NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: -hh on 6 Aug 2010 09:50 Jeff Liebermann <je...(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > [...] > > See: > <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm> A nice start at some objective data; thanks. > Nope. The iPhone 4 is at least between 6 and 18 times more affected > by touching the antenna than the worst conventional cell phone I > tested. Double that again for the typical cell phone. It's not a > problem in strong signal areas, but might drop the call in a weak > signal area. Accepting the postulation that the iPhone4 attenuates more, this fact alone does not allow us to come to a final conclusion, unfortunately. Specifically, what is really needed is the net effective performance. I'm not saying that I'm trying to deny that there's any problem, but from what I've seen (apologies: I may have missed seeing it), the work to date is incomplete. Being incomplete, it is inappropriate to make conclusionary claims on total net system performance. Thus, there's no doubt that one antenna system ("A") which gets degraded by -25 dB is clearly a "worse" antenna attentuation problem than a second system ("B") that is degraded by -9dB. However, what that overlooks is what is the net "End of the Day" system performance. For example, perhaps the reason why A gets attenuated worse is because its design allows for an otherwise more sensitive system to start with. Notionally, its performance threshholds when not attenuated could be something like: System A: -200dB System B: -180dB Thus the (still notional) net results for each System after suffering from attenuation would be: System A: -200dB - (-25dB) = -175dB System B: -180dB - (-9dB) = -172dB So which one is better now? FYI, to clarify one final time, I'm *not* trying to claim that the iPhone4 performs in this fashion. All I'm pointing out is that the numbers to date ... with the caveat of "the ones that I've seen" ... are only addressing the first half of the question. Where's the second half? Until we have the full picture, any "System Peformance" conclusions drawn to date are premature, since they're failing to examine the entire system. -hh
From: -hh on 6 Aug 2010 09:54 Larry <no...(a)home.com> wrote: > Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote > > Larry <no...(a)home.com> wrote: > >> Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> > Larry <no...(a)home.com> wrote: > >> >> How much is Jobs paying you to defend the company? > > >> > How much are you being paid to malign it? ... > > >> So, how much is Jobs paying you to defend the company? > > > Who's paying you to malign it? ... > > STill no answer to the question I see.... > > So, how much is Jobs paying you to defend the company? The resolution to this pissing contest is easy: Step #1: Both participants make a public promise to answer the posed question if the other guy does the same. Step #2: Both participants will send their answers to an independent third party, who will post the results of both replies (or neither), subject to receiving both (or neither) replies. The participants are free to ignore this opportunity to avoid trashing their own personal credibility....at their own peril. -hh
From: John Navas on 6 Aug 2010 11:30 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:09:01 -0700, in <alangbaker-31F619.17090105082010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >In article <a4km56l5feggmq9sodcfkj7v8enskrv5cn(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:53:48 -0700, in >> <alangbaker-C1329B.16534805082010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker >> <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >> >> >In article <kvim565pseig2p2b8nh462eiqerfta9apt(a)4ax.com>, >> > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >> True, but Android phones on AT&T <http://goo.gl/EyTr> aren't generating >> >> complaints the way iPhone has and still is. >> > >> >Sorry, but you've provided nothing to support that claim. Can you? >> >> No lawsuits or press reports of problems. > >Sorry, but you said "complaints" what you're seeing in the press is that >Apple gets lots of press, and there is no iPhone lawsuit of which I'm >aware. There have actually been several: <http://www.google.com/search?q=iphone+class+action> Most recently: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20009399-260.html> -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 6 Aug 2010 11:31 On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:29:24 -0500, in <lloydparsons-257D54.19292405082010(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: >In article <kvim565pseig2p2b8nh462eiqerfta9apt(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> True, but Android phones on AT&T <http://goo.gl/EyTr> aren't generating >> complaints the way iPhone has and still is. > >A couple things to consider. > >1. How many Android phones are running on the Verizion network alone? >I don't know, but suspect it is quite a bit lower than iPhones on AT&T More than enough for complaints to surface. Droid has been hot. >2. Reports are that most Android phone users aren't buying many >additional apps. If that is so, does that impact? What reports? -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 6 Aug 2010 11:33
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:36:57 -0500, in <lloydparsons-C72AF3.20365705082010(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: >In article <jcom56hvfoojlfl72uj3qnvdb0jom75rau(a)4ax.com>, > Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >> Let's play sematics. Why would Lloyd ask John to provide numbers for >> something that he didn't claim (i.e. overall ownership)? John said: >> On the contrary -- Android has now moved past iPhone >> into 2nd place behind RIM in smartphones. >> which means current sales, not overall user count. John's statement >> is correct for both the current quarter and 6 month sales. >> >> Also, see link and quoted numbers below. The first column is "overall >> US ownership" which is the number of users in the US by phone >> operating system. The numbers were extracted from the 2nd and 3rd >> graphs from the URL below. My notation as it being the 2nd quarter, >> 2010 is to indicate the ending date. That should be the same as "in >> numbers in use". >> >> >> For overall user figures (2nd quarter, 2010), see: >> >> <http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/android-soars-but-iphone >> >> -still-most-desired-as-smartphones-grab-25-of-u-s-mobile-market/> >> >> >> >> Overall US 6 months >> >> ownership sales >> >> Rim 35% 33% >> >> iPhone 28% 23% >> >> Windoze Mobile 15% 11% >> >> Android 13% 27% >> >> Palm 3% 1% >> >> Linux 3% 3% >> >> Symbian 2% 2% > >Jeff, you misread John. His implication was that Android is bigger in >use than iPhone. But it is easy to misread what John means or implies >as he has no grasp on business concepts at all. I implied nothing -- my post speaks for itself, and was correct. >Go back a read a few of his posts concerning market share, revenue vs >profit and others for examples of his lack of basic business concepts. Which of those basic concepts do you not understand? -- John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman |