Occam's razor, the bumper, and the iPhone 4 - A theory...

[DoFoT9]

I would suspect that we'll see:

a) a software fix that will handle the current fairly horrible attenuation levels by adjusting power output in the hopes of maintaining a better connection

are you aware of the current output of the iP4 vs how much is legally possible in the US? i would have thought that they would have made it as close as they could have..

b) a software fix that will handle the current fairly horrible detuning and necessary channel hopping which seems to be taking place but never actually locking on because it wasn't hopping fast enough, the lag was killing it (there was a posting at the Apple Support forums about that theory, it was removed several days ago, however)

i had noticed massive lag from some users 3G speedtest.net posts (>1s in some cases!) - is this what you are referring to? or are you more specifically referring to the frequencies that are chosen for communication and the times to change over?

c) a software fix that will address the signal strength indicator so it's showing "true signal strength" instead of the haphazard levels it shows now for many people

i think people have gone WAYYY over the top with this one. take, for instance my Nokia E63. tethering to my laptop with full reception i can reliably download at 40KB/s. when travelling to a location with 1bar (out of 7) - i am still able to download at 40KB/s. you would think that the lack of bars would indicate more packet loss, more latency etc; but it doesnt really.. i wonder if this is the same with the iP4.

 

[samcraig]

That's a lot of info and conjecture for you to consider it Occam's Razor

There are two "easiest" answers

1. Apple didn't know and are now scrambling to fix
2. Apple did know and a bean counter determined the return/exchange rate would cost less than a recall/remanufacturing

 

[spydr]

Can you please explain Occam's razor, Contact and its transcendental relevance to iPhone 4 design philosophy again? You lost me in the middle somewhere

 

[phelly]

Static

I feel compelled to point out that you did not mention the 18 hours of static that was recorded. (As shown at the end of the film). Whilst this may sound a little off topic, this was a large section of the original post.

So could there be outside forces at work here?

 

[DoFoT9]

I feel compelled to point out that you did not mention the 18 hours of static that was recorded. (As shown at the end of the film). Whilst this may sound a little off topic, this was a large section of the original post.

So could there be outside forces at work here?

lol keep up buddy. check page 2

 

[-aggie-]

That's a lot of info and conjecture for you to consider it Occam's Razor

There are two "easiest" answers

1. Apple didn't know and are now scrambling to fix
2. Apple did know and a bean counter determined the return/exchange rate would cost less than a recall/remanufacturing

The only problem with the first one is that I find it hard to believe that the only smart engineers are those on MacRumors. The problem with the second is that this could ruin Apple's reputation to just make a few bucks. Apple's reputation is kind of priceless, unless they just don't care any more. The reason there are so many fanboys for Apple's products is because of that reputation.

 

[phelly]

lol keep up buddy. check page 2

Sorry - there was a lot to read

 

[DoFoT9]

Sorry - there was a lot to read

you arent wrong lol!

 

[br0adband]

I haven't seen one of these in person, as they are sold out online, but isn't this "case" by Marware very similar to the Bumper?
http://www.marware.com/products/iPhone-4/SportGrip-Edge-for-iPhone-4
It goes only around the edges, with no front or back protection built into the case (it has protection films for the front and back, but those are seperately applied).

I'll be damned, someone makes a bumper other than Apple. HALLELUJAH!!! Sorry, had to do it.

So I'll have to note that yes, one company makes a bumper like Apple now, cool. And it's a big chunk of change less expensive too, interesting. Thanks for catching it...

 

[samcraig]

The only problem with the first one is that I find it hard to believe that the only smart engineers are those on MacRumors. The problem with the second is that this could ruin Apple's reputation to just make a few bucks. Apple's reputation is kind of priceless, unless they just don't care any more. The reason there are so many fanboys for Apple's products is because of that reputation.

I didn't say I believed either scenario. I am talking occam's razor as the thread title is called. The OP has a much more complicated explanation - and that goes AGAINST the principals of Occam's Razor. So I gave the two easiest explanations.

I agree mostly. But with #2 - Apple can deny deny deny there's a WIDESPREAD issue and keep referring to it as "some people have experienced"

The second they do anything more than that - they will take a major hit beyond the rumors/speculation on failure which at this point they still "sort of" have.

 

[thatisme]

Well, Apple's reputation over the last 4-5 years has been more of "design over function", however, function has been right on the heels of design, so I doubt Apple would want to do anything to destroy or harm their brand loyalty. Apple is an iconic brand as Harley Davidson, and Steve-o nor the shareholders would want that brand tarnished.

