Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

16 of 514 comments (clear)

  1. Steve and his FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Steve and his FUD by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Of course they did. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Of course they did. by frosty_tsm · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      Having used both, I'll have to say that I like having an easy to use phone. The Blackberry that I use for work is crap in this department. An iPhone is more functional for non-work use (video, games, pictures).

      I'm not saying that there are people who bought it to be stylish, but you're over-simplifying things.

    2. Re:Of course they did. by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let's look at use cases. I am in the (fortunate) position to have an iPhone 3G (my wife's) and a BlackBerry 9000 (mine). The 9000 was chosen based on the keyboard size (over the Bold, etc.).

      Phone Usage: BlackBerry. If we are in (say) a parking garage, we use my phone. The iPhone craps out much earlier (and we use the same carrier).

      MP3 Playback: BlackBerry. You just plug the phone into a computer and drag the MP3s over. They play. Then again, I have an iPod as well. But, it doesn't really do so well -- the BB is also a "USB stick".

      Video Playback: BlackBerry. See MP3 Playback. As well, the BlackBerry will just play Xvid encoded AVI files. Grab it and go. No need to transcode and put into iTunes first.

      Instant Messaging: iPhone. The conversation threading is nice

      Email: BlackBerry.

      Bluetooth: BlackBerry. I can squirt pictures and stuff over to computers or other phones. Just not iPhones.

      Storage: BlackBerry. Just a USB drive. Stick in a micro-sd to extend the storage.

      Router: iPhone. I think (I haven't seen the feature on the 3G yet). As a road warrior I carry a micro-router along with my BlackBerry.

      So, it depends on your use cases. It is interesting that the iPhone wins in a one "business" case (router) and one "home" case (instant messaging). As to "usable" it all depends... If you are a "road warrior", you may not have access to the computer that is the "home computer" that the iPhone depends on. Unless, of course, that is your laptop. (but, what if your laptop is stolen?) Which makes the iPhone pretty much a non-starter for a pure "smartphone" play.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    3. Re:Of course they did. by mdarksbane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I find it interesting that you ignore web browsing and third party apps, which are pretty much the biggest reasons to get an iphone. Browsing on my father in law's blackberry is *painful* compared to my touch. I won't argue with your specific win/loss analysis much, though (although I'd call mp3 playback a wash).

  3. Re:Quiet nokia! by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?!

  4. It's pretty simple. by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 5, Informative

    Consumer report couldn't have illustrated it simpler. You put your finger *here* and the signal strength drops by 15 to 20% or whatever the number was.

    There really isn't much mystery. If the signal is strong, then 20% isn't going to change anything. But people generally move around in the same areas, so if your activites are concentrated in a dodgy signal area, that means your calls could go from a 25% drop rate to completely unusable.

  5. Nokia and RIM Respond To Apple's Antenna Claims by omar.sahal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.'"

    Och! This hits the nail on the head. The original Apple Macintosh used to over heat because it did not have a fan! Why did it not have a fan, because Jobs wanted a quiet machine.
    To be far though the case was designed to keep the machine cool and it worked, but there was a problem with the hardware running hotter than it should. Even the circuit board/mother board (don't flame me if I got the terminology wrong I'm no computer engineer) had to be redesigned to look pretty because Jobs wanted it that way. The man has form!

    1. Re:Nokia and RIM Respond To Apple's Antenna Claims by Drew+M. · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a person who was completely obsessed with maintaining cell reception, I did a ton of testing of cell phones on Verizon. I can say that the Nokias were always the best at holding calls in fringe areas, even the models with internal antennas like the 6236i. All the Nokias I owned would actually gain very little signal strength (1-2db) by extending their antenna. I read that part of their design was to be able to use the external antenna internally or externally. 2nd best was usually Motorola. There were definitely times where other Verizon users had to borrow my phone to maintain a call. When Nokias were dropped by Verizon I would go pick up used ones as backups. All in all, I owned 1 3589i, 3 6015i, and a 6236i, every single candybar style Nokia that Verizon carried near the end.

      Testing done by others on Sprint would place the Nokias as the best followed by Sanyo. This was confirmed by many users on howardforums and by an internal Sprint engineer that had access to call drop data.

  6. Re:Your math has problems by Elfich47 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  7. What a whiner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What a whiner and complainer. He's using the press conference to put down his competitors, misrepresent his own company, and lying about the antenna problem.

    Lying? He's claiming that all the phones behave the same way, but doesn't show any data. CR compared these phones under controlled conditions.

  8. Re:Video Proof by grub · · Score: 5, Funny



    My fiancé's ICrap4 drops calls all day long while at home

    Well your imaginary fiancé with the imaginary iPhone 4 is in real luck; she can return it no questions asked to Apple.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  9. Re:PR versus PR by santiagodraco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First off Apple is making it very difficult to return phones, and I can assure you there are LOTS of people in the Apple stores trying to get the phones fixed and threatening to return them.

    How about this interesting story...

    I was in the Apple store in the "Domain" in Austin, tx. I went in for a phone exchange because I was instructed to do so by Apple tech support on the "chance" that it would fix my drop call problems (and proximity sensor issues). I had 2 case numbers and Apple made the appointment for the visit themselves.

    Well, I get there and spend 60 minutes, 15 minutes waiting for help (past my appt time) and 45 minutes talking to the support person while he went to the back 3 times to "get my replacement phone" only to come back out and say "I just want to make sure you understand that after you exchange your phone you cannot ever return it for a refund" and then being unable to show me anything in writing that states that I would lose my contractual rights to a refund if the phone is exchanges in an attempted repair.

    That's right, Apple stores are attempting to decieve customers that they cannot return phones if they are exchanged for repair during their 30 day period. They cannot show anything in writing to this affect (because nothing in writing exists) and when pressured they will simply say "oh I know how the system works and it is simply impossible to return an exchanged phone because the serial numbers change". How interesting. But they cannot explain how that can be possible when the exchange work order shows both the original phones serial and the exchange phones serial"

    So those of you that claim that no one wants to return their phones should walk into an Apple store and see what they are doing to keep people from doing so. The intimidation (with a pleasant voice) tactics used to stop customers from doing so (since most customers will try an exchange at least once before refunding) is despicable and probably illegal.

  10. Re:PR versus PR by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am struggling to recall RIM selling a million of anything in a weekend.

    This is something that always bothers my "reality versus accounting" soul.

    See, here's the thing: Apple opens a product up for pre-orders a few weeks before it ships. A bunch of people buy it on pre-order. Then, the first weekend, Apple ships all those orders and, on Monday, Apple announces having sold millions of whatevers the first weekend.

    Now, from an accounting perspective, this is accurate. You can't book sales until you ship the item. So even though Apple got money over a few weeks, they couldn't actually put it on their books as income until they shipped out the devices. So when Apple shipped out the devices is when they booked the revenue, all of which occurred that first weekend. Plus whatever they sold in the stores over the weekend. So, from an accounting standpoint, it's accurate--they made the money that first weekend.

    However, the reality perspective says that the item was available for sale a few weeks beforehand. If I had a product and I offered it for sale one year before it finally shipped, and I had one person per day buying it, on the day I shipped I could claim that 365 bought it in one day. But realistically, I had one sale per day. Based on past history, I would have a hard time believing that I would have 365 sales on the day after I shipped those 365. It's more likely that I would continue having 1 per day.

    Apple releases these numbers to look impressive. And, don't get me wrong, selling a million or so devices in a few weeks is impressive--I've never sold that many things in a few years! But it wasn't "one weekend"--that's an accounting trick.

  11. Re:So the videos are true? by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.