Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended

Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>I was kidding to make a point about iPhone 4 and duct tape, which is
>hilarious.

By the way, at the risk of being pedantic, I recently found out that duct tape
was originally called "duck tape" because of its ability to resist water.

Later after World War II one version of the tape was colored silver (instead
of olive drab as used in the military) and people began to use it on heating
ducts. Only thing is, it's not designed for ducts and the adhesive dries out
in a matter of weeks and comes loose.

---

› See More: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 12 Jul 2010 13:54:04 -0700 nospam wrote:
>
>> touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.
>
> I would, but I can't get my fingers inside the case of the other phones!
>



EXACTLY!

Ted Nelson wrote:
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> They have 85 year old engineers still designing phones? No wonder the
>>> Droid X has been reviewed so poorly.
>>>
>> Holding your iPhone 4 in your left hand you know exactly what I'm talking
>> about......
>
> mine works fine no matter how I hold it, so it seems to be upset android
> users that are having the problem


Using what, your Emily Post grip?

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> After additional testing, Consumer Reports has confirmed the reception
>> problem with the iPhone 4 exterior antenna and has decided not to recommend
>> the new iPhone until Apple resolves the problem.
>>
>> http://blogs.consumerreports.org/ele...e-4-antenna-is
>> sue-iphone4-problems-dropped-calls-lab-test-confirmed-problem-issues-signal-st
>> rength-att-network-gsm.html
>>
>> (or http://bit.ly/bxUBFU)
>>
>>
>> - Peter
>
> CR lost my subscription when they didn't think it was important to test
> reception in their HDTV reviews.



Canceled mine when they didn't think it was important to rate the BMW
2002tii...

But got over it.

On 7/12/2010 2:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, John Slade
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one
>>>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes
>>>> to the antenna.
>>>
>>> touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.
>>
>> The iPhone 4's antenna is put in a bad place. Right where
>> someone would hold it. That's poor design and apparently Apple
>> has job openings for antenna engineers now. I wonder if they
>> fired the guy who decided to put the antenna there.
>
> the job openings were there since last january and likely have
> absolutely nothing to do with the iphone.
>
> other phones have antennas in bad places too, like this one:
> <http://i48.tinypic.com/x0xsi9.jpg>
>
>>>> Apple is flat out lying when they say it's only
>>>> a software issue.
>>>
>>> when did you examine the software?
>>>
>>> oh right, you didn't.
>>
>> Apple claimed that there was no hardware issue with the
>> iPhone's antenna.
>
> apple said the iphone 4 has the best reception of any phone, something
> that anandtech confirmed.

I don't know if this is true or not but it doesn't
have that great reception if the person holds it without duct
tape, a case or some other device.

> apple also said there are problems with the
> firmware and they're working on fixing it.

Apple claimed it was a problem with the software that gave
incorrect readings on the signal strength meter. They put out a
patch and claimed that was the real problem behind the problem.
However many people have implemented the patch and still have
the problem. There are videos on the Internet confirming this.
The antenna is in a bad place, plain and simple.

>
> however, everyone is suddenly an rf engineer and thinks they have all
> the answers, even when apple themselves haven't completely figured it
> out.

There is nothing to figure out. The antenna is in a bad
place. It's around the edge right where people hold it. This
allows me to figure out a couple of things. Apple rushed the
iPhone 4 to market without proper testing. They rushed it to
market to keep up with companies who are putting out phones that
are more advanced than the iPhone. Apple didn't want to fall
behind.

>
> in short, there are a lot of variables that can affect reception,
> antenna placement being just one.

Exactly, Apple put it in the wrong place.

>
>> Consumer Reports and others have shown there
>> is a hardware issue. The funny thing was Apple's first response
>> to the problem that consisted of "You're not holding it right!"
>
> apple is not handling this particularly well. they should have said 'we
> are working on it and will have more info to follow.'

I agree. Apple tries to keep the image that their products
are better by design. This was actually true years ago. I
remember an Apple user who was clueless who told me that Apple
computers are "engineered" when computers from other companies
are not. These other computers are just slapped together from
OEM parts. Apple's own marketing strategy is what leads people
to believe this silly notion and Apple doesn't want to part from
that. Apple's quality has gone way down in the last ten years
but they remain successful by keeping up the illusion that their
products are unique and better.

