciation. Why do you think used items are cheaper? Except in rare instances.

Your comments about depreciation are not only off-topic, they make absolutely no sense in this discussion what-so-ever. I'm talking about the right to sell something you bought (originally we were talking about iOS applications) which is a cut and dry matter (either you CAN or you CANNOT, regardless of the value it might obtain) and you're talking about depreciation for some reason. Once again, either you can sell it or you cannot. Where does depreciation come into the picture what-so-ever? Digital applications and songs are exactly the same used as they are new. They don't depreciate in the traditional sense and even if they did, as long as they are worth SOMETHING, then the original owner should be allowed to sell the product if they no longer want it. If they were allowed to be sold, they would be worth whatever the market would bear (i.e .you need buyer and an agreed price). The problem is that the government decided to give companies the right to say you cannot sell them because it's not a sale, but a transfer of a license and the industry said they don't want it to be transferred. Why? Because they wouldn't make more money that way.

I was in Best Buy the other day and they had a whole shelf for LPs.

Yeah, a dozen LPs and 50,000 CDs. You're right. Analog is alive and well. Besides, you cannot buy an analog iPhone application.

Metallica's last album was released as an LP as well. Miles Davis super deluxe 50th anniversary release of Kind of Blue included an LP. Radiohead's pay what you want digitally released In Rainbows was released as an LP.

Once again, you seem to have missed the point entirely. Being able to get a handful of albums on an analog medium in NO WAY makes entire catalogs available in analog these days. Short of that small handful of albums, you have no choice but to get a digital album in today's world in one form or another. Once CDs are eliminated, the concept of "used" albums will no longer exist except for old albums in garage sales since you will not be permitted to sell your digital collections unless the law is changed to not permit the recording industry to put those clauses in their "license" to listen to a song.

I'm not talking "analog" I'm talking physical medium which is different from a digital medium. And the rest of your diatribe is completely off topic.

The physical medium is completely and entirely IRRELEVANT when it comes to both software (unless it includes a manual or a person values the "box" it came in for some reason) and digital music and that's why it's so hypocritical for the law to allow used CD sales, but not sales of digital music downloads to transfer to the next user (same for video games for that matter). Just because a song is being sold as a download instead of on a piece of plastic, I can no longer sell it when I'm sick of it? Why? Because they want everyone to buy new copies from them? They're taking advantage of general technological ignorance of the general public to try and make people believe there is some kind of difference between the two (other than the piece of plastic which is just a delivery medium; if it were more than that, then you would "own" the album and the industry says you don't own ANYTHING but the plastic it's printed on). I'm sure they don't like libraries lending out music or movies either as they don't get money if people can listen for free. But if I buy a game on a cartridge or a DVD, I can resell it, but if it's digital off the Net, too bad? That's ridiculous as there is no difference between the two.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

Your comments about depreciation are not only off-topic, they make absolutely no sense in this discussion what-so-ever. I'm talking about the right to sell something you bought (originally we were talking about iOS applications) which is a cut and dry matter (either you CAN or you CANNOT, regardless of the value it might obtain) and you're talking about depreciation for some reason. Once again, either you can sell it or you cannot. Where does depreciation come into the picture what-so-ever? Digital applications and songs are exactly the same used as they are new. They don't depreciate in the traditional sense and even if they did, as long as they are worth SOMETHING, then the original owner should be allowed to sell the product if they no longer want it. If they were allowed to be sold, they would be worth whatever the market would bear (i.e .you need buyer and an agreed price). The problem is that the government decided to give companies the right to say you cannot sell them because it's not a sale, but a transfer of a license and the industry said they don't want it to be transferred. Why? Because they wouldn't make more money that way.



Yeah, a dozen LPs and 50,000 CDs. You're right. Analog is alive and well. Besides, you cannot buy an analog iPhone application.



Once again, you seem to have missed the point entirely. Being able to get a handful of albums on an analog medium in NO WAY makes entire catalogs available in analog these days. Short of that small handful of albums, you have no choice but to get a digital album in today's world in one form or another. Once CDs are eliminated, the concept of "used" albums will no longer exist except for old albums in garage sales since you will not be permitted to sell your digital collections unless the law is changed to not permit the recording industry to put those clauses in their "license" to listen to a song.




The physical medium is completely and entirely IRRELEVANT when it comes to both software (unless it includes a manual or a person values the "box" it came in for some reason) and digital music and that's why it's so hypocritical for the law to allow used CD sales, but not sales of digital music downloads to transfer to the next user (same for video games for that matter). Just because a song is being sold as a download instead of on a piece of plastic, I can no longer sell it when I'm sick of it? Why? Because they want everyone to buy new copies from them? They're taking advantage of general technological ignorance of the general public to try and make people believe there is some kind of difference between the two (other than the piece of plastic which is just a delivery medium; if it were more than that, then you would "own" the album and the industry says you don't own ANYTHING but the plastic it's printed on). I'm sure they don't like libraries lending out music or movies either as they don't get money if people can listen for free. But if I buy a game on a cartridge or a DVD, I can resell it, but if it's digital off the Net, too bad? That's ridiculous as there is no difference between the two.

Do you think there's any value to having an application for 2 years? I think there is. Which was my original point. But I get it. If you buy it you should be able to resell it. Alright.

I'm not getting into a vinyl debate because I think it's antiquated since it appears most music is recorded digitally these days anyway. I'm also not entertaining the death of the CD since I heard how the digital distribution was going to kill brick-and-mortar stores, the newspaper, and the book. Heck, CDs haven't killed vinyl yet.

How can you say physical medium is irrelevant when the physical medium is the difference?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Do you think there's any value to having an application for 2 years? I think there is. Which was my original point. But I get it. If you buy it you should be able to resell it. Alright.

I'm not saying there's no value to it. I'm simply saying I believe something you buy, you should be able to sell, even if it's a license to use the software. I'm simply sick of companies being allowed to screw consumers at every turn for their benefit.

How can you say physical medium is irrelevant when the physical medium is the difference?

To me, it's just a delivery medium. I write my own music with Logic. I can burn a CD or put it on a USB stick. It makes absolutely no difference (except that CD means knocking it down to 16-bit/44.1 unless it's data only).

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

To me, it's just a delivery medium. I write my own music with Logic. I can burn a CD or put it on a USB stick. It makes absolutely no difference (except that CD means knocking it down to 16-bit/44.1 unless it's data only).

But as a consumer, it makes a difference to me. Either delivery medium you treat differently.