

Lab tests: Why Consumer Reports can't recommend the iPhone 4 - bensummers
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2010/07/apple-iphone-4-antenna-issue-iphone4-problems-dropped-calls-lab-test-confirmed-problem-issues-signal-strength-att-network-gsm.html

======
adolph
The iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue will be remembered as one of the
biggest avoidable but unforeseen design errors of all time, I think.

~~~
powrtoch
Maybe by HNers. I think a solid percentage of the general public at least
vaguely knows about it, but most of my non-techie friends probably don't, or
if they do they heard once and then forgot about it. It's certainly a screw up
on Apple's part, but when you keep in mind that the rest of the world is
seeing much less targeted news streams, I hardly think it's historical.

~~~
Encosia
Almost everyone that has noticed my iPhone 4 and wanted to talk about it
(strange how much attention it gets, compared to what the 3G and 3GS did) has
asked about the antenna. The issue has been talked up enough in non-tech news
that it's hard _not_ to know about it.

~~~
risotto
Same here.

"Ooh is that the new iPhone? Do you have antenna problems?"

I say that while I do notice the affect, i've dropped no calls in my apartment
with the new model, vs 70% dropped rate on my 3G.

------
elblanco
This is probably another advantage to the Android "lots of phones" strategy
vs. putting all your eggs in one basket strategy. Even if you really like
Apple's products, it's not like there's a good alternative phone you can turn
to that's still an Apple product. While with Android, if a severe problem with
a particular phone comes out, you can always just pick another phone.

In the future, it might make more sense for Apple to release several flavors
of phones, diversify what they are selling, rather than lumping their entire
strategy with one product that might have unforeseen problems.

~~~
jordanroher
_In the future, it might make more sense for Apple to release several flavors
of phones, diversify what they are selling, rather than lumping their entire
strategy with one product that might have unforeseen problems._

Technically they are: the iPhone 3GS runs the iOS 4 very well and doesn't have
the lovely antenna bridging issue.

That said, I'm having trouble imagining Apple going the iPod/iPod Nano/iPod
Shuffle route with the iPhone. Whereas an iPod is used to play music 99% of
the time, an iPhone makes calls, sends e-mail, surfs the web, and runs
hundreds of thousands of apps, all of which expect a certain screen size and
hardware components. An MP3 file doesn't require much.

So, as neat as it would be to see Apple make many flavors of iPhones, I doubt
it'll happen. This is the company that doesn't make a sub-$2,500 workstation
with a replaceable graphics card, and whose netbook competitor costs $500.

(Still, I would love to see an iPhone Shuffle. No screen. Press the button and
it calls someone at random.)

------
smokey_the_bear
I actually really like this bug in the phone. I'm an app developer and it's
great for testing going in and out of coverage. I only get one bar in my
house, not enough to make calls, but enough to affect the connected flags. I
can consistently drop that bar.

~~~
mbrubeck
We used a foil-lined box to do this at my last job.

------
nickpp
Knew perfectly well about the issue, still got iPhone 4 last week.

Crappy antenna is something I can live with. Crappy display, battery, software
and user experience are not.

~~~
jessriedel
I feel exactly the opposite about my phone. It just needs to make calls.

~~~
bingaman
If it just needs to make calls, don't get a smart phone.

~~~
nickpp
Bingo! I seldom _talk_ on my iPhone. However I constanly do countless other
stuff with it.

If you are different, there is a vast number of alternative, seriously cheaper
phones doing the phone part so much better.

But if you want to do... anything else, well, there's an app for that.

------
jeff18
That's interesting that a piece of tape does indeed fix the problem. On last
week's TWiT, one of the antenna engineers they had on kept saying how tape
doesn't solve it.

~~~
KirinDave
I'm skeptical of Consumer Reports methodology when it is in conflict with
experts' predictions and tests. That it also is in conflict with AnandTech's
review suggests to me that CR didn't have the expertise to adequaty test this.

Which is not to say the problem doesn't exist. I just don't think they
understand it.

------
handler
i don't think apple has to worry, apparently people can't be swayed by facts
(see: "How telling people the facts may not cause them to change what they
believe"
([http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/...](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full)
)).

also, every iphone has had serious signal issues, it's a known problem, yet
people still continue to buy them–why would this change anything... most
people buy the iphone because of marketing not functionality.

------
SamAtt
I'm sorry but this is just over reaction. The big deal about the antenna issue
is that Apple tried to cover it up NOT the issue itself. The issue itself can
be fixed easily and cheaply by either using masking tape (as they suggest) or
by simply buying the $29 "bumper" accessory from Apple.

To suggest someone buy a 3GS over an iPhone 4 because of this issue (as they
do at the end of the article) is just a little silly.

~~~
leviathant
Sure, because Consumer Reports is so prone to over-reaction.

Do you think they have some kind of anti-Apple agenda? I can understand why
people were skeptical when Gizmodo started posting reports they culled from
the Macrumors forums, but this is Consumer Reports. Just because your phone
works fine doesn't mean that the issue does not exist.

~~~
tvon
So you're saying that Consumer Reports is incapable of over-reacting and
accusing them of such is to imply that they have an anti-Apple agenda?

~~~
leviathant
What I'm saying is that Consumer Reports seem to have put their money where
their mouth is. Countless bloggers, Youtubers, and Twitter users have made
their anecdotal claims about having signal issues, and nearly every time they
get published, a legion of Apple fanatics yells them down with "Doesn't happen
on my phone/This is so overblown." There's already someone in the HN comments
on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the
problem with his iPhone. Seriously. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old,
because I read a book that said the earth is 4000 years old!

