🚀 go-pugleaf

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> the Droid X from a REAL RADIO MANUFACTURER WITH 
> EXCELLENT RF ENGINEERS SINCE WORLD WAR TWO comes out on Thursday to 
> VERIZON....you know....on the big RED MAP!

They have 85 year old engineers still designing phones? No wonder the 
Droid X has been reviewed so poorly.

sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in
news:i1fvfq$icr$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> 
>>I've just purchased 2000 shares of 3M, the largest duct tape
>>manufacturer of HIGH END duct tape on the planet.
> 
> MMM has consistently been a great performer, except, of course, during
> the downturn in January of 2009.  There's a lot to be said about a
> strong, steady, yet innovative company.  MMM is no flash in the pan,
> but it's a consistent winner.
> 
> 

I was kidding to make a point about iPhone 4 and duct tape, which is 
hilarious.

I'm a daytrader, myself.  Steady and consistent winners and great 
performers are for company officials.  I want 'em to CRASH, HARD, so I can 
buy 'em cheap, like Wachovia at 98 cents, then someone like Wells Fargo to 
come along and offer $7/share, a pittance to all but the 98 cent buyers, so 
the crashed stock will bounce by Friday, which it did, so I can dump it for 
$6.94/share before closing.  Wachovia's crash financed my little Smart car 
purchase, 100% with good cash left over....for gas and Smart accessories...
(c;]

I once owned 185,000 shares of Worldcom when it was 7c/share.  I chickened 
out and dumped it at the bounce to 22c/share.  Much more fun and exciting 
than a gambling casino cruise offshore.....
It reached 27c/share before the final crash into oblivion....

-- 
Just bought a new Smart car - Silver n Black....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obn9TJ6Xtc8

Larry

Ted Nelson <ted@rnelson.org> wrote in news:4c3bbac9$0$1325$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> the Droid X from a REAL RADIO MANUFACTURER WITH 
>> EXCELLENT RF ENGINEERS SINCE WORLD WAR TWO comes out on Thursday to 
>> VERIZON....you know....on the big RED MAP!
> 
> They have 85 year old engineers still designing phones? No wonder the 
> Droid X has been reviewed so poorly.
> 

Holding your iPhone 4 in your left hand you know exactly what I'm talking 
about......

-- 
Just bought a new Smart car - Silver n Black....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obn9TJ6Xtc8

Larry

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:24:39 -0600, Ted Nelson <ted@rnelson.org>
wrote:

>John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>       Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one 
>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes 
>> to the antenna. Apple is flat out lying when they say it's only 
>> a software issue.
>
>you can fix most any hardware problem through software don't forget. 
>plus if you are one of the 1,400 people that had the problem, get a 
>case, problem solved.

True.  In this case, the software "fix" was to eliminate the test mode
program that would have identified the problem and documented it with
real numbers.  
<http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20009140-233.html>
I'm not sure if it was Apple or AT&T that was reponsible for this
software "fix".  

Apple:  You don't need to know.
AT&T:   We don't want you to know.
-- 
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com               jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com               AE6KS

In article <i1frtr$q3$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Peter Lawrence <hummbaby@aol.com> wrote:

> After additional testing, Consumer Reports has confirmed the reception 
> problem with the iPhone 4 exterior antenna and has decided not to recommend 
> the new iPhone until Apple resolves the problem.
> 
> http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2010/07/apple-iphone-4-antenna-is
> sue-iphone4-problems-dropped-calls-lab-test-confirmed-problem-issues-signal-st
> rength-att-network-gsm.html
> 
> (or http://bit.ly/bxUBFU)
> 
> 
> - Peter

CR lost my subscription when they didn't think it was important to test 
reception in their HDTV reviews.  Suddenly they have the competence to 
carry out scientific tests again?  This is a fashion-over-form magazine 
telling people not to buy a fashion-over-form cellphone.
-- 
I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> > They have 85 year old engineers still designing phones? No wonder the 
> > Droid X has been reviewed so poorly.
> > 
> 
> Holding your iPhone 4 in your left hand you know exactly what I'm talking 
> about......

mine works fine no matter how I hold it, so it seems to be upset android 
users that are having the problem

"Ted Nelson" <ted@rnelson.org> wrote in message 
news:4c3bd2c1$0$1336$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> > They have 85 year old engineers still designing phones? No wonder the
>> > Droid X has been reviewed so poorly.
>> >
>>
>> Holding your iPhone 4 in your left hand you know exactly what I'm talking
>> about......
>
> mine works fine no matter how I hold it, so it seems to be upset android
> users that are having the problem

Another Oxford sock puppet chimes in...

