
Translation From Apple's PR-Speak to English of the Letter Regarding iPhone 4 - earcar
http://daringfireball.net/2010/07/translation_iphone_4
======
bradleyland
I wish he had commented on the remark that Apple is going to make "bars 1, 2
and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see". Right, so they're easier to
see. Not intending at all to play any Jedi mind tricks on you.

How stupid is it that Apple is going to increase the height of the first three
bars? This sounds like the kind of design by committee that happens elsewhere.
Not naming names, because it happens all over the place.

It's as if someone in engineering stood up and said:

"Hey, we knew our 'bar' algorithm was shit when we implemented it, and we in
engineering said something about it, but no one listened. So fuck those guys
in marketing, we need to implement a realistic algorithm, pronto."

Then the marketing team responds:

"Well, it might be good engineering, but users certainly aren't going to get
the warm and fuzzies. Isn't there something else we can do?"

UX reluctantly speaks up:

"Well, we could make bars 1-3 _taller_ , so they appear more like the old 4-5
bars."

Marketing and UX: <HIGH FIVE>

Engineering: <cries in a corner>

~~~
ttol
I made this comment/question in the other thread about iPhone 4 letter, but
I'll paste here:

"i'm wondering why bars are not equally the same height across. the quantity
alone should be enough (1 vs 5) to convey strength. with the height being
variable, it seems to make things seem worst in the worst possible way -- 5
will still be 5, but when its a 1, because the height is so much shorter, it
seems _worst_ than 1. what is the upside to variable height when you already
have variable width in terms of number of bars? it's not as if there's an
algorithm that determines the correct _height_ for that particular signal, as
there is a (faulty?) algorithm to determine the correct width (bars)."

~~~
jerf
My cheap POC phone does that, and I do prefer it.

I think it is because the "varying heights" icon has become part of brand
identity. Woe betide the putatively-informational display that becomes part of
the "brand identity".

~~~
parallax7d
How about a number 0% - 100%. I think we as humans could grasp this system
without having to interpret or count bars.

Also, less room for apple to graphically misrepresent signal strength.

~~~
a-priori
But then you're back to square one, except you've made the problem worse by
dividing it into 100 units instead of 5. What's "100%" mean? It's pretty clear
what "0%" means (no signal), but what's "1%" mean?

~~~
parallax7d
100% would mean whatever equates to getting full telephony/full data
bandwidth. As throughput drops, you can certainly apply a percentage to it,
until you get to 0%, no throughput.

People would then learn that at x% they are getting decent data speed, and at
x% things become unusably slow, at x% voice service drops off, etc..

~~~
windsurfer
That's not how it works at all though. Speeds step down at different rates
depending on many factors.

~~~
silentOpen
All the more reason to give yourself a bigger domain (101 elements instead of
5). You don't need to map into the percentage domain directly from signal
strength; you could easily define a function of data/voice connectivity as
throughput to a percent scale.

"But data and voice have different quality of service criteria and blah blah
blah!" So make up a function that accounts for this. Or add another indicator
for data exclusively and keep the bars for voice.

~~~
palish

      you could -EASILY- define a function of data/voice connectivity
      as throughput to a percent scale.
    
      "But data and voice have different quality of service criteria
      and blah blah blah!" So make up a function that accounts for this.
    

Translation: insert magical code here?

You remind me of people who say "Your videogame is so slow, why don't you use
multiple cores? Just use threads, you could _easily_ do it."

Practical problems are rarely _easily_ solved.

~~~
silentOpen
And yet this problem has not only been solved but been subsequently broken by
marketers. Some things that seem easy are actually hard. I'm sure defining the
appropriate function isn't all roses but a semi-competent software/radio
engineer could figure out something with the right properties. With Apple's
budget, they _could_ _easily_ do this.

------
ttol
Seems like Apple put the algorithm in place via OS 2.1 update back in '08.
[http://www.newsoxy.com/technology/apple-
iphone/article11156....](http://www.newsoxy.com/technology/apple-
iphone/article11156.html)

If you don't remember, back then every blogger was saying things like "my
signal has improved drastically with this update!!11!!1one".

AT&T's recommendation = more accuracy and less reality distortion. (Look at
the graph Gruber linked to for what iPhone 4 currently uses for algorithm --
~50% = 5 bars: [http://fscked.co.uk/post/754590440/this-infographic-
hopefull...](http://fscked.co.uk/post/754590440/this-infographic-hopefully-
shows-that-im-not))

Next update, you should see OS 2.1's 3g signal update reversed to what it used
to be. Let's hope they fix the _bigger_ (read: REAL) issue related to the
proximity sensor that actually kills calls.

