Agreed, and its not the first time they royally fucked up.
Remember the Apple III?
WOW! I'd say if you have to go back THIRTY YEARS to find another example, then they OBVIOUSLY are doing pretty damn good!
BTW, the problems with the/// were NOT engineering-related. The problem was the state-of-the-art of PC board manufacturing, which couldn't deal with the density of the Apple///'s PCB. Today it would be laughably trivial, but not in 1979...
BTW, by the time the version 2 PCBs were released, the Apple/// was as stable as the Apple//.
But by then, even Apple wasn't interested in the Apple/// anymore.
Antenna design for hand-held devices at these frequencies and power levels is not exactly trivial, and minimizing the effect of the human body (hand) on the antenna characteristics is the subject of much research in the industry.
Note that this "antennaphile" site called the iPhone 4's antenna design "cool", and said to expect to see other manufacturers adopting similar designs.
Note that the forum thread linked below says that your hand can affect a GHz-band antenna from as far way as 3cm. So where on a phone that is FAR less than 1cm. thick are you going to place that antenna that WON'T have "hand-effects" to some degree? Now, factor in the fact that the FCC MANDATES that the antenna be on the LOWER half of the phone (where your hand naturally grips!), and you can readily see that, as Jobs stated (and demonstrated), EVERY cellphone suffers from the presence of the user. Keep that in mind when you hear people proclaim "NO other phone has these issues." WRONG! EVERY cellphone struggles mightily with this limitation (the presence of the user), during EVERY SINGLE CALL and with EVERY SINGLE USER.
Antenna design for hand-held devices at these frequencies and power levels is not exactly trivial, and minimizing the effect of the human body (hand) on the antenna characteristics is the subject of much research in the industry.
Note that this "antennaphile" site called the iPhone 4's antenna design "cool", and said to expect to see other manufacturers adopting similar designs.
Note that the forum thread linked below says that your hand can affect a GHz-band antenna from as far way as 3cm. So where on a phone that is FAR less than 1cm. thick are you going to place that antenna that WON'T have "hand-effects" to some degree? Now, factor in the fact that the FCC MANDATES that the antenna be on the LOWER half of the phone (where your hand naturally grips!), and you can readily see that, as Jobs stated (and demonstrated), EVERY cellphone suffers from the presence of the user. Keep that in mind when you hear people proclaim "NO other phone has these issues." WRONG! EVERY cellphone struggles mightily with this limitation (the presence of the user
If you get that far you probably want to redesign your whole phone enclosure - it will be cheaper, and will work better.
I think that's what Apple will ultimately do.
I was thinking about how they could do this with the minimum impact on the hardware design and PC board layout (which is pretty complex in itself for a device like this), and still achieve a significant drop in the number of call-drops on the AT&T network ('m still not convinced that Apple could really come out and blame AT but see this report from Australia). So far, I haven't come up with a perfect solution (which is what everyone will want now, since the media spotlight will be trained like a LAY-ZER beam on ANYTHING they release that purports to permanently address this issue).
anyone else notice..apple left the Q/A session off the version of the press conference on thier website.
They seem to do that everytime they have an "event" that includes a Q&A. Don't know exactly why; but it seems to be their normal way of doing things. Take off the tinfoil hat, please!
BTW, if you're really curious, the eleventy-thousand sites that liveblogged the event can provide you with a written transcript-ish account of the Q&A.
Let's just say, you really didn't miss anything by not seeing the Q&A session. The questions were INCREDIBLY inane. Embarrassingly so, in fact. If you don't believe me, please, by all means, check it out for yourself.
My BlackBerry Bold 9700 does not have alleged signal issues and has been extremely reliable. I do not accept his deflection of blame, especially after 1 out of 1 friends I'd asked could reproduce the iPhone 4 issue. So far, 100% of the people I know with an iPhone 4 are experiencing the issue.
Also, there is a simple engineering fix to this problem which doesn't sacrifice the design - cover the antenna with a thin layer of insulator, and then cover that insulator with an ultra thin layer of metal as a facade that looks indistinguishable from the current antenna.
Boy, you have just proven that you know JACK SHIT about antenna design. It simply isn't that simple.
So, really, there's only two options. Either the engineers were ignorant and their errors didn't come out until after release, or they were overruled. I actually know a few people who design (and research) antennas, and have a very hard time believing this was a simple oversight or testing failure.
I don't. There are far many more variables in this equation than simple "detuning".
For instance, what no one seems to be taking into account is the INSANE amount of RF pollution in the real-world, and how this fairly unpredictably affects the total system performance from moment to moment, and sometimes even inch-by-inch in a particular location. This is pointed out by the "anechoic chamber"[sic] that Apple was showing off. The real problem is, after some sort of real-world testing (probably curtailed prematurely when that iPhone 4 proto got left in a bar!), Apple's antenna team had to at some point, like all engineers, fish or cut bait. As a (fellow) engineer, you and I both know that sux; but it is a fact of life.
By the way, why all the skepticism over me being an engineer? Would it help if I told you that I, too, have designed a 802.15.4 product (Zigbee, to be precise, and from scratch... including the antenna, an experience I don't want to repeat)? Probably not.
Actually it does, and I feel for you in having to deal with that bloated Zigbee stack (and even more so for having to take on a GHz-band antenna design (and without the proper Spectrum Analyzers, etc. too, I'll bet!)). But, it also makes me wonder even more why you find this kind of "situational" problem to be so easily predicted. As you said, Apple's engineers probably did everything they could to minimize the capactive-loading effect. But there were just some situations they couldn't deal with (probably no one could, actually).
And, as I said in another comment, I'll bet that the (what appears to be, from anecdotal reports) higher overall system gain and/or lower min. signal threshold of the iPhone 4 has actually made people more aware of the problem, by being able to PLACE (but not maintain) calls that wouldn't even begin to "go through" on their earlier phones. But then, when those "1 bar" calls get DROPPED, the user doesn't think about anything other than "Damn iPhone!" Not even thinking that their previous phone wouldn't even ATTEMPT to connect in such a marginal situation.
I'm surprised that he didn't do something else like offer a gift card, but this seems reasonable.
As it stands, I've heard that this could cost Apple $65 million for the "comped" bumpers.
Do you really think that HTC, Motorola or Blackberry would have even responded?
Not disagreeing with your post; I also think that Apple was really up-front about the issue, and took a very reasonable approach to an "instant fix".
What I couldn't fathom was the earlier internal memo (fake?) that supposedly told their tech-support people to NOT offer free bumpers. But maybe they saw that as an "admission of guilt", and wanted to stem the tide before they had actually had a chance to study the problem.
Well, a clear epoxy coating on the antenna would have fixed this poor design inexpensively
Citation, please?
Have you actually tried that? Because, speaking as an electrical engineer (but not an antenna designer) I don't think anything other than pure DISTANCE (which the rubber bumper neatly provides) will actually help all that much.
You do realize that your "clear epoxy coating" will start getting nasty looking in very short order. If you want insulation that is also rugged, look to an oxide-type coating, not some "paint" (which is effectively what an epoxy clear-coat is).
Seriously, if the other smartphones have just as bad problems, why hasn't anybody noticed? Yes, there is a certain amount of media frenzy against Apple, but I can't believe there has been a conspiracy by all media sources to cover up an issue which Jobs claims happens to all other smartphones.
Are you kidding me? You simply aren't looking, and then saying "It doesn't exist". HTC, Motorola, Blackberry ALL have various people whining about "too many dropped calls".
The tried to prove there isn't an Apple specific issue
Actually, I think they fairly well proved that. They didn't "try" to prove it. They did.
And, there's even plenty more INDEPENDENT (albeit anecdotal) evidence around the tubes that this "dropped calls" thing is NOT just an "iPhone 4" issue:
I for one am glad that they're getting raked over the coals. Too many times we engineers are forced to go along with stupid ideas: its rare that the full consequences hit back at those making the decisions.
I am an embedded developer (albeit not usually of RF devices, although I have designed at least one 802.15.4-based product), and wholeheartedly agree with you on the above-quoted statement in a general sense; HOWEVER, in this case, it might have actually been the FCC mandate that antennae be placed near the BOTTOM (away from brain!) end of cellphones, coupled with an honest engineering (actually testing) oversight.
I, too, sort of shuddered when I saw the iPhone 4 keynote describing where the antennae were, and am actually amazed that there aren't more antenna detuning and impedance-changing problems from body contact (or even close proximity). But I really don't think this was a marketing "form over function" kind of thing. More like something that just didn't show up during testing. It happens, and if you are a REAL engineer, you'd know that.
If you are an engineer, you can well appreciate that there are no more thorough testers than those who are NOT familiar with how to use a product. Well, Apple just "employed" about THREE MILLION "testers" in about 3 weeks. How could ANYONE create a completely flawless product when faced with that many diverse "applications"?
BTW, as an "engineer", you should also know that GOOD antenna design is HARD, and, the higher the frequency, the more critical the design, and more easily upset is the characteristic impedance.
So now, LIKE ANY OTHER MANUFACTURER OF ANY OTHER CELLPHONE, they will go back and do a little tweak on the antenna design (and maybe even give the internal circuitry a little more gain. and/or tweak the PLL lock filter time constants), and/or clear-kote or oxide-coat the antenna, and all will be well.
These are the kinds of production mods that EVERYONE does ALL THE TIME. As a supposed "Engineer" (of what?), you should bloody-well know that. But NO ONE ELSE has the "Product Launch" visibility of Apple. So it gets blown WAY out of proportion.
The only way this can be insignificant, is if AT&T drops, let say, 50 calls per 100.
Well, according to this, AT&T thinks that THIRTY dropped calls per 100 is "normal" in certain areas (note that the article was written LONG BEFORE the iPhone 4 came out), so it seems like you just admitted that, depending on the circumstances, that the difference IS "insignificant".
BTW, Apple ADMITTED that there was an issue, and were now looking further into the matter.
Actually, the REAL interesting ratio would be how many iPhone 4 vs. OTHER MANUFACTURERS calls are dropped.
Also, didn't I read somewhere that this seems to be primarily an ATT phenomenon? Did you ever stop to think that Apple couldn't exactly come out and say "Well hey, don't blame us. It's AT&T's shitty network."
I think the real problem is that, since the antenna design and circuitry IS actually better (higher gain overall), what is ACTUALLY happening is that people are able to place calls in more marginal areas than with the 3GS (several anecdotal reports around the intarwebs seem to confirm this); but those calls are VERY "fragile". Move your hand, or move your body, and that call that JUST makes it through at -120dBm(?) is suddenly below the PLL lock threshold at -122dBm (or whatever the magic cutoff is), and BAM! There goes your call. Whereas, the 3GS wouldn't even ATTEMPT the call at those signal levels.
Translation: Wait until September, we're redesigning the phone casing to put some clear shiny coating on the antenna, but we need to sell through the current stock first.
That should take about 48 hours, because Apple is BEHIND ON DEMAND on the iPhone 4. There IS no "current stock".
Next time actually check out the Press Conference before you show yourself to be an uninformed asswipe.
NOT "Sorry, we screwed up, this free case should make it better. Our bad."
You must've heard a different Press Conference than the one that Ars Technica liveblogged. Because that's pretty much what Jobs said. He did point out that the iPhone 4 was not alone in having signal attenuation issues regarding people's various ways of holding the device; but that was a factual presentation. No smoke-and-mirrors here.
Apple has handled this poorly every step of the way.
Really? Pray tell, how would YOU have handled it differently?
they still try to weasel out of trouble with the old line "it wasn't just me, they are doing it too".
No, they came right out and said the call-drop numbers were slightly higher on the 4 than the 3GS.
What you are calling "weasl(ing) out" was in fact Apple showing that they are, in fact, not alone (by any stretch of the imagination) in having signal-attenuation issues depending on how a phone is held.
50,000 applications vs 250,000 applications doesn't really matter. In both cases, it's enough to cover basically everything you'll need, and many applications are redundant copies of each other.
Oops! Your logic slip is showing! So, what you are saying is, the Walls of the Garden are so far away that the average user cannot see them, right? And you know what? You're right!
Android has multiple music players for it, the iPhone has just the one Apple makes.
I guess you didn't see the iOS4 Keynote, nor the iPhone 4 Keynote, where Jobs specifically mentioned Pandora (and I believe even had the CEO of onstage to DEMO). It was one of the apps he SPECIFICALLY mentioned in his introduction of iOS4 multitasking.
