That Apple letter in full...
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Dummy mail accounts.
Next: iPhone spellchecker
From: Gwynne Harper on 5 Jul 2010 15:58 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Issue 2 is harder to reproduce (you need a poor signal area) but is > definitely worse behaviour than an iPhone 3G (which at least keeps > enough signal to receive calls). This is the issue I'm bothered about, > but the one that is getting dismissed as though it were issue 1 (which > can be dismissed). Is this really the case? The anandtech article suggests that, where this tends to happen to an iP4, the 3G would already have been struggling or would simply drop calls randomly. Or did I read it wrog due to by natural pro-Apple bias & desire for the new phone? Gwynne -- My real email is net, not line.
From: Jochem Huhmann on 5 Jul 2010 16:10 g.harper(a)gmx.line (Gwynne Harper) writes: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> Issue 2 is harder to reproduce (you need a poor signal area) but is >> definitely worse behaviour than an iPhone 3G (which at least keeps >> enough signal to receive calls). This is the issue I'm bothered about, >> but the one that is getting dismissed as though it were issue 1 (which >> can be dismissed). > > Is this really the case? The anandtech article suggests that, where > this tends to happen to an iP4, the 3G would already have been > struggling or would simply drop calls randomly. Or did I read it wrog > due to by natural pro-Apple bias & desire for the new phone? This article is very poorly worded in some places. The new iPhone is much better at keeping a connection with a weak signal, but *not* when you bridge the gap between the antennas. It's worse than the 3GS in this case. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: zoara on 6 Jul 2010 05:22 Gwynne Harper <g.harper(a)gmx.line> wrote: > zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> Issue 2 is harder to reproduce (you need a poor signal area) but is >> definitely worse behaviour than an iPhone 3G (which at least keeps >> enough signal to receive calls). This is the issue I'm bothered > > about, >> but the one that is getting dismissed as though it were issue 1 > > (which >> can be dismissed). > > Is this really the case? The anandtech article suggests that, where > this tends to happen to an iP4, the 3G would already have been > struggling or would simply drop calls randomly. I'm speaking from my experience, not from what's been reported on the Internet. Can't remember how many bars each were showing before being picked up, but in exactly the same place being held exactly the same way (ie the way I hold the iPhone when using it for anything but calls) the 4 lost *all* signal and the 3G did not. The 3G still had 2-3 bars. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Sak Wathanasin on 6 Jul 2010 06:05 On 6 July, 10:22, zoara <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > 4-5 bars on the 4, 3-4 on the 3G. It fluctuated, and we weren't being > hardcore scientific about it (just enough to get some reasonably > trustworthy results). Ok, so if we assume that the anandtech article is correct, for the sake of argument, 4-5 bars suggests -101 to -80'ish (you must be near the weak end of the 5 bars if it was slipping into 4). Now they say that their worse case drop was -24 dBm, so you would have got SNRs of somewhere between -125 and -105 or between "no signal" to maybe 1 bar. If the Apple signal display hadn't been so biased towards the top-end, it would have shown as maybe 1-2 bars to begin with: the signal drop looks much more dramatic than it actually is, > Bingo. Unfortunately I'm in that minority and it pisses me off because > it's a difficult tradeoff (for me, personally) as it is likely to affect > me a lot. But there's a lot about the phone that is so much better than > a 3GS; I have to decide which will be the wise tradeoff - a crappier > screen, camera etc, or having to learn to change how I hold the phone. Or get a bumper or case.
From: zoara on 6 Jul 2010 06:19
Martin S Taylor <mst(a)hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> wrote: > Jochem Huhmann wrote >> I think Apple knew about this and thought it to be something they can >> get away with. Call it a deliberate design tradeoff. Would have been >> much easier on them if they had included a bumper in the box and got > > the >> signal bars right from the beginning, though. > > Or varnished the thing. Apparently that doesn't work. A bumper (etc) is about creating distance between flesh and aerial, not about electrical isolation. Inverse square law or whatever means that a varnish (or tape) layer has little effect but the few extra mm of a bumper does. I haven't tried this, though. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm |