Nokia and RIM Respond To Apple's Antenna Claims

awyeah writes "In response to Apple's press conference, where videos of a few devices were shown losing signal bars with a tight grip, RIM and Nokia have both taken shots at Apple. RIM's co-CEOs say that Apple's claims 'appear to be deliberate attempts to distort the public's understanding of an antenna design issue and to deflect attention from Apple's difficult situation.' Meanwhile, Nokia, noting that they are pioneers in antenna design and were the first company to bring to market a phone with an internal antenna, prioritizes 'antenna performance over physical design if they are ever in conflict.'"

Comments

Steve and his FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple says the iPhone 4 drops one more call per 100 calls. So only 1%. No big deal. But Stevie left something out. How many calls are dropped per 100? He's good at this game; he didn't say. AT&T claims their dropped call rate is 1.4%. 1.4% + 1% is 2.4%. That's a 70% increase. 70% is quite a bit, especially when the antenna is supposed to be better than the previous generation. Yes, Mr. Jobs, "Antennagate" is real.

Re:Steve and his FUD

[thegarbz]

Yes, Mr. Jobs, "Antennagate" is real.

NO Just plain and simply NO. I stood by and watched watergate happen and didn't think much about it. When people started talking about climategate I whinced, but Antennagate? It's not funny, it's not witty, it's not original, heck it doesn't even fit with the original use as a suffix for a political scandal.

I hereby suggest that everybody who is caught using "gate" as a suffix is made to go outside on a sunny day, to be pommeled into the ground by the awesome force of photons, or to just get a tan ruining the geek cred of slashdot users forever.

Of course they did.

[AnonymousClown]

During that time, RIM has avoided designs like the one Apple used in the iPhone 4 and instead has used innovative designs which reduce the risk for dropped calls, especially in areas of lower coverage.

RIM's market are business people and others who really use their phone for calling, email, and other communications. They bought it to do a function.

People bought the iPhone because it was Apple and they wanted to have a stylish phone. They wanted to look marvelous.

If it wasn't the case, then why did the iPhone sell like hot cakes in markets where AT&T was known to have shitty service? Consumer Reports have been tracking that for years.

Re:Quiet nokia!

[Jurily]

Yeah, it's not like they had hundreds of models on the market over decades, most of which without signal issues! Who the hell are they to talk about phones?!

Re:Your math has problems

[Elfich47]

The issue I am trying to state is this: AT&T drop rate is 1.4%. Is that for the entire fleet of phones currently in service? Is that for just the iPhone 3Gs? Is that for the iPhone4? These are significantly different populations to be looking at. We have two statements: "AT&T drop rate is 1.4% " and "Iphone 4 drops more calls than iphone 3Gs at a rate less than 1 per 100" Unfortunately we do not have a way of determining how these two pieces of information correlate. Without knowing the total fleet drop drop rate and the drop rate of the specific phones we cannot have any clear analysis of the numbers.

Re:So the videos are true?

[PitaBred]

The problem is that Apple is the only company stupid enough to make the antenna able to be shorted out when you hold it, bridging the antenna. All other phones have completely enclosed antennas that do experience attenuation depending on how you hold them, but nothing to the degree of what Apple's does.