Android has applications with political and/or sexual content, the iPhone has practically none.
Sorry, you have blown it with your first statement about "cover(ing) basically everything you'll need." Strawman argument. Next!
Something about temporary safety over essential liberty and deserving neither comes to mind...
Which is why I pointed out (and you conveniently DIDN'T copy into your reply) that ""Liberty" on smartphones is NOT the same as "Liberty" in government. And, just so I don't get some sort of snippy retort, TRUE "Liberty" would mean that I could hunt you down and kill you for not agreeing with me. Do you really think THAT's "1337"? ". But instead, you ignored that, and the example I pointed out about a BANK SCAM APP being approved on Android Marketplace, and came back with the lame-ass "argument" that:
What part of "you can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same" don't you understand?
So, which part of a BANK SCAM APP do you think is not "infring(ing) on anyone else's right(s)"?
So, let's recap:
First, you ADMIT that the "Walled Garden" is sufficiently large that it contains "basically everything you'll need." Next, you IGNORE that Jobs DEMOed PANDORA running on iOS4. Then finally, you attempt to besmirch the hallowed memory of one of our country's Founding Fathers (Ben Franklin) by invoking his words (which I OBVIOUSLY had in mind when I clearly delineated "Liberty in Government" from "Liberty for App Stores"). THEN, you actually IGNORED an OBVIOUSLY PERFECT EXAMPLE (Bank Scam App) of just exactly WHY a "Curated" App Store is actually BETTER for the USER (name me ONE identity-theft app on the Apple App Store). Wasn't there just a/. article on "Fifth of Android Apps Expose Private Data"?
But, that's ok, because they can apparently PUT IT (or anything they want to!) INTO YOUR PHONE as well (without your knowledge or consent. Just like the deletion).
Yeah, Android's "install any app" thing is working out JUST fine for the USER, and is SO MUCH BETTER than Apple's "Curated" approach. Riiiiight.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, and its not the first time they royally fucked up.
Remember the Apple III?
WOW! I'd say if you have to go back THIRTY YEARS to find another example, then they OBVIOUSLY are doing pretty damn good!
/// were NOT engineering-related. The problem was the state-of-the-art of PC board manufacturing, which couldn't deal with the density of the Apple ///'s PCB. Today it would be laughably trivial, but not in 1979...
/// was as stable as the Apple //.
/// anymore.
BTW, the problems with the
BTW, by the time the version 2 PCBs were released, the Apple
But by then, even Apple wasn't interested in the Apple
Their testing methods aren't functional. They are just designed to look cool.
Considering that the testing lab was SECRET until last Friday, I think you're an idiot.
Oh wait, you're an AC. Nevermind.
Antenna design for hand-held devices at these frequencies and power levels is not exactly trivial, and minimizing the effect of the human body (hand) on the antenna characteristics is the subject of much research in the industry.
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=1152137
http://www.rfm.com/corp/appdata/antenna.pdf
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120848913/articletext?DOI=10.1002%2Fmop.23715
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/11208/36089/01710996.pdf
http://e-citations.ethbib.ethz.ch/view/pub:18638
http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v49/v49-156.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Hands-effect-Shahla-Moradi-Shahrbabak/dp/3639175425
http://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+hand+on+antenna&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&ei=GbZBTOP-NIP-8Aaw_aUZ&start=10&sa=N
http://rfdesign.com/mag/505RFDF1.pdf
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijap/2009/491262.html
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4913660%2F4957855%2F04958011.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4958011&authDecision=-203
http://wireless.per.nl/wireless/articles/08_WIC_correlated_coupled_MIMO.pdf
http://www.impinj.com/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2563>
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.66.2119&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://202.194.20.8/proc/VTC09Spring/DATA/02-07-08.PDF
AND THAT'S IN JUST THE FIRST THREE PAGES OF MY GOOGLE SEARCH!!!!!!!!!!
Note that this "antennaphile" site called the iPhone 4's antenna design "cool", and said to expect to see other manufacturers adopting similar designs.
