Lab tests: Why Consumer Reports can't recommend the iPhone 4(blogs.consumerreports.org)
blogs.consumerreports.org
Lab tests: Why Consumer Reports can't recommend the iPhone 4
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2010/07/apple-iphone-4-antenna-issue-iphone4-problems-dropped-calls-lab-test-confirmed-problem-issues-signal-strength-att-network-gsm.html
9 comments
The iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time, I think.
Maybe by HNers. I think a solid percentage of the general public at least vaguely knows about it, but most of my non-techie friends probably don't, or if they do they heard once and then forgot about it. It's certainly a screw up on Apple's part, but when you keep in mind that the rest of the world is seeing much less targeted news streams, I hardly think it's historical.
Almost everyone that has noticed my iPhone 4 and wanted to talk about it (strange how much attention it gets, compared to what the 3G and 3GS did) has asked about the antenna. The issue has been talked up enough in non-tech news that it's hard not to know about it.
Same here.
"Ooh is that the new iPhone? Do you have antenna problems?"
I say that while I do notice the affect, i've dropped no calls in my apartment with the new model, vs 70% dropped rate on my 3G.
"Ooh is that the new iPhone? Do you have antenna problems?"
I say that while I do notice the affect, i've dropped no calls in my apartment with the new model, vs 70% dropped rate on my 3G.
most of my non-techie friends probably don't
You mean the ones who treat Consumer Reports' recommendations as holy writ?
You mean the ones who treat Consumer Reports' recommendations as holy writ?
Most of the non-techie people aren't also that interested in Apple. They just care about the product. In this case, I know several non-techies (hair dresser, cake decorator, etc) who really don't care about Apple, the company. However, they have asked about the Apple phone screw up they heard about.
Most non-techies, I find, will see a tech-oriented friend to guide purchases, and they will learn about it through those means.
Most non-techies, I find, will see a tech-oriented friend to guide purchases, and they will learn about it through those means.
So much for that idea. I just heard this story reported on NPR.
I gotta agree. Particularly because if the ceramic of the rest of the case had extended to cover the antenna (or if it'd been covered by plastic, or really by anything) this wouldn't have happened.
IMHO, Apple got burned by two things here: 1) The got carried about by how cool using the Antenna as part of the case would look. 2) Their infamous obsession with secrecy meant that all the test phones were hidden in cases that masked the problem, thereby inadvertently tainting their test results and preventing them from discovering the problem.
I wonder if they could apply a thin laquer or clear plastic coating to the antenna on future iPhone4's to fix the problem?
IMHO, Apple got burned by two things here: 1) The got carried about by how cool using the Antenna as part of the case would look. 2) Their infamous obsession with secrecy meant that all the test phones were hidden in cases that masked the problem, thereby inadvertently tainting their test results and preventing them from discovering the problem.
I wonder if they could apply a thin laquer or clear plastic coating to the antenna on future iPhone4's to fix the problem?
I remember seeing the leaked Gizmodo photos and thinking "Yep. that's the new iPhone for sure" even though the gaps in the frame seemed so... unApple like?
It's certainly been entertaining following the drama from finding out that it was left in a bar ("Why would Apple let one off campus? Are they mad?") to Steve Jobs explaining the 'revolutionary' new frame as antennae design, to the eventual kerfuffle about bridging the gap and Apple's admission that they display arbitrary bars 'incorrectly'.
They probably should have installed some Faraday cages of varying effectiveness in Infinite Loop methinks.
It's certainly been entertaining following the drama from finding out that it was left in a bar ("Why would Apple let one off campus? Are they mad?") to Steve Jobs explaining the 'revolutionary' new frame as antennae design, to the eventual kerfuffle about bridging the gap and Apple's admission that they display arbitrary bars 'incorrectly'.
They probably should have installed some Faraday cages of varying effectiveness in Infinite Loop methinks.
I kept wondering throughout the entire escapade: "I wonder if Apple is going to rush the iPhone out to the public now that it has been leaked?" It certainly seems like more testing was required.