John

On 13/07/10 8:41 AM, John Slade wrote:

> I agree. Apple tries to keep the image that their products are better by
> design. This was actually true years ago. I remember an Apple user who
> was clueless who told me that Apple computers are "engineered" when
> computers from other companies are not.

In some cases that's true. I.e. Apple uses the same king of magnetic
power cord latch for their laptops that my Zojirushi hot water boiler
uses--if you trip over the cord it releases, it doesn't drag the
computer to the floor or destroy the power jack on the computer. It's a
little thing that costs little to implement, but it's thoughtful
engineering.

> These other computers are just slapped together from OEM parts.

There was no reason for Apple to continue to pay premium prices for
custom chips that added no extra functionality. That was bad news for
semiconductor companies that were enjoying huge margins selling custom
chips to them. The end user doesn't care about what's inside. The
decision to move to x86 was because the PowerPC was not keeping up with
Intel in terms of low power and performance. You can't build good
laptops with high power CPUs.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:24:39 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Ted Nelson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Slade <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one
>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes
>> to the antenna. Apple is flat out lying when they say it's only
>> a software issue.
>
>you can fix most any hardware problem through software don't forget.
>plus if you are one of the 1,400 people that had the problem, get a
>case, problem solved.

While there are some hardware problems that can be worked-around or at
least alleviated in software, there are also some that cannot, and this
looks to me to be more likely in the latter category, with only fig leaf
fixes (e.g., no signal strength meter) possible.

I think the interesting question is whether or not Apple will try to
slipstream a change to the iPhone 4 hardware, or tough out this design
for a year until iPhone 5.

The problem of toughing it out is that the problem will continue to grow
should it ultimately lose in court or in the court of public opinion.

The problem with a slipstream change is that it would throw fuel on the
fire of the criticism and lawsuits unless Apple is prepared to offer
free hardware swaps, which would be a huge hit to the bottom line.

I personally think Apple will probably continue to stonewall and push
fig leaf "solutions", risking its brand, because that's the Steve Jobs
Way. How successful that will be only time will tell.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:16:36 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, Kevin McMurtrie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> After additional testing, Consumer Reports has confirmed the reception
>> problem with the iPhone 4 exterior antenna and has decided not to recommend
>> the new iPhone until Apple resolves the problem.
>>
>> http://blogs.consumerreports.org/ele...e-4-antenna-is
>> sue-iphone4-problems-dropped-calls-lab-test-confirmed-problem-issues-signal-st
>> rength-att-network-gsm.html
>>
>> (or http://bit.ly/bxUBFU)

>CR lost my subscription when they didn't think it was important to test
>reception in their HDTV reviews. Suddenly they have the competence to
>carry out scientific tests again? This is a fashion-over-form magazine
>telling people not to buy a fashion-over-form cellphone.

Yep. Out of its league. Should stick to toasters and soap.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:20:37 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, Larry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Slade <[email protected]> wrote in news:qEL_n.10358$wm1.6901
>@newsfe01.iad:
>
>> The iPhone 4's antenna is put in a bad place. Right where
>> someone would hold it. That's poor design and apparently Apple
>> has job openings for antenna engineers now. I wonder if they
>> fired the guy who decided to put the antenna there.
>>
>
>AS much as I hate to defend the closed ecosystem of Apple, it's not really
>Apple's fault the antenna is on the bottom.
>
>You can blame that one totally on this environazi bull**** about the
>"dangers of RF radiation"......environmentalism.
>
>Apple didn't want to put antennas on the bottom, the worst place for any
>antenna, any more than BP wanted to move off the Continental Shelf and
>drill in 5000' of water. BOTH are environmental disasters totally to blame
>on environmentalists trying to take over the government.

That's easily the silliest thing I've read this week.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

In article <[email protected]>,
Ted Nelson <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> you can fix most any hardware problem through software don't forget.

Not if it requires violating the laws of physics!

AES wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ted Nelson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> you can fix most any hardware problem through software don't forget.
>
> Not if it requires violating the laws of physics!


You forget that AAPL need not observe physical laws.

On 7/13/10 8:41 AM, John Slade wrote:
>
> There is nothing to figure out. The antenna is in a bad place. It's around
> the edge right where people hold it. This allows me to figure out a couple
> of things. Apple rushed the iPhone 4 to market without proper testing. They
> rushed it to market to keep up with companies who are putting out phones
> that are more advanced than the iPhone.