Note that the forum thread linked below says that your hand can affect a GHz-band antenna from as far way as 3cm. So where on a phone that is FAR less than 1cm. thick are you going to place that antenna that WON'T have "hand-effects" to some degree? Now, factor in the fact that the FCC MANDATES that the antenna be on the LOWER half of the phone (where your hand naturally grips!), and you can readily see that, as Jobs stated (and demonstrated), EVERY cellphone suffers from the presence of the user. Keep that in mind when you hear people proclaim "NO other phone has these issues." WRONG! EVERY cellphone struggles mightily with this limitation (the presence of the user), during EVERY SINGLE CALL and with EVERY SINGLE USER.
I disagree, but feel free to enlighten me.
Ok, I will.
Antenna design for hand-held devices at these frequencies and power levels is not exactly trivial, and minimizing the effect of the human body (hand) on the antenna characteristics is the subject of much research in the industry.
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=1152137
http://www.rfm.com/corp/appdata/antenna.pdf
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120848913/articletext?DOI=10.1002%2Fmop.23715
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/11208/36089/01710996.pdf
http://e-citations.ethbib.ethz.ch/view/pub:18638
http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v49/v49-156.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Hands-effect-Shahla-Moradi-Shahrbabak/dp/3639175425
http://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+hand+on+antenna&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&ei=GbZBTOP-NIP-8Aaw_aUZ&start=10&sa=N
http://rfdesign.com/mag/505RFDF1.pdf
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijap/2009/491262.html
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4913660%2F4957855%2F04958011.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4958011&authDecision=-203
http://wireless.per.nl/wireless/articles/08_WIC_correlated_coupled_MIMO.pdf
http://www.impinj.com/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2563>
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.66.2119&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://202.194.20.8/proc/VTC09Spring/DATA/02-07-08.PDF
AND THAT'S IN JUST THE FIRST THREE PAGES OF MY GOOGLE SEARCH!!!!!!!!!!
Note that this "antennaphile" site called the iPhone 4's antenna design "cool", and said to expect to see other manufacturers adopting similar designs.
Note that the forum thread linked below says that your hand can affect a GHz-band antenna from as far way as 3cm. So where on a phone that is FAR less than 1cm. thick are you going to place that antenna that WON'T have "hand-effects" to some degree? Now, factor in the fact that the FCC MANDATES that the antenna be on the LOWER half of the phone (where your hand naturally grips!), and you can readily see that, as Jobs stated (and demonstrated), EVERY cellphone suffers from the presence of the user. Keep that in mind when you hear people proclaim "NO other phone has these issues." WRONG! EVERY cellphone struggles mightily with this limitation (the presence of the user
Um, that was supposed to be "blame AT&T", but my ampersand must've got eaten by the HTML parser, sorry!
If you get that far you probably want to redesign your whole phone enclosure - it will be cheaper, and will work better.
I think that's what Apple will ultimately do.
I was thinking about how they could do this with the minimum impact on the hardware design and PC board layout (which is pretty complex in itself for a device like this), and still achieve a significant drop in the number of call-drops on the AT&T network ('m still not convinced that Apple could really come out and blame AT but see this report from Australia). So far, I haven't come up with a perfect solution (which is what everyone will want now, since the media spotlight will be trained like a LAY-ZER beam on ANYTHING they release that purports to permanently address this issue).
anyone else notice..apple left the Q/A session off the version of the press conference on thier website.
They seem to do that everytime they have an "event" that includes a Q&A. Don't know exactly why; but it seems to be their normal way of doing things. Take off the tinfoil hat, please!
BTW, if you're really curious, the eleventy-thousand sites that liveblogged the event can provide you with a written transcript-ish account of the Q&A.
Let's just say, you really didn't miss anything by not seeing the Q&A session. The questions were INCREDIBLY inane. Embarrassingly so, in fact. If you don't believe me, please, by all means, check it out for yourself.
My BlackBerry Bold 9700 does not have alleged signal issues and has been extremely reliable. I do not accept his deflection of blame, especially after 1 out of 1 friends I'd asked could reproduce the iPhone 4 issue. So far, 100% of the people I know with an iPhone 4 are experiencing the issue.
C'mon mods: INSIGHTFUL???
