because they were bigger...? External usually works better antenna wise. Take routers for example.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who is concerned about the new antenna design?
- Thread starter troop231
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
because they were bigger...? External usually works better antenna wise. Take routers for example.
It may work fine but its ATT that we have to worry about. Will their new "data plans" fix the problems or will it cause even more?
not worried. Not that they are the same, i don't know very much about antennas... but i know when i used to touch my old bunny ear tv antenna the signal actually improved, same thing for my fm radio antenna. And as for jumping the signals between the 2, i don't think it's anything to worry about.
You hold your iphone now dont you? The RF is propagating through less layers now, since its on the external part of the phone.
Why? Because internal antennas are more aesthetically pleasing. Internal antennas were actually a very big technical challenge for the cell-phone industry.
Antennas work better exposed. It's really basic science.
Yeah, becuase Apple NEVER makes a mistake.
Not to worry.
Cell phone makers have been using bezels and other external metal trim as antenna aids for years.
Cell phone makers have been using bezels and other external metal trim as antenna aids for years.
um. thats not what i was saying. i was saying apple has new and improved antennas. this proves it perfectly fine
No, you used the iPad reception to prove the 4G antenna would work fine. They don't use the same antenna setup.
Sigh. In the 2.4Ghz range there is a limited amount of bandwidth. It was all taken up.
They will be fine due to the "seams"
They must have tested it thoroughly.
The guy who lost the prototype whaz checking how a beer jump could impact the performance, also how good the signals was.
And why do you think the front facing camera is there?
It is to shoot picts of the faces we will have when we receive our
magical electrical shocks while using our iPhone 4.
It also detects if the user is talking or writing in MR about seams -> magical shock -> instant pict -> Cloud -> iAd video
They must have tested it thoroughly.
The guy who lost the prototype whaz checking how a beer jump could impact the performance, also how good the signals was.
And why do you think the front facing camera is there?
It is to shoot picts of the faces we will have when we receive our
magical electrical shocks while using our iPhone 4. It also detects if the user is talking or writing in MR about seams -> magical shock -> instant pict -> Cloud -> iAd video
Looks like I was right after all!
Gotta hand it to you man. You totally called that one.. Talk about crushed hopes.
+ 1. The new antenna's are not performing well. Hopefully it's just a software issue.
You, sir, were correct. You might as well be wearing a t-shirt that says "I told you so."
I wish Apple would put out a statement in laymans terms for the benefits of this design so people wouldn't be so worked up.
I'm an RF engineer with an EE degree and 10 years of experience. By touching the antenna your body becomes part of the circuit, essentially making one large antenna. This improves reception considerably. Remeber old rabbit ears on your tv? You use to move them with your hands, when you touched them the picture was clear, as soon as you let go it got worse? It made it hard to tune them in. Same thing applies here. The bars decreasing when touched is a software glitch because the impedance has changed on the circuit, the software is simply calibrated to not being held.
As far as shorting it out, some simple isolation barriers take care of that, so no worries.
I'm an RF engineer with an EE degree and 10 years of experience. By touching the antenna your body becomes part of the circuit, essentially making one large antenna. This improves reception considerably. Remeber old rabbit ears on your tv? You use to move them with your hands, when you touched them the picture was clear, as soon as you let go it got worse? It made it hard to tune them in. Same thing applies here. The bars decreasing when touched is a software glitch because the impedance has changed on the circuit, the software is simply calibrated to not being held.
As far as shorting it out, some simple isolation barriers take care of that, so no worries.
Makes sense, but how do you explain the actual dropped calls? Also, aren't antenna lengths optimized to receive specific wavelengths? Wouldn't changing the antenna length potentially harm the reception?