~~~
Greyface
Huh? Apple's PR letter specifically says that their 'mistake' has been there
since the "original iPhone". And the 'grip of death' can kill calls and more
importantly, IMO, affects data transfer rates (as I use my iPhone more as a
browser than a phone and naturally hold it the 'wrong way') so I'm not sure
why you conclude it's not a real issue.

Gruber has never tired of making jokes at AT&T's expense even though he
personally has great service in Philly and AT&T has the fastest network. Let's
see if he brings the same level of snark to his Apple and Jobs posts
henceforth.

~~~
ttol
Well played, sir. My emphasis on REAL in the parent comment was meant as
proximity sensor bug being more severe/higher priority (IMHO) than antenna bug
in terms of dropped calls.

~~~
Greyface
I see in another comment that your phone is afflicted with the proximity bug.
I understand why you see that as a more important issue now.

My comment is getting downvoted without any contradicting replies. _shrug_

------
alexfarran
It's all gone a bit spinal tap hasn't it. Why not just add a sixth bar.

~~~
hoprocker
This letter illuminates an important question: what the hell do those bars
actually mean, and who watches to make sure there's fairness-in-advertising
when an AT&T commercials makes claims about "5-bar reception"?

~~~
Naga
I'm pretty sure bars don't actually mean anything, and that they are just
arbitrary.

------
doron
I keep wondering, If the iPhone 4 does indeed have better reception than
previous models, doesn't that mean that previous model (3g, 3gs) antenna
design is partly to blame for dropped calls and not just AT&T?

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
Shhh, don't question Apple.

------
Entlin
That letter is a distraction. It's not about the bar display. The iPhone 4
drops signal by 19.8dB when held normally (compared to not being touched at
all), while the previous one drops by 1.9 when held normally.
<http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2>

No software update will be able to fix this. Externalizing the antenna was a
fun idea in theory, but badly realized in practice.

I bet iPhone 5 will have a yet again redesigned antenna.

~~~
jfager
Except that same article explicitly says real-world antenna performance is
actually better, despite the increased drop.

Can this whole stupid nonstory please go away?

~~~
MrFoof
The reality is Apple will likely insulate the antenna bridge with a non-
conductive coating, i.e. using diamond vapor-phase deposition like Anand and
Brian mentioned.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple followed his (their) recommendation exactly.
SSD manufacturers actually switched/redesigned controllers for future models
based on Anand's findings and recommendations before. The man (and Brian Klug)
is usually spot on in his (their) analysis.

~~~
ramchip
> diamond vapor-phase deposition

I've seen this repeated at a lot of places, but I'm quite sure this should be
"diamond-like carbon" and not actual diamond deposition.

Even then, I could not see any source for this, besides one blog comment
somewhere saying the screen coating "may even be" DLC. All articles on the
topic made no mention of the composition. Where does this information come
from?

Not that it matters a whole lot, but I find it annoying when people repeat
technical information carelessly. Even to a layman (and I know nothing about
chemical deposition), doesn't "diamond vapor-phase deposition" sound fishy?

~~~
russell
It's so much easier to google than rant about someone else's use of a term.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition_of_di...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition_of_diamond)

~~~
ramchip
I know about CVD and have read this article. The applications listed are
mostly related to cutting bits and actual diamond. It says notably: "[some
nice properties] would make it a nearly ideal non-stick coating for cookware
if large substrate areas could be coated economically." If coating cookware
with it is economically infeasible, I imagine coating a screen would be pretty
expensive too.

Which is why I doubt the iPhone used this and would like to know where that
info came from.

------
ck2
Corporations have reached the masterstroke of PR where they don't even have to
lie about how they are lying to you.

They just tell you outright how they are going to fool you.

Next BP will issue a press release admitting how they are moving around sand
to cover up oily sand to improve perception and how people should appreciate
that.

~~~
lukifer
This has been happening in politics for quite a while now. Serious pundits and
campaign advisers openly discuss issues of narrative, image, and perception on
mainstream news programs, with little regard to how well that perception
matches reality, and without any concern that viewers will read between the
lines and realize that they're being sold an illusion.

Meanwhile, everyone knows that no politician writes their own speeches
anymore, but clap and cheer anyway when they're told what they want to hear by
a professional marketer whose job is to create warm fuzzies around a brand.