Maybe your BB, in your area, has no issues; but clearly Jobs isn't lying when he points out that other smartphones, even those WITHOUT "exposed" metal antennae, er, DO.
Apple has posted both a video of the Press Conference, and a DETAILED explanation of their testing of their, and their competitors' phones.
But now, let's watch all the Apple-Haters come out and say "They rigged the tests!" in 3...2...1
Also, there is a simple engineering fix to this problem which doesn't sacrifice the design - cover the antenna with a thin layer of insulator, and then cover that insulator with an ultra thin layer of metal as a facade that looks indistinguishable from the current antenna.
Boy, you have just proven that you know JACK SHIT about antenna design. It simply isn't that simple.
So, really, there's only two options. Either the engineers were ignorant and their errors didn't come out until after release, or they were overruled. I actually know a few people who design (and research) antennas, and have a very hard time believing this was a simple oversight or testing failure.
I don't. There are far many more variables in this equation than simple "detuning".
For instance, what no one seems to be taking into account is the INSANE amount of RF pollution in the real-world, and how this fairly unpredictably affects the total system performance from moment to moment, and sometimes even inch-by-inch in a particular location. This is pointed out by the "anechoic chamber"[sic] that Apple was showing off. The real problem is, after some sort of real-world testing (probably curtailed prematurely when that iPhone 4 proto got left in a bar!), Apple's antenna team had to at some point, like all engineers, fish or cut bait. As a (fellow) engineer, you and I both know that sux; but it is a fact of life.
By the way, why all the skepticism over me being an engineer? Would it help if I told you that I, too, have designed a 802.15.4 product (Zigbee, to be precise, and from scratch ... including the antenna, an experience I don't want to repeat)? Probably not.
Actually it does, and I feel for you in having to deal with that bloated Zigbee stack (and even more so for having to take on a GHz-band antenna design (and without the proper Spectrum Analyzers, etc. too, I'll bet!)). But, it also makes me wonder even more why you find this kind of "situational" problem to be so easily predicted. As you said, Apple's engineers probably did everything they could to minimize the capactive-loading effect. But there were just some situations they couldn't deal with (probably no one could, actually).
And, as I said in another comment, I'll bet that the (what appears to be, from anecdotal reports) higher overall system gain and/or lower min. signal threshold of the iPhone 4 has actually made people more aware of the problem, by being able to PLACE (but not maintain) calls that wouldn't even begin to "go through" on their earlier phones. But then, when those "1 bar" calls get DROPPED, the user doesn't think about anything other than "Damn iPhone!" Not even thinking that their previous phone wouldn't even ATTEMPT to connect in such a marginal situation.
I'm surprised that he didn't do something else like offer a gift card, but this seems reasonable.
As it stands, I've heard that this could cost Apple $65 million for the "comped" bumpers.
Do you really think that HTC, Motorola or Blackberry would have even responded?
Not disagreeing with your post; I also think that Apple was really up-front about the issue, and took a very reasonable approach to an "instant fix".
What I couldn't fathom was the earlier internal memo (fake?) that supposedly told their tech-support people to NOT offer free bumpers. But maybe they saw that as an "admission of guilt", and wanted to stem the tide before they had actually had a chance to study the problem.
Well, a clear epoxy coating on the antenna would have fixed this poor design inexpensively
Citation, please?
Have you actually tried that? Because, speaking as an electrical engineer (but not an antenna designer) I don't think anything other than pure DISTANCE (which the rubber bumper neatly provides) will actually help all that much.
You do realize that your "clear epoxy coating" will start getting nasty looking in very short order. If you want insulation that is also rugged, look to an oxide-type coating, not some "paint" (which is effectively what an epoxy clear-coat is).
Seriously, if the other smartphones have just as bad problems, why hasn't anybody noticed? Yes, there is a certain amount of media frenzy against Apple, but I can't believe there has been a conspiracy by all media sources to cover up an issue which Jobs claims happens to all other smartphones.
Are you kidding me? You simply aren't looking, and then saying "It doesn't exist". HTC, Motorola, Blackberry ALL have various people whining about "too many dropped calls".
More importantly - iphone is a fad.
Yeah, right. That's why EVERY phone manufacturer has been bending over backwards to copy it.