Their infamous obsession with secrecy meant that all the test phones were hidden in cases that masked the problem, thereby inadvertently tainting their test results and preventing them from discovering the problem.
It should've shown up in an EM simulator before the hardware design was even finalized. The fact that it didn't explains why Apple is just now getting around to hiring some RF engineers.
It should've shown up in an EM simulator before the hardware design was even finalized. The fact that it didn't explains why Apple is just now getting around to hiring some RF engineers.
If you think this rates high on the list of avoidable but unforeseen design errors, you need to study more engineering history. (And generally, all design errors are avoidable - otherwise they wouldn't be a design decision.) As far as I know, this hasn't killed, maimed or irradiated anyone quite yet.
It's a slightly unfortunate design decision on an otherwise elegantly designed device. It's notable because our expectations are so high - if this was from any company other than Apple it wouldn't get so much press.
But let's put things in perspective, it's not a Ford Pinto, Three Mile Island control panel, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Hyatt Skywalk, or DC-10. If you don't like it, you return the phone and get your money back. You don't end up six feet under.
It's a slightly unfortunate design decision on an otherwise elegantly designed device. It's notable because our expectations are so high - if this was from any company other than Apple it wouldn't get so much press.
But let's put things in perspective, it's not a Ford Pinto, Three Mile Island control panel, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Hyatt Skywalk, or DC-10. If you don't like it, you return the phone and get your money back. You don't end up six feet under.
iPhone 4 owner as of day 1 and I haven't had an issue. I can't imagine that this is true.
EDIT: Wow, Ok I get it. It's a real problem. But I guess I meant to say that it certainly seems like the iPhone will be remembered in a much more positive light.
EDIT: Wow, Ok I get it. It's a real problem. But I guess I meant to say that it certainly seems like the iPhone will be remembered in a much more positive light.
I wonder who's done more research into the issue, cschep and his iPhone 4, or Consumer Reports, with decades of history of impartial product testing, three iPhones, and an RF isolation chamber?
Well, since cschep hasn't had the issue, it can't possibly be true.
Well, since cschep hasn't had the issue, it can't possibly be true.
[edited to be less dickish]
First comment:
> The iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time, I think.
The response:
> iPhone 4 owner as of day 1 and I haven't had an issue. I can't imagine that this is true.
What cschep can't imagine to be true is:
That the iPhone 4 will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforseen design errors of all time.
First comment:
> The iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time, I think.
The response:
> iPhone 4 owner as of day 1 and I haven't had an issue. I can't imagine that this is true.
What cschep can't imagine to be true is:
That the iPhone 4 will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforseen design errors of all time.
Here, let me quote the edit to the original post. "EDIT: Wow, Ok I get it. It's a real problem." That whirring noise you might hear when you read his edit is the sound of backpedaling.
That said, I think that the post he was replying to is overblown. I don't think everyone will remember the iPhone for having antenna issues. I think that the most outstanding thing the iPhone4 brings to the table is the display, which is awesome and ahead of its time, by just a little bit.
Let's go over this again, just so you understand the downvotes. [EDIT: I appreciate that you removed the bit where you called me and the other upvoters 'geniuses' - I would like to believe that the level of rehtoric on HN is above ad hominem attacks.]
"The iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time, I think." This guy thinks that the antenna issue is going to be very memorable. I personally disagree with what he thinks, but it is what he thinks.
"iPhone 4 owner as of day 1 and I haven't had an issue. I can't imagine that this is true." This guy either can't imagine that it's true that the other guy thinks that the antenna issue is going to be very memorable, or he can't believe it's true that the issue he can't reproduce even exists.
He is wrong on both counts. While certainly the original poster can change his mind about how important the antenna issue will be, at the moment he wrote that, is is true that he thought it was huge. At the moment he wrote that, the issue as described by Consumer Reports and now Engadget, exists and is true.