------
mirkules
One thing nobody is questioning: why does the _perceived_ signal strength
(what is displayed) affected by how users hold the phone? If the displayed
signal strength doesn't correlate well with actual signal strength, I don't
see how gripping it a certain way should make any difference??

~~~
ynniv
The little bar diagram that phones display is an oversimplification and
generally wrong. It's a bit like downsampling your monitor to 5 pixels and
complaining that they don't accurately represent the original. Most bar
displays compute some form of signal or signal to noise ratio, but even that
is a joke compared to the complexity of modern digital multiplexing, shared
control channels, inter-tower hopping, and that doesn't even consider what
happens to your voice packets after they are on the ground at a tower. Your
phone doesn't even have the proper instruments to deduce the likely hood that
you will have a clean connection.

If people want to complain about actual dropped calls, thats one thing. To
nitpick the weather prediction that is your reception "bars" is absurd.

~~~
mirkules
My question has nothing to do with the formula used to render the display, or
the accuracy of visualization of signal strength.

What I'm questioning is: if it's truly just a display (software) issue, why is
it affected by gripping the phone in a certain way? The software problem
(incorrect visualization) is seemingly triggered by a hardware issue (gripping
the phone). They describe the problem as if it is strictly a software issue,
but it is clearly triggered by a hardware issue.

~~~
panacea
No, they admit it's a hardware issue. They're just saying that the software
'readout' overstates the degree of signal loss.

Simplified example:

Holding the phone the 'wrong' way drops signal strength 20%

If the bars displayed signal strength as such: 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Then the hardware issue would result in the loss of one bar.

However they're saying their bars display (for instance): 20% 85% 90% 95% 100%

So the hardware issue can show you losing 4 bars.

------
fserb
Translation from Apple's PR-Speak to Mac-fanboy PR-Blog-Speak.

~~~
p0ppe
Yeah. Such as "We decided from the outset to set the formula for our bars-of-
signal strength indicator to make the iPhone look good - to make it look as if
it "gets more bars". That decision has now bitten us on our ass."

------
aresant
Guys, give up the conspiracy / corporate overlord theories please.

Conclusive data already out there from independent sources:

<http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/07/iphone-4-anandtech/>

"the iPhone 4 did show a greater dropoff in signal strength in every holding
position compared to the iPhone 3GS."

"However. . . the iPhone 4’s reception is definitely better in low-signal
situations than the other two phones."

“Reception is absolutely definitely improved,” AnandTech wrote. "There’s no
doubt in my mind this iPhone gets the best cellular reception yet, even though
measured signal is lower than the 3GS."

------
TrevorBramble
Hilarious. I read bits of the letter to my wife this morning as she dashed
about before work (she ordered her iPhone 4 a few days ago) and after the bit
about bar display I said "the subtext here is that this is AT&T's fault!"

The blame-shifting approaches subliminal. If you aren't looking for the hidden
message, you probably won't see it.

~~~
ttol
I'll probably get downvoted for this comment but in this case, I think Apple
tried to hard-code in a reality distortion field with the bars and it
backfired..

A heavily-biased 3G signal meter that shows 5 bars for over half the signal
range seems to have been implemented in iPhone OS 2.1 back in 2008. Problems
show up with that display implementation due to antenna being on the outside
on iPhone 4 and crossing the threshold from 5 bars to "other".

AT&T on the other hand is recommending a more accurate approach instead of
interpretting 50% as 5 bars.

Not sure why people are reading this as an AT&T issue.

~~~
jokermatt999
>I'll probably get downvoted for this comment but in this case,

Good post except for this bit. Please don't bring that phrase to HNs. Good
posts can stand on their own.

And yeah, I think the main issue is that the RDF algorithm is collapsing. It
was originally a great way to alter perception about AT&T's service, but it
backfired due to the issues the 4 may or may not be having with the antenna.
The problem of sudden dropping calls at low has been there all along, but with
the antenna holding issue (or "issue"), the bubble has been popped.

Out of curiosity, is Apple the only company that does this? Does anyone else
display <100% as 5 bars, or is that strictly an iPhone thing?

------
jamesseda
If you are in favor of the capitalist system you have to respect Job's
attitude of: "I think we have the best products. If you don't think so please
return it for a full refund, and buy a competitor's. Thanks, bye"

~~~
jrockway
Many people want one product that works really well instead of 1000 that are
all flawed in different ways. Capitalism isn't helping us much there.

~~~
blantonl
Um, yes it is. Return it for a refund after 30 days or don't purchase the
product.