Actually, I think a good part of the problem is that Apple tested the new
iPhone in the "real world" using a case that disguised it as an older iPhone
3GS, hence, during the "real world" testing, the new iPhone 4 didn't exhibit
the antenna problem because the testers (like the engineer who left his
prototype iPhone in a Redwood City bar) never used the new iPhone without a
case attached to it.

- Peter

On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, John Navas wrote:
>
> While there are some hardware problems that can be worked-around or at
> least alleviated in software, there are also some that cannot, and this
> looks to me to be more likely in the latter category, with only fig leaf
> fixes (e.g., no signal strength meter) possible.
>
> I think the interesting question is whether or not Apple will try to
> slipstream a change to the iPhone 4 hardware, or tough out this design
> for a year until iPhone 5.
>
> The problem of toughing it out is that the problem will continue to grow
> should it ultimately lose in court or in the court of public opinion.
>
> The problem with a slipstream change is that it would throw fuel on the
> fire of the criticism and lawsuits unless Apple is prepared to offer
> free hardware swaps, which would be a huge hit to the bottom line.
>
> I personally think Apple will probably continue to stonewall and push
> fig leaf "solutions", risking its brand, because that's the Steve Jobs
> Way. How successful that will be only time will tell.

Probably the least costly solution for Apple would be to repackage the
iPhone 4 with those new "bumpers" that Apple is trying to sell for an
additional $29. Those silicon bumpers probably doesn't cost more than 10
cents to manufacture and they solve the iPhone 4 antenna problem. They
could offer this bumper (in basic black) for free to anyone who already had
bought an iPhone 4.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC...co=MTM3NTI0ODg

They could still try to sell the bumpers that come in other colors for those
who are into customizing the look of their iPhones.


- Peter

In article <sO%[email protected]>, John Slade
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Apple claimed that there was no hardware issue with the
> >> iPhone's antenna.
> >
> > apple said the iphone 4 has the best reception of any phone, something
> > that anandtech confirmed.
>
> I don't know if this is true or not but it doesn't
> have that great reception if the person holds it without duct
> tape, a case or some other device.

if you don't know if it's true, how do you know it has poor reception,
especially over someone who *does* use it?

> > apple also said there are problems with the
> > firmware and they're working on fixing it.
>
> Apple claimed it was a problem with the software that gave
> incorrect readings on the signal strength meter. They put out a
> patch and claimed that was the real problem behind the problem.

they did say it was a software problem, however, they have *not* put
out any patch yet. they're working on a solution.

> However many people have implemented the patch and still have
> the problem. There are videos on the Internet confirming this.

really? what videos confirm people have installed a nonexistent patch?

> The antenna is in a bad place, plain and simple.

where else would you put it?

> > however, everyone is suddenly an rf engineer and thinks they have all
> > the answers, even when apple themselves haven't completely figured it
> > out.
>
> There is nothing to figure out.

yes there is.

> The antenna is in a bad
> place. It's around the edge right where people hold it.

as opposed to on the bottom, where people hold it?

<http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/...eption-issues-
mmm/>

If you¹re suffering from reception issues with the E71, try thisŠ
first, completely cover the bottom back plastic piece with your hand,
and check out the number of bars you have. Then, grab the phone just
at the very top by the ear piece, and hold it for a couple seconds.
Did your reception just skyrocket? Yeah, ours too.

nokia, sanyo and samsung have warnings how to hold their phones
properly, probably other brands too.

> This allows me to figure out a couple of things. Apple rushed the
> iPhone 4 to market without proper testing. They rushed it to
> market to keep up with companies who are putting out phones that
> are more advanced than the iPhone. Apple didn't want to fall
> behind.

nonsense.

> > in short, there are a lot of variables that can affect reception,
> > antenna placement being just one.
>
> Exactly, Apple put it in the wrong place.

read it again. antenna placement is *one* factor, not the *only* factor.

"nospam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:120720101354048311%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, John Slade
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one
>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes
>> to the antenna.
>
> touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.

True, but most designs don't put the antenna where it would normally
be contacted by one's hand.

>> Apple is flat out lying when they say it's only
>> a software issue.
>
> when did you examine the software?

I trust CR's engineers. They're not dummies.

--
John Richards