I Truely Think This Is a Software Issue

[ascender]

It may be software, but if so, how do you explain that this happens to other mobile phone handsets from other manufacturers too? If it is software, I'm guessing it just makes the problem a bit worse or more noticeable rather than being the root cause.

 

[donbenjy]

Well yeah, the root cause of the problem is our hands and how they interact with the antennae. But I think the defect is occurring in the software, rather than an electrical shorting issue.

 

[Eso]

this isn't the same as a toy recall for instance where the product is dangerous to a consumer.

Exactly my point.

Not dangerous to the consumer = no recall.

The antenna is not dangerous to consumers. It'll be a case of calling Apple care or visiting an Apple store for an exchange, simple as that.

 

[myfoneisdank]

Exactly my point.

Not dangerous to the consumer = no recall.

The antenna is not dangerous to consumers. It'll be a case of calling Apple care or visiting an Apple store for an exchange, simple as that.

absolutely correct. but this would be a no questions asked swap for tested model. if they were to prevent people from getting a new phone if they wanted one, then they would have a disaster on their hands.

 

[glanv]

if it came down to the fact that it was a proven hardware defect and could not be fixed via software, apple would have no choice but to recall the product. this isn't the same as a toy recall for instance where the product is dangerous to a consumer. they would have to accept all iphones bought before a certain date/batch and switch them for a new, tested model.

if they do not take this action under the worst case scenario, there would be major major problems for the company. they have a share price and image to worry about. there is no way the higher ups at apple would ever let this happen. it would be done very swiftly.

Not sure what the US law is on consumer rights, but in the UK we have the Sale of Goods Act which states a product must be:

1. As described
2. Of satisfactory quality
3. Fit for purpose

No. 3 'Fit for purpose' is the most important element of the act. If a mobile phone suffers signal degradation when held in a certain way and this causes call drop-outs/failures then I would say it isn't fit for purpose. The difficulty lies in that there is more than one supplier involved with mobile phones - the manufacturer and the carrier. Reminds me of a friend who had a problem with a Win XP computer - retailer blamed manufacturer, manufacturer blamed MS & MS blamed manufacturer!

If/when I get the new iPhone and if it suffers from the reception issue, I will be straight to the Apple store for an exchange. If after 4 replacements the problem is still there I will demand a refund on the basis that I have given them enough chances and the product has an inherent problem that deems it unfit for purpose. I got the 3G at launch and had to exchange it 3 times (light leak, cracked back case) - I made it clear from the outset with the genius that I knew my consumer & legal rights and would be fully prepared to enforce them. My girlfriend is a Law graduate and it is always good to have her with me in these situations!

 

[Eso]

My girlfriend is a Law graduate and it is always good to have her with me in these situations!

Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where Elaine brings her "lawyer", Jerry, into an argument with a store manager.

"Well, I believe there's some legal precedent - Winchell v. Mahoney..."

 

[Figbash Acrobat]

Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where Elaine brings her "lawyer", Jerry, into an argument with a store manager.

"Well, I believe there's some legal precedent - Winchell v. Mahoney..."

Haha! Yes, but having a real lawyer with a real precedent makes all the difference. Not everyone lives in a Seinfeld (i.e. comedian's) world. Though we sometimes like to think we do because it makes the absurd funny.

 

[wirelessmacuser]

Who would have thought that someone's hand would be anywhere near this new iPhone?

Brilliant, the best humor yet...

 

[glanv]

Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where Elaine brings her "lawyer", Jerry, into an argument with a store manager.

"Well, I believe there's some legal precedent - Winchell v. Mahoney..."

As the Sale of Goods Act is a statute, precedent is not required (apart for interpretation of the Act). I don't watch Seinfeld.

 

[Surely]

So how's that Monday thing going for you, OP?