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>I was kidding to make a point about iPhone 4 and duct tape, which is 
>hilarious.

I was not kidding to make a point that some of the best investments are the 
non-sexy companies that have sure and steady product lines.  3M is one of the 
best.  Apple...well, let's see how they do now that CR is not recommending the 
iPhone.  


>I'm a daytrader, myself.  Steady and consistent winners and great 
>performers are for company officials.  I want 'em to CRASH, HARD, so I can 
>buy 'em cheap, like Wachovia at 98 cents, [....]

I stuck with way undervalued profitable companies such as CBS, which was still 
doing ok even in the darkest times and didn't deserve to see its stock sink to 
less than $3.50 a share.  So, I bought it.  It's back on track.  I expect it 
to break $16 in a few days.  

I was going to do the same with Citadel Broadcasting, the former ABC Radio, 
because it had sunk to 1 cent a share when it was de-listed.  I knew that the 
assets of the company were easily worth about $10 a share, even with the heavy 
debt load.  And those who bought at 1 cent saw their fortunes grow at least 
5,000% in a few weeks' time.  I didn't buy it because I knew they would 
eventually reorganize and kill the stock, which they did.  So, lots of poor 
suckers were left holding worthless Citadel stock.  The problem was in knowing 
exactly when Citadel was going to bite it.  The bankruptcy court wasn't clear 
on it or I would have joined in and bought some cheap stock.  


>I once owned 185,000 shares of Worldcom when it was 7c/share.  I chickened 
>out and dumped it at the bounce to 22c/share.  

I never regret selling at a profit, even if the profit is slim.  As long as I 
make more than the cost of the trade in and trade out then I feel that I've 
accomplished something.  Greed is what kills most stock speculators.  Also, 
the idea that something is a once in a lifetime deal.  There are once in a 
lifetime deals every day.  If I miss one there'll be another along in a few 
days or a few week.  I can wait.

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>I was kidding to make a point about iPhone 4 and duct tape, which is 
>hilarious.

By the way, at the risk of being pedantic, I recently found out that duct tape 
was originally called "duck tape" because of its ability to resist water.  

Later after World War II one version of the tape was colored silver (instead 
of olive drab as used in the military) and people began to use it on heating 
ducts.  Only thing is, it's not designed for ducts and the adhesive dries out 
in a matter of weeks and comes loose.  

At 12 Jul 2010 13:54:04 -0700 nospam wrote:
 
> touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.

I would, but I can't get my fingers inside the case of the other phones!
 ;)

David Kaye wrote:
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I was kidding to make a point about iPhone 4 and duct tape, which is
>> hilarious.
>
> I was not kidding to make a point that some of the best investments
> are the non-sexy companies that have sure and steady product lines.
> 3M is one of the best.  Apple...well, let's see how they do now that
> CR is not recommending the iPhone.
>
>
Believe me, the teenagers and the "must have an iPhone" trendies are not the 
ones who also read. It will effect them not. 

On 13/07/10 6:21 AM, Carl wrote:
> David Kaye wrote:
>> Larry<noone@home.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> I was kidding to make a point about iPhone 4 and duct tape, which is
>>> hilarious.
>>
>> I was not kidding to make a point that some of the best investments
>> are the non-sexy companies that have sure and steady product lines.
>> 3M is one of the best.  Apple...well, let's see how they do now that
>> CR is not recommending the iPhone.
>>
>>
> Believe me, the teenagers and the "must have an iPhone" trendies are not the
> ones who also read. It will effect them not.

But that's the problem. The carriers and smart phone manufacturers are 
trying to move beyond the teenage and fanatic market, and beyond the 
market of businesses supplying their employees with smart phones. The 
recent AT&T changes in pricing were partly to try to encourage more 
frugal users (that actually look at the recurring costs not just the 
handset cost) to buy smart phones.

By the same token, since the iPhone4 antenna issue can be resolved with 
a case, and since few people would not use a case on an iPhone, it's 
probably less of an issue than the media is making it out to be. The 
media likes to pick on Apple because of Apple's attitude.