That said, I think that the post he was replying to is overblown. I don't think everyone will remember the iPhone for having antenna issues. I think that the most outstanding thing the iPhone4 brings to the table is the display, which is awesome and ahead of its time, by just a little bit.
Let's go over this again, just so you understand the downvotes. [EDIT: I appreciate that you removed the bit where you called me and the other upvoters 'geniuses' - I would like to believe that the level of rehtoric on HN is above ad hominem attacks.]
"The iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time, I think." This guy thinks that the antenna issue is going to be very memorable. I personally disagree with what he thinks, but it is what he thinks.
"iPhone 4 owner as of day 1 and I haven't had an issue. I can't imagine that this is true." This guy either can't imagine that it's true that the other guy thinks that the antenna issue is going to be very memorable, or he can't believe it's true that the issue he can't reproduce even exists.
He is wrong on both counts. While certainly the original poster can change his mind about how important the antenna issue will be, at the moment he wrote that, is is true that he thought it was huge. At the moment he wrote that, the issue as described by Consumer Reports and now Engadget, exists and is true.
I read "EDIT: Wow, Ok I get it. It's a real problem." as clarification, not backpedaling.
i can't hear your post over the sound of you being a longwinded asshole
Classy! Is your handle intentionally ironic?
I really did not intend to be so dismissive, but was just trying to counter with the idea that the iPhone 4 is such a wonderful piece of design and engineering. That I just can't imagine it being remembered for anything other than that. Just an opinion.
iPhone 4 owner as of day 1 and I have had this issue. I can't imagine that this is false.
If you live near SF, come to my neighborhood for a beer and I'll show you the problem on your phone.
This is probably another advantage to the Android "lots of phones" strategy vs. putting all your eggs in one basket strategy. Even if you really like Apple's products, it's not like there's a good alternative phone you can turn to that's still an Apple product. While with Android, if a severe problem with a particular phone comes out, you can always just pick another phone.
In the future, it might make more sense for Apple to release several flavors of phones, diversify what they are selling, rather than lumping their entire strategy with one product that might have unforeseen problems.
In the future, it might make more sense for Apple to release several flavors of phones, diversify what they are selling, rather than lumping their entire strategy with one product that might have unforeseen problems.
In the future, it might make more sense for Apple to release several flavors of phones, diversify what they are selling, rather than lumping their entire strategy with one product that might have unforeseen problems.
Technically they are: the iPhone 3GS runs the iOS 4 very well and doesn't have the lovely antenna bridging issue.
That said, I'm having trouble imagining Apple going the iPod/iPod Nano/iPod Shuffle route with the iPhone. Whereas an iPod is used to play music 99% of the time, an iPhone makes calls, sends e-mail, surfs the web, and runs hundreds of thousands of apps, all of which expect a certain screen size and hardware components. An MP3 file doesn't require much.
So, as neat as it would be to see Apple make many flavors of iPhones, I doubt it'll happen. This is the company that doesn't make a sub-$2,500 workstation with a replaceable graphics card, and whose netbook competitor costs $500.
(Still, I would love to see an iPhone Shuffle. No screen. Press the button and it calls someone at random.)
Technically they are: the iPhone 3GS runs the iOS 4 very well and doesn't have the lovely antenna bridging issue.
That said, I'm having trouble imagining Apple going the iPod/iPod Nano/iPod Shuffle route with the iPhone. Whereas an iPod is used to play music 99% of the time, an iPhone makes calls, sends e-mail, surfs the web, and runs hundreds of thousands of apps, all of which expect a certain screen size and hardware components. An MP3 file doesn't require much.
So, as neat as it would be to see Apple make many flavors of iPhones, I doubt it'll happen. This is the company that doesn't make a sub-$2,500 workstation with a replaceable graphics card, and whose netbook competitor costs $500.
(Still, I would love to see an iPhone Shuffle. No screen. Press the button and it calls someone at random.)
Don't hold your breath. Apple has forever only released one model of each product at a time, with usually no more than 3 different options of slightly different specs. And it's not like this is the first time that a model has problems; long-time Apple users know to avoid the first revision of any redesign because of issues like this.