------
Aaronontheweb
I was thinking about buying an iPhone 4.0 when I qualify for an upgrade later
this month, but given all of the issues with the antenna doesn't it seem like
they're going to release an upgraded version of the hardware in a relatively
short peroid of time?

~~~
ttol
the antenna issue seems like it indeed is software and really a non-issue. the
"feature" to show 50% of signals as 5 bars was introduced in OS 2.1 update
back in '08. Here is a graphic to showcase that:
[http://fscked.co.uk/post/754590440/this-infographic-
hopefull...](http://fscked.co.uk/post/754590440/this-infographic-hopefully-
shows-that-im-not)

The fix is to undo that hard-coded reality distortion field into AT&T's
recommended formula. In this case, AT&T isn't the bad guy as it seems like
apple was trying to show their phones had better signal by misrepresenting the
strength.

The other, IMHO bigger, issue is the proximity sensor. To me, that's a NEW
issue, and needs to be addressed (hopefully by software patch), since I've had
issues with 100% of my calls.

~~~
rodh257
but what does any of this have to do with the fact the signal goes down when
you hold the phone in a certain way? whether it drops from 4 to 2 bars or 2 to
1 based on whatever algorithm they had surely doesn't change the fact that it
is still going down?

~~~
ttol
it goes down because if you're at the floor of that green bar (that fills up
half the range), and then you put your hand over it, you cross the threshold
and it _looks_ like a dramatic decrease.

what should happen, most likely with other phones, is that the range should be
evenly distributed so that a drop in 1 bar is a drop in 1 bar. because iPhone
4's distribution is weighted/biased towards the top half of the spectrum, it
fails when you cross the threshold. This "feature" seems like it was
introduced in OS 2.1 back in '08.

You also can't avoid drops in signal when putting your hand over it -- this
happens with every phone. just iphone's visual representation algorithm makes
it seem far worst than it really is, and they will fix the way it displays in
the next version.

EDIT: Why the downvote? Gruber even stated that the issue is the introduction
of the biased bar meter. The exposure of the antenna just highlights the issue
when you're at the threshold between 5 bars and "other".

~~~
tlack
What you're saying does not make sense when you consider that this didn't
happen with the previous iPhone.

~~~
ttol
If you read the blogs and apple's own letter, it does in fact happen with
previous iPhones.

EDIT: again, why the downvote? To quote apple's letter: "To start with,
gripping almost any mobile phone in certain ways will reduce its reception by
1 or more bars. This is true of iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, as well as many Droid,
Nokia and RIM phones."

"..this mistake has been present since the original iPhone"

~~~
kenjackson
But this doesn't happen to the same degre as the iPhone 4. The iPhone 4's
antennae placement makes this happen with a relatively standard hand position.
I've tried this on a Pre and EVO, and I can't get either to do it, although
I'm sure there must be some hand position where it happens -- but it shouldn't
be one of the most common hand positions.

~~~
ttol
I don't disagree that the signal goes down if held in a certain position with
the iPhone 4. I just think we might all not have noticed it had they not
implemented the 3G signal meter "feature" in OS 2.1, since the signal
degradation might be only 1 bar (see: anandtech's article with numbers). In
real practice, my calls get killed because of the proximity sensor issue from
my face, not the antenna degradation from my hand.

------
CamperBob
_Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to
calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong._

"Oh, and we also disabled the Field Test mode so that you can no longer obtain
a quantitative RSSI reading in dBm. Because if somebody were to, say, hack the
phone to re-enable it, they might notice that holding the phone by the antenna
could degrade its noise figure by as much as _24 dB_
(<http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2>), killing all but
about 1/250th of the signal power seen by the front end. And we don't know
about you, but that just wouldn't be magical enough for us.

"Not only that, but we've either fired the RF engineers who designed our
'magical' antenna, or we're just now getting around to hiring our first ones.
Sure, we only release one or two new products a year, but we apparently _need_
three full-time PhD-level antenna engineers (
[http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/30/apple-hiring-iphone-
anten...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/30/apple-hiring-iphone-antenna-
engineers-for-some-reason/) ).

"You know, to put the magic in."

I now literally feel ill after reading that.

------
ajkirwin
And once again, John Gruber has his lips firmly wedged into Apple's asscrack.

~~~
threepointone
Wow, you didn't read the article at all, did you? If anything, he's being
rather critical of apple's PR team here.

------
zacharypinter
Enjoyable read, but this didn't seem like much of a translation to (plain)
English:

"...wherein it can suffer from unintended attenuation when you bridge the
lower-left antenna gap with your skin..."