The bigger issue is that with the iPhone only on AT&T, Apple loses 
access to hundreds of millions of potential customers that won't or 
can't use AT&T. The wild success of the Android is not due just to the 
platform's capabilities (both in hardware and software) it's because, in 
the words of Mrs. Collins, "You get what you get or you get nothing."

On 7/12/2010 2:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<qEL_n.10358$wm1.6901@newsfe01.iad>, John Slade
> <hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote:
>
>>>>         Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one
>>>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes
>>>> to the antenna.
>>>
>>> touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.
>>
>>        The iPhone 4's antenna is put in a bad place. Right where
>> someone would hold it. That's poor design and apparently Apple
>> has job openings for antenna engineers now. I wonder if they
>> fired the guy who decided to put the antenna there.
>
> the job openings were there since last january and likely have
> absolutely nothing to do with the iphone.
>
> other phones have antennas in bad places too, like this one:
> <http://i48.tinypic.com/x0xsi9.jpg>
>
>>>> Apple is flat out lying when they say it's only
>>>> a software issue.
>>>
>>> when did you examine the software?
>>>
>>> oh right, you didn't.
>>
>>        Apple claimed that there was no hardware issue with the
>> iPhone's antenna.
>
> apple said the iphone 4 has the best reception of any phone, something
> that anandtech confirmed.

          I don't know if this is true or not but it doesn't 
have that great reception if the person holds  it without duct 
tape, a case or some other device.

> apple also said there are problems with the
> firmware and they're working on fixing it.

     Apple claimed it was a problem with the software that gave 
incorrect readings on the signal strength meter. They put out a 
patch and claimed that was the real problem behind the problem. 
However many people have implemented the patch and still have 
the problem. There are videos on the Internet confirming this. 
The antenna is in a bad place, plain and simple.

>
> however, everyone is suddenly an rf engineer and thinks they have all
> the answers, even when apple themselves haven't completely figured it
> out.

     There is nothing to figure out. The antenna is in a bad 
place. It's around the edge right where people hold it. This 
allows me to figure out a couple of things. Apple rushed the 
iPhone 4 to market without proper testing. They rushed it to 
market to keep up with companies who are putting out phones that 
are more advanced than the iPhone. Apple didn't want to fall 
behind.

>
> in short, there are a lot of variables that can affect reception,
> antenna placement being just one.

      Exactly, Apple put it in the wrong place.

>
>> Consumer Reports and others have shown there
>> is a hardware issue. The funny thing was Apple's first response
>> to the problem that consisted of "You're not holding it right!"
>
> apple is not handling this particularly well. they should have said 'we
> are working on it and will have more info to follow.'

      I agree. Apple tries to keep the image that their products 
are better by design. This was actually true years ago. I 
remember an Apple user who was clueless who told me that Apple 
computers are "engineered" when computers from other companies 
are not. These other computers are just slapped together from 
OEM parts. Apple's own marketing strategy is what leads people 
to believe this silly notion and Apple doesn't want to part from 
that. Apple's quality has gone way down in the last ten years 
but they remain successful by keeping up the illusion that their 
products are unique and better.

John

On 13/07/10 8:41 AM, John Slade wrote:

> I agree. Apple tries to keep the image that their products are better by
> design. This was actually true years ago. I remember an Apple user who
> was clueless who told me that Apple computers are "engineered" when
> computers from other companies are not.

In some cases that's true. I.e. Apple uses the same king of magnetic 
power cord latch for their laptops that my Zojirushi hot water boiler 
uses--if you trip over the cord it releases, it doesn't drag the 
computer to the floor or destroy the power jack on the computer. It's a 
little thing that costs little to implement, but it's thoughtful 
engineering.

 > These other computers are just slapped together from OEM parts.

There was no reason for Apple to continue to pay premium prices for 
custom chips that added no extra functionality. That was bad news for 
semiconductor companies that were enjoying huge margins selling custom 
chips to them. The end user doesn't care about what's inside. The 
decision to move to x86 was because the PowerPC was not keeping up with 
Intel in terms of low power and performance. You can't build good 
laptops with high power CPUs.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:24:39 -0600, in
<4c3b8bed$0$1323$815e3792@news.qwest.net>, Ted Nelson <ted@rnelson.org>
wrote:

>John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>       Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one 
>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes 
>> to the antenna. Apple is flat out lying when they say it's only 
>> a software issue.
>
>you can fix most any hardware problem through software don't forget. 
>plus if you are one of the 1,400 people that had the problem, get a 
>case, problem solved.