I actually really like this bug in the phone. I'm an app developer and it's great for testing going in and out of coverage. I only get one bar in my house, not enough to make calls, but enough to affect the connected flags. I can consistently drop that bar.
We used a foil-lined box to do this at my last job.
Knew perfectly well about the issue, still got iPhone 4 last week.
Crappy antenna is something I can live with. Crappy display, battery, software and user experience are not.
Crappy antenna is something I can live with. Crappy display, battery, software and user experience are not.
I feel exactly the opposite about my phone. It just needs to make calls.
If it just needs to make calls, don't get a smart phone.
Bingo! I seldom talk on my iPhone. However I constanly do countless other stuff with it.
If you are different, there is a vast number of alternative, seriously cheaper phones doing the phone part so much better.
But if you want to do... anything else, well, there's an app for that.
If you are different, there is a vast number of alternative, seriously cheaper phones doing the phone part so much better.
But if you want to do... anything else, well, there's an app for that.
I expect my smart phone to be really good at making calls too.
So, you are saying that I have to choose between a smartphone and something I can make calls with?
Those other things weren't crappy last week. Funny how fast expectations change.
Crappy display, battery, software and user experience have been been the rule, not the exception, in mobile phones from the very beginning.
Oh, come on. This new iPhone display is supposed to be great, but it will look crappy next year.
so get an N1 and have it all.
That's interesting that a piece of tape does indeed fix the problem. On last week's TWiT, one of the antenna engineers they had on kept saying how tape doesn't solve it.
I'm skeptical of Consumer Reports methodology when it is in conflict with experts' predictions and tests. That it also is in conflict with AnandTech's review suggests to me that CR didn't have the expertise to adequaty test this.
Which is not to say the problem doesn't exist. I just don't think they understand it.
Which is not to say the problem doesn't exist. I just don't think they understand it.
[deleted]
i don't think apple has to worry, apparently people can't be swayed by facts (see: "How telling people the facts may not cause them to change what they believe" (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/... )).
also, every iphone has had serious signal issues, it's a known problem, yet people still continue to buy them–why would this change anything... most people buy the iphone because of marketing not functionality.
also, every iphone has had serious signal issues, it's a known problem, yet people still continue to buy them–why would this change anything... most people buy the iphone because of marketing not functionality.
I'm sorry but this is just over reaction. The big deal about the antenna issue is that Apple tried to cover it up NOT the issue itself. The issue itself can be fixed easily and cheaply by either using masking tape (as they suggest) or by simply buying the $29 "bumper" accessory from Apple.
To suggest someone buy a 3GS over an iPhone 4 because of this issue (as they do at the end of the article) is just a little silly.
To suggest someone buy a 3GS over an iPhone 4 because of this issue (as they do at the end of the article) is just a little silly.
Sure, because Consumer Reports is so prone to over-reaction.
Do you think they have some kind of anti-Apple agenda? I can understand why people were skeptical when Gizmodo started posting reports they culled from the Macrumors forums, but this is Consumer Reports. Just because your phone works fine doesn't mean that the issue does not exist.
Do you think they have some kind of anti-Apple agenda? I can understand why people were skeptical when Gizmodo started posting reports they culled from the Macrumors forums, but this is Consumer Reports. Just because your phone works fine doesn't mean that the issue does not exist.
A small flaw in your logic. I don't think Consumer Reports has an anti-Apple agenda.
I do think they have a Pro-"Get everyone talking about Consumer Reports again" agenda though.
How do you make that happen? Make a splash with a polarizing article making the case for why the object everyone is in love with sucks.
It's sensational journalism 101.
They show their hand by recommending people buy the now mostly inferior 3GS instead of the 4. It's like their way of saying "We still love the iPhone!" Because duh.. it's obviously already a huge success.
I do think they have a Pro-"Get everyone talking about Consumer Reports again" agenda though.
How do you make that happen? Make a splash with a polarizing article making the case for why the object everyone is in love with sucks.
