Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Consumer Reports Can't Recommend iPhone 4

Posted by kdawson on from the waiting-for-four-dot-one dept.

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.

3 of 507 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Who cares? by jerdo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:How does it compare to other phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

  3. 109% power by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.