I believe that some tradeoffs were discussed in the design phase. For the form, the iPhone is a sleek, well built, beautifully simple and industrial design with an eye toward art. This is in keeping with Apple's new design principles. The antenna issue may be one of those "tradeoffs" to allow the design to remain. While there is an issue (in my opinion), it doesn't affect everyone as indicated by posts here and in the news, as proximity, signal strength and type of signal come into play. I, for one, have the issues described with my phone, but not to the degree to cause signal loss or dropped calls. I can repetitively get the phone to 1 or 2 bars in a matter of 10-15 seconds, but I have not been able to drop signal completely.... maybe I'm in a above average signal strength area?!?!? (probably not, being in the sticks...)

I also believe there is a software issue that needs to be addressed, which most likely will come pretty quickly....

I have a hard time believing that Apple would have designed such a nice phone and developed a cheesy bumper to "fix" the issues, expecting that 100% of owners would use these. This is what goes completely against Apple's core (ha!). Apple, in working to keep brand recognition and brand loyalty, wouldn't accept this as a solution unless there really was no alternative. However, with that, I cannot accept that Apple would have kept up production and rollout of a product with a known operational flaw... Thus leading me to Occam's razor... the easiest fix is apple tweaking the iOS to work with the signal hopping better, not a rubber band case, that may abate the problem, but would have MAJOR negative repercussions on the company brand for years to come.

 

[br0adband]

thatisme:

Nicely put, and the Apple core thing almost had me spitting up my soda.

With respect to the bumper thing, no, they wouldn't expect every single owner to get one because so many people choose full body cases of many kinds, obviously, but they wouldn't need to market it to every owner. Why?

Because not everyone - as you and me and most everyone else has pointed out - is having the problems that the bumper seems to be a nearly perfect solution for. I get it that tons and tons of new iPhone 4 owners are happy and having no problems whatsoever, but some of us are, and we'd like something done about it.

We get someone that stands up and fires off an email - samcraig, as I just thanked him for doing it in another thread - and Steve Jobs responds with "Dude, obviously you're an idiot, don't you know I'm Steve Jobs, of course you're at fault, our iPhone 4 is perfect, you're holding it wrong, stupid."

Ok, ok, I'll admit, he didn't say that, he's not that wordy but even so, "Just avoid holding it in that way" says the same thing to me and many other people. It's an insult to our intelligence and experience and their own marketing materials all over the place demonstrate how we apparently aren't supposed to hold the phone. Puhleeeeeezzz...

Let's hope they do something, and soon.

 

[tigertazz]

One of the main problems here is the transference of energy from the RF frequencies into the antenna on the phone.

The OP is right in the theory behind that the orgainic tissues will inhibit this transference, however the practicalities of the stiuation show that it would be unlikely that the volume of human tissue in the direct path of the RF energy could completely throw the signal on the phone.
However there is a secondary theory that because of the electrical interferecnce caused by the human nervous system. Magnetic and electrical circuits operate in a similar way and so the tissue can disrupt the sensitive antenna and this affect is then amplified by the steel.

Energy, in this form, is not stored. Cells within the body do not have this ability. Instead the molecules that the energy comes in contact with become agitated and hot causing unnatural stretching and twisting. But the wavelength of the energy is such that it wont all get absorbed and that the majority of it would pass through.

I think that there is definetley a culmination of problems that includes many features.

lets hope apple thinks of a fix and fast

 

[br0adband]

Well, in spite of everything that's happened, and my theories, someone look at that newly posted Engadget article about Apple posting job opening for "Antenna Engineers" as of June 23rd, the very day these issues started being reported.

How magical a coincidence would it be if it honestly had no connection at all...

Sorry, I ain't buying it...

 

[benoitgphoto]

The only problem with the first one is that I find it hard to believe that the only smart engineers are those on MacRumors. The problem with the second is that this could ruin Apple's reputation to just make a few bucks. Apple's reputation is kind of priceless, unless they just don't care any more. The reason there are so many fanboys for Apple's products is because of that reputation.

I totally agree with that.

Even though the OP has a great explanation on what might be the problem, (and he actually reminded me how I love Contact movie and Jodie Foster) it's hard to believe that Apple engineers missed that one. Pure speculation here but I believe the IP4 had it's fair amount of field testing. I'm working in product development for a bread making industry and new innovation products can easily take up to one year to develop and being launched...so with all the innovation technology in the Iphone 4, this product is not one that can be developed in a few weeks and get rushed to market. It's being on the drawing board for quite sometime now and the concept of the external antenna is not something someone at Apple had decided to implement overnight.