BTW we're nearly at the 5 year mark on the iPhone, and, if three million sales in 3 weeks is any indication, it is a "fad" that simply isn't fading.
BTW, rock music, cars, and color television were all dismissed at one time as "fads".
How long does something have to last before you no longer consider it a "fad"?
ill then I'll use my customized android thanks
You and all of about 15,000 other people WORLDWIDE. That number isn't even statistically significant to a company like Apple.
BTW, have fun with your Android apps and their propensity to expose user data, and Google's PROVEN propensity to REMOVE APPS from "your" phone.
Yeah, that's REAL freedom, alright. Google wants an app off (or even ON!) your phone, and POOF!
The tried to prove there isn't an Apple specific issue
Actually, I think they fairly well proved that. They didn't "try" to prove it. They did.
And, there's even plenty more INDEPENDENT (albeit anecdotal) evidence around the tubes that this "dropped calls" thing is NOT just an "iPhone 4" issue:
I for one am glad that they're getting raked over the coals. Too many times we engineers are forced to go along with stupid ideas: its rare that the full consequences hit back at those making the decisions.
I am an embedded developer (albeit not usually of RF devices, although I have designed at least one 802.15.4-based product), and wholeheartedly agree with you on the above-quoted statement in a general sense; HOWEVER, in this case, it might have actually been the FCC mandate that antennae be placed near the BOTTOM (away from brain!) end of cellphones, coupled with an honest engineering (actually testing) oversight.
I, too, sort of shuddered when I saw the iPhone 4 keynote describing where the antennae were, and am actually amazed that there aren't more antenna detuning and impedance-changing problems from body contact (or even close proximity). But I really don't think this was a marketing "form over function" kind of thing. More like something that just didn't show up during testing. It happens, and if you are a REAL engineer, you'd know that.
If you are an engineer, you can well appreciate that there are no more thorough testers than those who are NOT familiar with how to use a product. Well, Apple just "employed" about THREE MILLION "testers" in about 3 weeks. How could ANYONE create a completely flawless product when faced with that many diverse "applications"?
BTW, as an "engineer", you should also know that GOOD antenna design is HARD, and, the higher the frequency, the more critical the design, and more easily upset is the characteristic impedance.
So now, LIKE ANY OTHER MANUFACTURER OF ANY OTHER CELLPHONE, they will go back and do a little tweak on the antenna design (and maybe even give the internal circuitry a little more gain. and/or tweak the PLL lock filter time constants), and/or clear-kote or oxide-coat the antenna, and all will be well.
These are the kinds of production mods that EVERYONE does ALL THE TIME. As a supposed "Engineer" (of what?), you should bloody-well know that. But NO ONE ELSE has the "Product Launch" visibility of Apple. So it gets blown WAY out of proportion.
The only way this can be insignificant, is if AT&T drops, let say, 50 calls per 100.
Well, according to this, AT&T thinks that THIRTY dropped calls per 100 is "normal" in certain areas (note that the article was written LONG BEFORE the iPhone 4 came out), so it seems like you just admitted that, depending on the circumstances, that the difference IS "insignificant".
BTW, Apple ADMITTED that there was an issue, and were now looking further into the matter.
WTF else would you have them do?
Ah, the beauty of statistical slight of hand.
Actually, the REAL interesting ratio would be how many iPhone 4 vs. OTHER MANUFACTURERS calls are dropped.
Also, didn't I read somewhere that this seems to be primarily an ATT phenomenon? Did you ever stop to think that Apple couldn't exactly come out and say "Well hey, don't blame us. It's AT&T's shitty network."
I think the real problem is that, since the antenna design and circuitry IS actually better (higher gain overall), what is ACTUALLY happening is that people are able to place calls in more marginal areas than with the 3GS (several anecdotal reports around the intarwebs seem to confirm this); but those calls are VERY "fragile". Move your hand, or move your body, and that call that JUST makes it through at -120dBm(?) is suddenly below the PLL lock threshold at -122dBm (or whatever the magic cutoff is), and BAM! There goes your call. Whereas, the 3GS wouldn't even ATTEMPT the call at those signal levels.
Translation: Wait until September, we're redesigning the phone casing to put some clear shiny coating on the antenna, but we need to sell through the current stock first.