While there are some hardware problems that can be worked-around or at
least alleviated in software, there are also some that cannot, and this
looks to me to be more likely in the latter category, with only fig leaf
fixes (e.g., no signal strength meter) possible.

I think the interesting question is whether or not Apple will try to
slipstream a change to the iPhone 4 hardware, or tough out this design
for a year until iPhone 5.

The problem of toughing it out is that the problem will continue to grow
should it ultimately lose in court or in the court of public opinion.

The problem with a slipstream change is that it would throw fuel on the
fire of the criticism and lawsuits unless Apple is prepared to offer
free hardware swaps, which would be a huge hit to the bottom line.

I personally think Apple will probably continue to stonewall and push
fig leaf "solutions", risking its brand, because that's the Steve Jobs
Way.  How successful that will be only time will tell.

-- 
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:16:36 -0700, in
<4c3bda94$0$22106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Kevin McMurtrie
<mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:

>In article <i1frtr$q3$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Lawrence <hummbaby@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> After additional testing, Consumer Reports has confirmed the reception 
>> problem with the iPhone 4 exterior antenna and has decided not to recommend 
>> the new iPhone until Apple resolves the problem.
>> 
>> http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2010/07/apple-iphone-4-antenna-is
>> sue-iphone4-problems-dropped-calls-lab-test-confirmed-problem-issues-signal-st
>> rength-att-network-gsm.html
>> 
>> (or http://bit.ly/bxUBFU)

>CR lost my subscription when they didn't think it was important to test 
>reception in their HDTV reviews.  Suddenly they have the competence to 
>carry out scientific tests again?  This is a fashion-over-form magazine 
>telling people not to buy a fashion-over-form cellphone.

Yep.  Out of its league.  Should stick to toasters and soap.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

In article <4c3b8bed$0$1323$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
 Ted Nelson <ted@rnelson.org> wrote:

> 
> you can fix most any hardware problem through software don't forget. 

Not if it requires violating the laws of physics!

On 7/13/10 8:41 AM, John Slade wrote:
>
> There is nothing to figure out. The antenna is in a bad place. It's around
> the edge right where people hold it. This allows me to figure out a couple
> of things. Apple rushed the iPhone 4 to market without proper testing. They
> rushed it to market to keep up with companies who are putting out phones
> that are more advanced than the iPhone.

Actually, I think a good part of the problem is that Apple tested the new 
iPhone in the "real world" using a case that disguised it as an older iPhone 
3GS, hence, during the "real world" testing, the new iPhone 4 didn't exhibit 
the antenna problem because the testers (like the engineer who left his 
prototype iPhone in a Redwood City bar) never used the new iPhone without a 
case attached to it.

- Peter

On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, John Navas wrote:
>
> While there are some hardware problems that can be worked-around or at
> least alleviated in software, there are also some that cannot, and this
> looks to me to be more likely in the latter category, with only fig leaf
> fixes (e.g., no signal strength meter) possible.
>
> I think the interesting question is whether or not Apple will try to
> slipstream a change to the iPhone 4 hardware, or tough out this design
> for a year until iPhone 5.
>
> The problem of toughing it out is that the problem will continue to grow
> should it ultimately lose in court or in the court of public opinion.
>
> The problem with a slipstream change is that it would throw fuel on the
> fire of the criticism and lawsuits unless Apple is prepared to offer
> free hardware swaps, which would be a huge hit to the bottom line.
>
> I personally think Apple will probably continue to stonewall and push
> fig leaf "solutions", risking its brand, because that's the Steve Jobs
> Way.  How successful that will be only time will tell.

Probably the least costly solution for Apple would be to repackage the 
iPhone 4 with those new "bumpers" that Apple is trying to sell for an 
additional $29.  Those silicon bumpers probably doesn't cost more than 10 
cents to manufacture and they solve the iPhone 4 antenna problem.  They 
could offer this bumper (in basic black) for free to anyone who already had 
bought an iPhone 4.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC597ZM/A?fnode=MTY1NDA0NA&mco=MTM3NTI0ODg

They could still try to sell the bumpers that come in other colors for those 
who are into customizing the look of their iPhones.