It's sensational journalism 101.
They show their hand by recommending people buy the now mostly inferior 3GS instead of the 4. It's like their way of saying "We still love the iPhone!" Because duh.. it's obviously already a huge success.
So you're saying that Consumer Reports is incapable of over-reacting and accusing them of such is to imply that they have an anti-Apple agenda?
What I'm saying is that Consumer Reports seem to have put their money where their mouth is. Countless bloggers, Youtubers, and Twitter users have made their anecdotal claims about having signal issues, and nearly every time they get published, a legion of Apple fanatics yells them down with "Doesn't happen on my phone/This is so overblown." There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old, because I read a book that said the earth is 4000 years old!
Consumer Reports took the time and money to test three different iPhones in an RF isolation chamber, and presumably through scientific process, determined that indeed, the iPhone4 has signal attenuation issues that cause calls to be dropped.
I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the experiment is run.
I think it's good to question authority - and in fact that's what Consumer Reports often does, and is what they're doing here. The authority, Apple, is saying there's nothing wrong with one face, and with another face, they're hiring RF and antenna engineers. There are real people who paid at least $200 for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my iPhone underground in the subway?
That's zealous, and I'm glad to see an organization with the means to test these things put some weight behind the bloggers and everyday users who are having real trouble with these phones.
Consumer Reports took the time and money to test three different iPhones in an RF isolation chamber, and presumably through scientific process, determined that indeed, the iPhone4 has signal attenuation issues that cause calls to be dropped.
I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the experiment is run.
I think it's good to question authority - and in fact that's what Consumer Reports often does, and is what they're doing here. The authority, Apple, is saying there's nothing wrong with one face, and with another face, they're hiring RF and antenna engineers. There are real people who paid at least $200 for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my iPhone underground in the subway?
That's zealous, and I'm glad to see an organization with the means to test these things put some weight behind the bloggers and everyday users who are having real trouble with these phones.
Oh nice. See that paragraph where I said "do it yourself"? Looks like Engadget had the same idea, and they found that every iPhone4 they have suffers from signal attenuation issues.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/consumer-reports-confirms...
That's how you refute -- or reinforce -- a published study. Not with rhetoric that a high school student would be embarrassed to get behind, but with independent study, publishing your methods and findings.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/consumer-reports-confirms...
That's how you refute -- or reinforce -- a published study. Not with rhetoric that a high school student would be embarrassed to get behind, but with independent study, publishing your methods and findings.
presumably through scientific process
Thats what bothers me - where is the data? And furthermore, is CR testing signal attenuation, or an actual loss of functionality? Not having a phone myself (but knowing someone who is quite happy with hers) I remain unconvinced that there is a fundamental issue until I see data correlating hand position to actual dropped calls or reduced data throughput. Anything else has the feel of weather prediction.
Thats what bothers me - where is the data? And furthermore, is CR testing signal attenuation, or an actual loss of functionality? Not having a phone myself (but knowing someone who is quite happy with hers) I remain unconvinced that there is a fundamental issue until I see data correlating hand position to actual dropped calls or reduced data throughput. Anything else has the feel of weather prediction.
"Is CR testing signal attenuation, or an actual loss of functionality?"
From the article: "When your finger or hand touches a spot on the phone's lower left side - an easy thing, especially for lefties - the signal can significantly degrade enough to cause you to lose your connection altogether if you're in an area with a weak signal"
They are testing both signal attenuation and an actual loss of functionality.
I agree, actual data would be nice. What gives me confidence in the report is that, to quote Wikipedia, "Consumer Reports does not print outside advertising, accept free product samples, or permit the commercial use of its reviews for selling products" and that they've been doing this since 1936.
Bose and Sharper Image have in the past attempted to sue Consumer Reports for showing some kind of bias or for presumably using inaccurate methods in their reviews - both lost their lawsuits. There are good reasons why CR has the reputation it has, and that's why I'm willing to take what they have to say at close to face value, even without raw data being published in the same blog entry.