Consumer Reports took the time and money to test three different iPhones in an
RF isolation chamber, and presumably through scientific process, determined
that indeed, the iPhone4 has signal attenuation issues that cause calls to be
dropped.

I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate
their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the
experiment is run.

I think it's good to question authority - and in fact that's what Consumer
Reports often does, and is what they're doing here. The authority, Apple, is
saying there's nothing wrong with one face, and with another face, they're
hiring RF and antenna engineers. There are real people who paid at least $200
for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them
because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my
iPhone underground in the subway?

That's zealous, and I'm glad to see an organization with the means to test
these things put some weight behind the bloggers and everyday users who are
having real trouble with these phones.

~~~
ynniv
_presumably through scientific process_

Thats what bothers me - where is the data? And furthermore, is CR testing
signal attenuation, or an actual loss of functionality? Not having a phone
myself (but knowing someone who is quite happy with hers) I remain unconvinced
that there is a fundamental issue until I see data correlating hand position
to actual dropped calls or reduced data throughput. Anything else has the feel
of weather prediction.

~~~
leviathant
"Is CR testing signal attenuation, or an actual loss of functionality?"

From the article: "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"

They are testing both signal attenuation and an actual loss of functionality.

I agree, actual data would be nice. What gives me confidence in the report is
that, to quote Wikipedia, "Consumer Reports does not print outside
advertising, accept free product samples, or permit the commercial use of its
reviews for selling products" and that they've been doing this since 1936.

Bose and Sharper Image have in the past attempted to sue Consumer Reports for
showing some kind of bias or for presumably using inaccurate methods in their
reviews - both lost their lawsuits. There are good reasons why CR has the
reputation it has, and that's why I'm willing to take what they have to say at
close to face value, even without raw data being published in the same blog
entry.

------
technomancy
It's a shame they don't mention the app store jail. I guess it's not high-
priority because things like VoIP and tethering aren't really on the consumer
radar yet, but hopefully that changes in the future.

~~~
brk
I wouldn't call it a "shame" by any means. Owning both an iPhone and an
Android phone, I can say that the app store "jail" also makes it 100x more
usable, with better quality apps overall and more consistency among the apps.

I hear a lot of developers bitch about the app store, but from an end-users
perspective it has been one of Apple's best moves to-date.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Yes, Apple restricting tethering apps make the other apps better.

I don't doubt that some Apple special sauce makes it easier to ignore the
crappy apps, or that they are removed, but to imply that Apple's fart machine
apps are better because you can't freely tether your device with 3rd party
apps is just silly.

~~~
brk
While I have no first-hand knowledge (and I doubt you do either, please
clarify if I'm wrong), I'd be willing to bet that overall Apple could care
less about tethering apps.

I believe that tethering is native to the OS, I remember doing some simple
hack on my first 3G iPhone that enabled it for a while until a software update
wiped it out. Other carriers (non-US) support it (a quick link I found re:
Rogers: [http://scilib.typepad.com/techreviews/2009/06/rogers-
iphone-...](http://scilib.typepad.com/techreviews/2009/06/rogers-iphone-
tethering-policy.html) )

So, your tethering restriction argument seems kind of straw-man to me.
Additionally, it's not surprising that there are some bottom-feeder (fart)
apps. Of course, the "fart-machine" apps are hardly the majority of the eco-
system, but even so I could pretty much guarantee you that the fart apps would
work 100% of the time on iOS, and probably 50% of the time at best on Android.
As the app gets more complex, the probability of it working properly on all
supported iOS devices, and NOT working properly on some subset of Android OS
and hardware increases.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Except for the fact that Apple blocks tons of apps that have large user bases.
Google Voice, Netshare, emulators, etc. Surely you aren't implying that Cydia
is only full of apps that were rejected because they are crummy? Not to
mention the fact that, for example, Google allows "Wifi Tether for Root users"
on the Android Market. Show me something comparable on the AppStore. It
doesn't exist.

Also, the fragmentation argument is weak and old, I won't bother refuting it
or answering it here. APIs are backward compatible. If you target 1.6 you work
on 95+% of devices out there, etc, etc.

Heh, I would say Apple's refusal to accept Netshare, PDANet, oh any other
tethering app, etc pretty well shows that they won't accept tethering apps.
I'm kinda shocked that this is news to ... anyone really.

~~~
brk
Apple has routinely rejected apps that attempt to mimic core functions of the
OS. So, if you go back and re-read my comment where it says tethering is
built-in to the OS, then it would make sense that 3rd party apps that attempt
to enable tethering would be banned. This may be "right" or "wrong" depending
on your viewpoint, but it would serve to ensure that users are not
seeing/downloading apps that don't work or function as they are expected to.

My personal experience with Android apps (Moto Droid and now HTC incredible)
is that a decent percentage of apps (mostly (but not exclusively) games and
odd things like "LED Flashlight Strobe" type stuff) do not work universally
across all devices. Reading the comments on some of these apps supports my
personal experience, so I think there is still a general problem with any
random app on the Android store not offering a 100% consistent or "functions
as expected" experience across all Android devices.

------
mcantor
How is this hacker news?

~~~
leviathant
From the HN Guidelines (linked from the bottom of every page on HN): "Please
don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the
site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page
and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a
karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you
did. "

~~~
mcantor
Drat... foiled at my own game!