- Peter

In article <sO%_n.24533$Zi.23243@newsfe14.iad>, John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >>        Apple claimed that there was no hardware issue with the
> >> iPhone's antenna.
> >
> > apple said the iphone 4 has the best reception of any phone, something
> > that anandtech confirmed.
> 
>           I don't know if this is true or not but it doesn't 
> have that great reception if the person holds  it without duct 
> tape, a case or some other device.

if you don't know if it's true, how do you know it has poor reception,
especially over someone who *does* use it?

> > apple also said there are problems with the
> > firmware and they're working on fixing it.
> 
>      Apple claimed it was a problem with the software that gave 
> incorrect readings on the signal strength meter. They put out a 
> patch and claimed that was the real problem behind the problem. 

they did say it was a software problem, however, they have *not* put
out any patch yet. they're working on a solution.

> However many people have implemented the patch and still have 
> the problem. There are videos on the Internet confirming this. 

really? what videos confirm people have installed a nonexistent patch?

> The antenna is in a bad place, plain and simple.

where else would you put it?

> > however, everyone is suddenly an rf engineer and thinks they have all
> > the answers, even when apple themselves haven't completely figured it
> > out.
> 
>      There is nothing to figure out.

yes there is.

>  The antenna is in a bad 
> place. It's around the edge right where people hold it. 

as opposed to on the bottom, where people hold it? 

<http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/08/04/nokia-e71-2-reception-issues-
mmm/>

  If you�re suffering from reception issues with the E71, try this�
  first, completely cover the bottom back plastic piece with your hand,
  and check out the number of bars you have. Then, grab the phone just
  at the very top by the ear piece, and hold it for a couple seconds.
  Did your reception just skyrocket? Yeah, ours too.

nokia, sanyo and samsung have warnings how to hold their phones
properly, probably other brands too.

> This allows me to figure out a couple of things. Apple rushed the 
> iPhone 4 to market without proper testing. They rushed it to 
> market to keep up with companies who are putting out phones that 
> are more advanced than the iPhone. Apple didn't want to fall 
> behind.

nonsense. 

> > in short, there are a lot of variables that can affect reception,
> > antenna placement being just one.
> 
>       Exactly, Apple put it in the wrong place.

read it again. antenna placement is *one* factor, not the *only* factor.

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:120720101354048311%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <98L_n.737$o27.20@newsfe08.iad>, John Slade
> <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
>>       Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one 
>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes 
>> to the antenna.
> 
> touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.

True, but most designs don't put the antenna where it would normally
be contacted by one's hand.

>> Apple is flat out lying when they say it's only 
>> a software issue.
> 
> when did you examine the software? 

I trust CR's engineers. They're not dummies.

-- 
John Richards

In article <mn2%n.11348$xZ2.2285@newsfe07.iad>, John Richards
<JR@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

> >>       Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one 
> >> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes 
> >> to the antenna.
> > 
> > touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.
> 
> True, but most designs don't put the antenna where it would normally
> be contacted by one's hand.

instead they put it in the bottom of the phone where it's surrounded by
one's hand.

On 7/13/2010 9:01 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 13/07/10 8:41 AM, John Slade wrote:
>
>> I agree. Apple tries to keep the image that their products are better by
>> design. This was actually true years ago. I remember an Apple user who
>> was clueless who told me that Apple computers are "engineered" when
>> computers from other companies are not.
>
> In some cases that's true. I.e. Apple uses the same king of magnetic
> power cord latch for their laptops that my Zojirushi hot water boiler
> uses--if you trip over the cord it releases, it doesn't drag the
> computer to the floor or destroy the power jack on the computer. It's a
> little thing that costs little to implement, but it's thoughtful
> engineering.
>

      The point I'm making is all computers from every vendor 
are engineered. Even the small Mom and Pop store that puts them 
together from retail and OEM parts are using engineered parts. 
This is contrary to what Apple wants users to believe.

      You described a feature that Apple has that you like. It 
doesn't mean Apple is engineered other computers aren't.

>  > These other computers are just slapped together from OEM parts.
>
> There was no reason for Apple to continue to pay premium prices for
> custom chips that added no extra functionality. That was bad news for
> semiconductor companies that were enjoying huge margins selling custom
> chips to them. The end user doesn't care about what's inside. The
> decision to move to x86 was because the PowerPC was not keeping up with
> Intel in terms of low power and performance. You can't build good
> laptops with high power CPUs.