That should take about 48 hours, because Apple is BEHIND ON DEMAND on the iPhone 4. There IS no "current stock".
Next time actually check out the Press Conference before you show yourself to be an uninformed asswipe.
Because, you know, the drop on those phones was miniscule compared to the one from the iPhone 4.
Citation, please. Because the drops on the other phones that Apple showed were as bad or worse than iPhone 4.
NOT "Sorry, we screwed up, this free case should make it better. Our bad."
You must've heard a different Press Conference than the one that Ars Technica liveblogged. Because that's pretty much what Jobs said. He did point out that the iPhone 4 was not alone in having signal attenuation issues regarding people's various ways of holding the device; but that was a factual presentation. No smoke-and-mirrors here.
Apple has handled this poorly every step of the way.
Really? Pray tell, how would YOU have handled it differently?
they still try to weasel out of trouble with the old line "it wasn't just me, they are doing it too".
No, they came right out and said the call-drop numbers were slightly higher on the 4 than the 3GS.
What you are calling "weasl(ing) out" was in fact Apple showing that they are, in fact, not alone (by any stretch of the imagination) in having signal-attenuation issues depending on how a phone is held.
It's called "Physics". Look into it.
50,000 applications vs 250,000 applications doesn't really matter. In both cases, it's enough to cover basically everything you'll need, and many applications are redundant copies of each other.
Oops! Your logic slip is showing! So, what you are saying is, the Walls of the Garden are so far away that the average user cannot see them, right? And you know what? You're right!
Android has multiple music players for it, the iPhone has just the one Apple makes.
I guess you didn't see the iOS4 Keynote, nor the iPhone 4 Keynote, where Jobs specifically mentioned Pandora (and I believe even had the CEO of onstage to DEMO). It was one of the apps he SPECIFICALLY mentioned in his introduction of iOS4 multitasking.
Android has applications with political and/or sexual content, the iPhone has practically none.
Sorry, you have blown it with your first statement about "cover(ing) basically everything you'll need." Strawman argument. Next!
Something about temporary safety over essential liberty and deserving neither comes to mind...
Which is why I pointed out (and you conveniently DIDN'T copy into your reply) that ""Liberty" on smartphones is NOT the same as "Liberty" in government. And, just so I don't get some sort of snippy retort, TRUE "Liberty" would mean that I could hunt you down and kill you for not agreeing with me. Do you really think THAT's "1337"? ". But instead, you ignored that, and the example I pointed out about a BANK SCAM APP being approved on Android Marketplace, and came back with the lame-ass "argument" that:
What part of "you can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to do the same" don't you understand?
So, which part of a BANK SCAM APP do you think is not "infring(ing) on anyone else's right(s)"?
/. article on "Fifth of Android Apps Expose Private Data"?
So, let's recap:
First, you ADMIT that the "Walled Garden" is sufficiently large that it contains "basically everything you'll need." Next, you IGNORE that Jobs DEMOed PANDORA running on iOS4. Then finally, you attempt to besmirch the hallowed memory of one of our country's Founding Fathers (Ben Franklin) by invoking his words (which I OBVIOUSLY had in mind when I clearly delineated "Liberty in Government" from "Liberty for App Stores"). THEN, you actually IGNORED an OBVIOUSLY PERFECT EXAMPLE (Bank Scam App) of just exactly WHY a "Curated" App Store is actually BETTER for the USER (name me ONE identity-theft app on the Apple App Store). Wasn't there just a
In fact, one app was SO egregious that Google felt it necessary to REACH INTO USERS' PHONES and DELETE IT!
But, that's ok, because they can apparently PUT IT (or anything they want to!) INTO YOUR PHONE as well (without your knowledge or consent. Just like the deletion).
Yeah, Android's "install any app" thing is working out JUST fine for the USER, and is SO MUCH BETTER than Apple's "Curated" approach. Riiiiight.
BTW, with an average of over SIX HUNDRED NEW apps being APPROVED EVERY SINGLE DAY (given the average 95% approval rate), just exactly WHAT is your problem?
(disregarding the whole jailbreaking community).
Which of course would render your entire argument moot; so let's just disregard it, shall we?
Tool.