So you're refuting review sites like Slashgear, The Verge, Engadget, and Tech Radar with a site that might as well be a blog by an enthusiast consumer. By the formatting and level of professionalism displayed, I had to double check that I wasn't looking at an old Geocities site. Further, all of the objective measurements of RF signal you referenced were nowhere to be found in that article. His "test" method is to bring the phone being evaluated to a shopping mall along with another "reference" (and I find that laughable as an engineer) phone, and walk inward to see which one drops signal faster. He didn't even mention using any basic apps that would actually reveal signal strength or RF link budget with real resolution.
The other sites
didn't test RF performance, so I'm not refuting them,
because there's nothing to refute. Find me a better analysis of RF performance then. That's the best one I could dig up.
Even setting aside his specious methods, his opinion (because that's what it is without real test equipment or other such objective analytical methods) of the Galaxy Nexus was that it was average, not worse than average as you purport.
I said it was mediocre, which is average. I acknowledge that there are worse phones out there. The thing is, average isn't good enough when you actually need to use the thing and it doesn't work.
I would debate that the RF capabilities (beyond perhaps the Wifi capability, which is mostly irrelevant considering both are well beyond good enough) of the 4S are better than the Nexus. I have used both where I work in a predominantly concrete government building with very poor signal. Using the same SIM card (I've tried both T mobile and AT&T) on each phone, the Galaxy Nexus is rarely, but consistently, able to receive calls or text messages quicker than the 4S.
The iPhone 4S is stop notch, and the Gnex is merely average. I had a Captivate, and the Gnex is very similar to the Captivate. There's quite a bit of different between those two devices.
I've never seen a mobile phone with decent RF on the Wifi. They pretty much all suck, but at least it's something that can be compensated for on the other end.
Data speed tests in identical location with the same SIM yield similar results for both phones, in my experience.
It would also seem that any reasonable and unbiased discussion about the Galaxy Nexus would be highly dubious given your unsatisfying experience with previous Samsung products and frequent use of terms like "Samsuck".
Please reread what I posted (quoted here for convenience):
"Signal quality", not call quality.
Call quality, stability, and data rates. These metrics are directly related to RF quality. They also mention excellent call stability ("no dropped or failed calls") in locations that are typically poor for call stability.
"tenacious grip on a mobile signal". This is not limited to call quality, this is RF.
References call quality and data speeds.
You prefer the RAZR to this phone; this is clear. Nothing wrong with that. But please don't get on here making claims that the Galaxy Nexus RF quality stinks (or is even below average) when, 1. you've never used one, and 2. all information available is to the contrary.
I said it's average, and average smartphone RF performance pretty much sucks. I've had two average performing smartphones, partly because it is so darn hard to find decent information on RF performance, and the two that were above average were a lot nicer to use.
What the heck is "signal quality"? Sounds like how the quality of service with a medium to decent signal, not the ability of the phone to hang on to a fringe signal.
Part of the problem, like I've said before, with these review sites, is that they are in highly urban locations, and test on T-Mobile whenever possible (like with the Gnex), and are basically surrounded by a ton of cell sites.
