Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Reports Can't Recommend iPhone 4
jbezorg was one among many readers to send word that Consumer Reports has concluded that they cannot recommend the iPhone 4. (They still enthusiastically recommend the 3G S.) "It's official. Consumer Reports' engineers have just completed testing the iPhone 4, and have confirmed that there is a problem with its reception. 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. Due to this problem, we can't recommend the iPhone 4. ... Our findings call into question the recent claim by Apple that the iPhone 4's signal-strength issues were largely an optical illusion caused by faulty software that 'mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength.'" The comments on the article don't display any of the vitriol the Apple faithful have been known to unleash upon anyone daring to question the Cupertino way. Perhaps they are moderated.
They test everything and historically have been fairly reliable since they don't accept advertising dollars from the manufacturers of the products they test, unlike most magazines and websites.
FTA: "We also tested several other AT&T phones the same way, including the iPhone 3G S and the Palm Pre. None of those phones had the signal-loss problems of the iPhone 4."
Small nitpick, the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair). When he does this, for all intents and purposes, he speaks with the voice of god and is infallible, the rest of the time, as I understand it, he's just a human being giving his own opinions.
Generally speaking, the popes aren't stupid, and they know the kind of binds being infallible(and therefor inflexible) gets you into and so they are infallible fairly rarely.
Lord Steve on the other hand is infallible all the time and suffers the relevant consequences.
Seriously, for an Open Source community it's outstanding how many Apple fanatics here are, when they are obviously the largest abuser of OSS or open technology.
[Citation Needed]
I'd say that Apple actually is a pretty strong supporter of open source. Here's my citation on the subject:
Open source projects in which Apple is involved.
Sapere aude!
It didn't have anything to do with software, it had to do with testing data, operational data and documentation.
"Specifying power levels over 100% may seem confusing, but there is a logic behind it. The 100% level does not mean the maximum physical power level attainable. Rather it is a specification, decided on early during SSME development, for the "normal" rated power level. Later studies indicated the engine could operate safely at levels above 100%, which is now the norm. Maintaining the original relationship of power level to physical thrust helps reduce confusion. It creates an unvarying fixed relationship, so that test data, or operational data from past or future missions can be easily compared. If each time the power level was increased, that value was made 100%, then all previous data and documentation would either require changing, or cross-checking against what physical thrust corresponded to 100% power level on that date."
104.5% is as high as they like to go, 106% and 109% is just for aborts.
I believe he's referring to the free "controller jackets" for the Wii remotes - which were part of solving the throwing remote problem. You can get a better grip on the "controller jacket" than slippery plastic when your hands are sweaty. Nintendo offered 1 free per Wii remote purchased before a certain date (remotes after that date had them included).
You just had to put your address (and possibly a Wii ID, don't remember) into their website and they sent them to you - free, no shipping charges or anything. That's what I consider good customer service/relations, and that's why so many people like Nintendo - they produce quality products at a fair price and seem to do their best to solve any issues.
Personally, I laughed when I heard the response from Apple about signal strength being a software issue, it was too little too late even if it was the truth. (and if it was the truth they should have pushed out a patch on the announcement day to fix it)
Actually, a few years ago, I bought a Mac Mini which showed grave problems with BlueTooth and Wifi-reception. After digging around a little, that too was a hardware-problem, present in a lot of Mac Minis. Owners were never reimbursed, and (AFAIR) apple.com forum-threads removed.
Also, for that Mac, in OSX 10.4.6, Apple broke all support for FullHD-TV-monitors. Basically, the analysis claimed that for some unknown reason, Apple introduced a change in resolution-detection, filtering out 1920x1080p, if the monitor somehow identified itself as a televison-set. The bug were, to my knowledge, never solved, and owners recommended to buy 10.5 instead.
So, in my experience, Apple is at least as guilty of quality and usability-problems as anyone else, and well-known to not really reimburse customers when these things happen.