From the article: "When your finger or hand touches a spot on the phone's lower left side - an easy thing, especially for lefties - the signal can significantly degrade enough to cause you to lose your connection altogether if you're in an area with a weak signal"
They are testing both signal attenuation and an actual loss of functionality.
I agree, actual data would be nice. What gives me confidence in the report is that, to quote Wikipedia, "Consumer Reports does not print outside advertising, accept free product samples, or permit the commercial use of its reviews for selling products" and that they've been doing this since 1936.
Bose and Sharper Image have in the past attempted to sue Consumer Reports for showing some kind of bias or for presumably using inaccurate methods in their reviews - both lost their lawsuits. There are good reasons why CR has the reputation it has, and that's why I'm willing to take what they have to say at close to face value, even without raw data being published in the same blog entry.
> (...) a legion of Apple fanatics yells them down with "Doesn't happen on my phone/This is so overblown."
Anyone who doesn't have this problem or thinks it is overblown is an Apple fanatic, obviously, and of course they're all yelling all the time.
> There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously.
I can't seem to find that. Weird.
> I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the experiment is run.
Nobody said they were fudging numbers, nobody even implied it.
> (...) and with another face, they're hiring RF and antenna engineers.
Ah right, that whole conspiracy theory.
> There are real people who paid at least $200 for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my iPhone underground in the subway?
I haven't seen any comments recently (here or on reddit) which suggest that the problem does not exist, only that the problem does not affect them.
Anyone who doesn't have this problem or thinks it is overblown is an Apple fanatic, obviously, and of course they're all yelling all the time.
> There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously.
I can't seem to find that. Weird.
> I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the experiment is run.
Nobody said they were fudging numbers, nobody even implied it.
> (...) and with another face, they're hiring RF and antenna engineers.
Ah right, that whole conspiracy theory.
> There are real people who paid at least $200 for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my iPhone underground in the subway?
I haven't seen any comments recently (here or on reddit) which suggest that the problem does not exist, only that the problem does not affect them.
>> There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously.
> I can't seem to find that. Weird.
Further down the page http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1508566
Further down the page http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1508566
First comment:
> The iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time, I think.
The comment you're linking is a response to the above:
> iPhone 4 owner as of day 1 and I haven't had an issue. I can't imagine that this is true.
Seems obvious that the "I can't imagine that to be true" is a response to "remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time"
> The iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue will be remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time, I think.
The comment you're linking is a response to the above:
> iPhone 4 owner as of day 1 and I haven't had an issue. I can't imagine that this is true.
Seems obvious that the "I can't imagine that to be true" is a response to "remembered as one of the biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time"
[deleted]
So you're saying that you kill baby seals?
So the options are to apply duct tape/masking tape to a new $600 designer phone or pay the manufacturer another $30 for an off the shelf kludge? Call me silly, but I'd say that's reason enough not to buy it.
Apple still has a choice of doing 1 of 2 things:
1) Dither around like they're doing now. Blame AT & T, the software, etc.
2) Acknowledge the issue. Offer a free piece of plastic to all users who want one. Their cost no more than $5 per phone. Most people won't bother because they'll get their own case.
Which do you think in the long term will be more beneficial to the company? To their user's loyalty?
1) Dither around like they're doing now. Blame AT & T, the software, etc.
2) Acknowledge the issue. Offer a free piece of plastic to all users who want one. Their cost no more than $5 per phone. Most people won't bother because they'll get their own case.
Which do you think in the long term will be more beneficial to the company? To their user's loyalty?
I bought a protective skin for mine (which I was going to buy anyway) and, as a side effect, it prevents the antenna issue. It's also barely noticeable. I got mine from BodyGuardz, but I think there are a few companies who make them. Just make sure it covers the sides.
I have an iPhone 4 and don't regret getting it, but neither of these easy and cheap fixes is really satisfactory.
Two of my favourite things about the iPhone are that it's slim and looks nice. The suggested fixes (in my view) compromise those things.
Plus, in the bumper case, 'cheap' isn't really good enough -- you're still paying extra money to make the thing work as it should.
Two of my favourite things about the iPhone are that it's slim and looks nice. The suggested fixes (in my view) compromise those things.
Plus, in the bumper case, 'cheap' isn't really good enough -- you're still paying extra money to make the thing work as it should.
The point of Consumer Reports is to tell if the product actually works under unbiased testing and provides a good value.
If a product doesn't perform its core function (making phone calls) without spending $29 more than the base price and the manufacture doesn't tell you that when you buy it, then it is a defective product and doesn't meet their standard for recommendation.
If a product doesn't perform its core function (making phone calls) without spending $29 more than the base price and the manufacture doesn't tell you that when you buy it, then it is a defective product and doesn't meet their standard for recommendation.
Exactly, which is why they put a condition at the end.
> But Apple needs to come up with a permanent—and free—fix for the antenna problem before we can recommend the iPhone 4.
If this was a piece of software wouldn't we all demand a patch?
> But Apple needs to come up with a permanent—and free—fix for the antenna problem before we can recommend the iPhone 4.
If this was a piece of software wouldn't we all demand a patch?
From my perspective, making phone calls isn't the core function of a smart phone. Things like internet connectivity, and applications are much more important to me.
This is why I am still considering the iPhone 4 despite being aware of this flaw, as for everything other than making calls, it is arguably the best device in its class.
This is why I am still considering the iPhone 4 despite being aware of this flaw, as for everything other than making calls, it is arguably the best device in its class.
I think to suggest that they are over reacting is peculiar when their history is so well known. They have been surviving for over 75 years based on their objective approach to rating consumer goods. In their attempts to be unbiased, they don't accept product sample or event print outside advertising. That means they have been surviving for 75+ years simply on their reliability.
I'd think suggesting they over reacted is quite a stretch, yes.
I'd think suggesting they over reacted is quite a stretch, yes.
It's a shame they don't mention the app store jail. I guess it's not high-priority because things like VoIP and tethering aren't really on the consumer radar yet, but hopefully that changes in the future.
I wouldn't call it a "shame" by any means. Owning both an iPhone and an Android phone, I can say that the app store "jail" also makes it 100x more usable, with better quality apps overall and more consistency among the apps.
I hear a lot of developers bitch about the app store, but from an end-users perspective it has been one of Apple's best moves to-date.
I hear a lot of developers bitch about the app store, but from an end-users perspective it has been one of Apple's best moves to-date.
Yes, Apple restricting tethering apps make the other apps better.
I don't doubt that some Apple special sauce makes it easier to ignore the crappy apps, or that they are removed, but to imply that Apple's fart machine apps are better because you can't freely tether your device with 3rd party apps is just silly.
I don't doubt that some Apple special sauce makes it easier to ignore the crappy apps, or that they are removed, but to imply that Apple's fart machine apps are better because you can't freely tether your device with 3rd party apps is just silly.
While I have no first-hand knowledge (and I doubt you do either, please clarify if I'm wrong), I'd be willing to bet that overall Apple could care less about tethering apps.
I believe that tethering is native to the OS, I remember doing some simple hack on my first 3G iPhone that enabled it for a while until a software update wiped it out. Other carriers (non-US) support it (a quick link I found re: Rogers: http://scilib.typepad.com/techreviews/2009/06/rogers-iphone-... )
So, your tethering restriction argument seems kind of straw-man to me. Additionally, it's not surprising that there are some bottom-feeder (fart) apps. Of course, the "fart-machine" apps are hardly the majority of the eco-system, but even so I could pretty much guarantee you that the fart apps would work 100% of the time on iOS, and probably 50% of the time at best on Android. As the app gets more complex, the probability of it working properly on all supported iOS devices, and NOT working properly on some subset of Android OS and hardware increases.