The original Iphone revolutionized smartphones and at this time is considered to be one of the best if not the best smartphone on the market (3GS) and I don't think Apple would have jeopardized that to sell a 30$ bumper. Competitors are there and they are also making great products so Apple have way too much to loose in that story...this also forces me to believe that it's not possible that they always tested the phone in a case. If it's true, that means they are absolutely not serious in developing such products or highly incompetent. I also recall seeing on a Mac forum somewhere that in the IP4 development, they also had a plan B with a less major upgrade to the phone in case something major would have gone wrong in the last development phases of the actual IP4...which tells how serious they are in product development.

Having a skin to antenna contact or bridging the 2 antennae together...come on it's Basic RF 101 and you seriously think they never saw that coming? I think they were aware of the drawbacks of such design right off the bat and they have designed it accordingly. My opinion is that it's more probable that the actual issues of calls dropping are software related but more probably related to the manufacturing process rather than a design flaw...of course I might be wrong...

 

[br0adband]

Let's apply Occam's razor one final time:

Is it more likely that

A) Yes they missed something and the phone has a problem
B) It's absolutely perfect as Steve Jobs and Apple's marketing machine would prefer everyone believe

I'm gonna go with A on that one, Alex... without question it's easier to screw something up and make a mistake than be absolutely perfect and without errors. The purpose of this thread was to point out what I believe is the basic design flaw: making the antenna part of the chassis which leads to potential skin-on-metal contact which is going to cause dramatic signal attenuation.

Look at Anand's test results if you want actual numbers. The fact that the iPhone 4 has the antenna as part of the body of the phone, when "Held Normally" in the hand as you can and typically do, causes nearly double the level of signal attenuation of one competitive product and nearly 10x the attenuation of the previous generation, the iPhone 3GS, is proof of this.

Go watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znxQOPFg2mo

If you're not convinced there's a problem with the iPhone 4 in that demo, based on the fact that the iPhone 3GS is operating under the same RF-heavy overload conditions, then I can't do anything more to make it clearer. The iPhone 4 fails, the iPhone 3GS passes with flying colors. This footage is of course censored/deleted/missing from the "public" WWDC video at Apple.com, and a huge number of people have never seen it.

Simplest explanation for what Steve Jobs experiences in that demo? The iPhone 4 he's trying to demo has a problem.

Since that skin-on-metal contact is a problem, they needed a quick down and dirty efficient solution since it was way way waaaayyyyy too late to start over again and alter the basic "flawed" design of the phone in the first place.

The simplest explanation for the existence of the Bumper is to prevent skin-on-metal contact.

It's not a very protective thing, honestly. Dropping the phone on the edge will basically transfer the kinetic energy through the Bumper to the chassis of the phone which, because of the different parts of the design - meaning the entire phone isn't like the unibody MacBook laptops - the potential still exists that when such a jarring impact happens, and that energy transfer takes place, it will make the glass front or back (which are "floating" on it) shift in place and then take that energy and transfer it across the surface, and throughout the construction.

Basically, I'm betting that having the Bumper on the phone would, to some degree, actually increase the likelihood that damage occurs, especially shattered front or back panels.

Speculation? Somewhat, sure. Common sense, simple explanations? Absolutely. It's not rocket science...

 

[Geckotek]

A few days ago I said in 2 sentences what it apparently took you 1/2 page to say. (At least I think since all I did was scan it looking for the damned point.)

 

[murdercitydevil]

Good post, but as others have said, no new information really, besides the background stuff about microwaves and energy absorption (interesting to me, anyway). However, I don't agree with your thoughts about the design flaw 100%.

In my experience, and I think the experience of many others, the issue doesn't occur because of too little energy as a result of absorption as a result of skin-on-metal contact. I can hold my phone in a death grip, putting as much of my hand all over the band EXCEPT the bottom-left antenna seam, and my bars do not vary whatsoever. But as soon as my finger touches the SEAM and the two antennas are BRIDGED, bars plummet. The seam separates two separate antennas (one being bluetooth,wifi,gps, the other being the actual cellular antenna and something else), which means that the issue manifests itself as soon as they are bridged, meaning (I would naturally assume), that software can fix the issue.

So this leads me to a different conclusion - a software fix in the form of altering how the antennas communicate with one another and how they behave when bridged, as well as perhaps a fix from AT&T in the form of how the phone goes about searching for new towers when signal starts dropping, and possibly a fix for a more accurate display of signal strength as bars, could fix the problem at least in PART. Obviously, as your post made very clear, the hardware aspect of this, and the inherent flaw of human contact with an antenna that's prevalent in every cell phone, is here to stay. But the software can be modified, and I think Apple would be downright retarded to ignore that. They should at the very least be considering it, prior to considering a recall.