I believe that tethering is native to the OS, I remember doing some simple hack on my first 3G iPhone that enabled it for a while until a software update wiped it out. Other carriers (non-US) support it (a quick link I found re: Rogers: http://scilib.typepad.com/techreviews/2009/06/rogers-iphone-... )
So, your tethering restriction argument seems kind of straw-man to me. Additionally, it's not surprising that there are some bottom-feeder (fart) apps. Of course, the "fart-machine" apps are hardly the majority of the eco-system, but even so I could pretty much guarantee you that the fart apps would work 100% of the time on iOS, and probably 50% of the time at best on Android. As the app gets more complex, the probability of it working properly on all supported iOS devices, and NOT working properly on some subset of Android OS and hardware increases.
Except for the fact that Apple blocks tons of apps that have large user bases. Google Voice, Netshare, emulators, etc. Surely you aren't implying that Cydia is only full of apps that were rejected because they are crummy? Not to mention the fact that, for example, Google allows "Wifi Tether for Root users" on the Android Market. Show me something comparable on the AppStore. It doesn't exist.
Also, the fragmentation argument is weak and old, I won't bother refuting it or answering it here. APIs are backward compatible. If you target 1.6 you work on 95+% of devices out there, etc, etc.
Heh, I would say Apple's refusal to accept Netshare, PDANet, oh any other tethering app, etc pretty well shows that they won't accept tethering apps. I'm kinda shocked that this is news to ... anyone really.
Also, the fragmentation argument is weak and old, I won't bother refuting it or answering it here. APIs are backward compatible. If you target 1.6 you work on 95+% of devices out there, etc, etc.
Heh, I would say Apple's refusal to accept Netshare, PDANet, oh any other tethering app, etc pretty well shows that they won't accept tethering apps. I'm kinda shocked that this is news to ... anyone really.
Apple has routinely rejected apps that attempt to mimic core functions of the OS. So, if you go back and re-read my comment where it says tethering is built-in to the OS, then it would make sense that 3rd party apps that attempt to enable tethering would be banned. This may be "right" or "wrong" depending on your viewpoint, but it would serve to ensure that users are not seeing/downloading apps that don't work or function as they are expected to.
My personal experience with Android apps (Moto Droid and now HTC incredible) is that a decent percentage of apps (mostly (but not exclusively) games and odd things like "LED Flashlight Strobe" type stuff) do not work universally across all devices. Reading the comments on some of these apps supports my personal experience, so I think there is still a general problem with any random app on the Android store not offering a 100% consistent or "functions as expected" experience across all Android devices.
My personal experience with Android apps (Moto Droid and now HTC incredible) is that a decent percentage of apps (mostly (but not exclusively) games and odd things like "LED Flashlight Strobe" type stuff) do not work universally across all devices. Reading the comments on some of these apps supports my personal experience, so I think there is still a general problem with any random app on the Android store not offering a 100% consistent or "functions as expected" experience across all Android devices.
One thing I noticed today, was that with the announcement of the Google/MIT visual Android development initiative Google App Inventor (http://appinventor.googlelabs.com/about/), along came a flood of comments along the lines of "there's enough shovelware on Android already!" and "this will saturate the marketplace with crap!" etc.
Perhaps there's something to be said for the "app store jail".
Perhaps there's something to be said for the "app store jail".
News flash: 85% of everything is crap.
The solution is to make the good stuff rise to the top, not to suppress the crap. Luckily since Android apps can be distributed on the web, we can fall back to tried-and-true search techniques when the built-in Market app isn't cutting it.
The solution is to make the good stuff rise to the top, not to suppress the crap. Luckily since Android apps can be distributed on the web, we can fall back to tried-and-true search techniques when the built-in Market app isn't cutting it.
Yes, I too am tired of all of this whining about the so-called App Store "jail." I, and most average owners, I suspect, just want applications that work. We don't care if we can only get them at iTunes. In fact, that makes it easier for us. Only techie-dweebs care about this.
How is this hacker news?
From the HN Guidelines (linked from the bottom of every page on HN):
"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. "
Drat... foiled at my own game!