And that leads me to another conclusion - Apple is really dumber than we all thought. No wonder they're rehiring a team of antenna engineers.

 

[admanimal]

That's a lot of info and conjecture for you to consider it Occam's Razor

There are two "easiest" answers

1. Apple didn't know and are now scrambling to fix
2. Apple did know and a bean counter determined the return/exchange rate would cost less than a recall/remanufacturing

What samcraig said.

I'll add my own list of Occam's Razor-compatible theories:

1. Problem is caused by unexpected software issue, which they are trying to fix.
2. Problem is caused by an unexpected manufacturing issue, which they are presumably trying to fix.
3. Apple knew the phones would have this issue, and really believe that it's not a problem and/or that people would get over it.
4. Secretive testing in cases and high-signal areas caused them to miss the problem and now they are deciding what to do (IMO an unlikely theory).

Applying Occam's Razor to the existence of the bumpers leads to the very simple theory that Apple is selling them to protect the phones from damage, since although the materials used are very strong, the weight and exposed edges makes it prone to breakage when dropped.

I'm not necessarily questioning the possibility that your theory is correct...but your understanding of Occam's Razor is definitely not.

 

[br0adband]

A few days ago I said in 2 sentences what it apparently took you 1/2 page to say. (At least I think since all I did was scan it looking for the damned point.)

Yah, our society being overrun by people with no attention spans, no potential for having decent discussions, making debates, basically they're stupid for the most part and not much is being done to help it. Your admission that you merely scanned over the post(s) without actually doing a full read is indicative of such a downfall.

Think of it this way: when William of Ockham (the man responsible for Occam's razor) proposed his theory, do you think he just said "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (the actual principle itself, stated literally) and then that was it? Or would he have presented a fairly well detailed and documented set of his reasoning and thoughts about the principle itself?

Sure, I could be "plain old stupid" like so many others and just toss out a sentence or two, but people don't learn anything from a sentence or two, they actually get dumber by the minute because of such idiotic trifle.

It's a discussion forum, it's not called MacTweets. Participate or move along...

 

[MICHAELSD]

Non-issue. Just don't have calls as long as your messages.

-Steve

Sent from my iPhone

 

[Geckotek]

Post was too long and it's too late at night for me to bother so plz forgive me if this has been brought up.

Has anybody pointed out the fact that Apple has NEVER released a case for the iPhone in the past? Take that point into consideration of your "Occam's Razor" list of explanations and the list gets much shorter.

They knew it, the anntenna engineer they hired in January (WAY TOO LATE) told them they had an issue. The bumper was the response.

Yah, our society being overrun by people with no attention spans, no potential for having decent discussions, making debates, basically they're stupid for the most part and not much is being done to help it.

BS dude, we all know what Occam's Razor is. We don't need you to explain the entire plot of a movie to understand it.

 

[admanimal]

BS dude, we all know what Occam's Razor is.

This thread would suggest otherwise.

 

[Geckotek]

This thread would suggest otherwise.

Perhaps...since I didn't read it. 1:35am...about to crash.

Point is, I write some long ass posts myself....but this one was WAY over the top. I was tempted to read it, but after scrolling, scrolling, scrolling and still reading descriptions of "Contact", I realized that this guy had decided to write a freaking novel in the forum.

Either way, I agree with you....I think. Backing up your point is good....but you went overboard.

He spoils the end of Contact and....that's about it.

LOL...I may read his post later....when I'm awake...just to see what his take on the ending is. One of my fav movies.

 

[br0adband]

Perhaps...since I didn't read it. 1:35am...about to crash.

Point is, I write some long ass posts myself....but this one was WAY over the top. I was tempted to read it, but after scrolling, scrolling, scrolling and still reading descriptions of "Contact", I realized that this guy had decided to write a freaking novel in the forum.

Either way, I agree with you....I think. Backing up your point is good....but you went overboard.

Guess you never had a teacher or a professor try to engage you in a discussion of something with examples, anecdotes, going every which way and covering all the bases several times over, instead of just saying "2+2=4, and that's class for today."

Imagine how schools would be if we tossed textbooks at students and said "Ok, that's it, read it cover to cover, you'll have one test tomorrow and that'll be the school 'year' - pass or fail."

I wonder how much people would learn that way... I mean, all the answers are there in the textbooks, right?

As for the ending of the movie: I'm not the one that spoils it... another poster did, and I explained why I didn't spoil it.