      This has nothing to do with the topic, but yes Apple had 
to switch to making clones.

John

On 13/07/10 11:11 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote:

> Probably the least costly solution for Apple would be to repackage the
> iPhone 4 with those new "bumpers" that Apple is trying to sell for an
> additional $29. Those silicon bumpers probably doesn't cost more than 10
> cents to manufacture and they solve the iPhone 4 antenna problem. They
> could offer this bumper (in basic black) for free to anyone who already
> had bought an iPhone 4.

All they have to do is to offer a $29 credit to the Apple store. Whether 
that costs them less than simply giving away a silicon bumper to every 
purchaser I don't know, but probably a lot of people will use that $29 
to buy something else like some iTunes cards.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:54:04 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <98L_n.737$o27.20@newsfe08.iad>, John Slade
><hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>       Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one 
>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes 
>> to the antenna.
>
>touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.

Did you actually try it?  I did with several phones that have
projecting antennas.  LG VX8000, VX8100, and VX8300 on Verizon
(900MHz).  Also, Motorola RAZR V3m.  I can wrap my hand around the
antenna and get maybe a -4dB drop (about 1 bar).  A 1900Mhz PCS phone
will probably have a larger drop.

Might as well try it right now....  Going into field test mode, and
making a call.  Rx power = -75dBm.  Wrap my hand around the antenna,
and it drops to -78dBm (average).  Not much but enough to drop a call
if I'm in a marginal area.  Now, compare that to the iPhone 4 drop of
about 30dB.

Try it:
<www.wpsantennas.com/pdf/testmode/FieldTestModes.pdf>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

In article <o3ep36h0p80msjrgp2fs311at59hiu27he@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> >touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.
> 
> Did you actually try it? 

yes

> I did with several phones that have
> projecting antennas.  LG VX8000, VX8100, and VX8300 on Verizon
> (900MHz).  Also, Motorola RAZR V3m.  I can wrap my hand around the
> antenna and get maybe a -4dB drop (about 1 bar).  A 1900Mhz PCS phone
> will probably have a larger drop.

i tried it with 3 flip phones (2 samsung, 1 sanyo), 2 iphones and an
old sanyo with a pull out antenna.

on *all* of them, the number of bars dropped from full bars to 1 bar.

On 7/13/2010 11:35 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<sO%_n.24533$Zi.23243@newsfe14.iad>, John Slade
> <hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote:
>
>>>>         Apple claimed that there was no hardware issue with the
>>>> iPhone's antenna.
>>>
>>> apple said the iphone 4 has the best reception of any phone, something
>>> that anandtech confirmed.
>>
>>            I don't know if this is true or not but it doesn't
>> have that great reception if the person holds  it without duct
>> tape, a case or some other device.
>
> if you don't know if it's true, how do you know it has poor reception,
> especially over someone who *does* use it?

         I don't know if they found the iPhone 4 has the best 
reception of any phone they tested. It has nothing to do with 
the issue at hand. The issue here is the poor design of the 
iPhone 4 and its antenna placement.

>
>>> apple also said there are problems with the
>>> firmware and they're working on fixing it.
>>
>>       Apple claimed it was a problem with the software that gave
>> incorrect readings on the signal strength meter. They put out a
>> patch and claimed that was the real problem behind the problem.
>
> they did say it was a software problem, however, they have *not* put
> out any patch yet. they're working on a solution.

     But before they said that, Apple was telling people they 
were holding it wrong. I don't think they were because how else 
do you hold it to talk on it or use it? I guess it's like Peter 
Lawrence said, they probably didn't test it without a case.

>
>> However many people have implemented the patch and still have
>> the problem. There are videos on the Internet confirming this.
>
> really? what videos confirm people have installed a nonexistent patch?
>

     Well I don't know if the patch is out yet, but that's what 
some people have said. Apple has already admitted that the patch 
will not fix the problem.

>> The antenna is in a bad place, plain and simple.
>
> where else would you put it?

      On the inside, maybe on the top and bottom rather than all 
around. I'm no antenna engineer but I would probably put it 
where people won't touch it by normal use.

>
>>> however, everyone is suddenly an rf engineer and thinks they have all
>>> the answers, even when apple themselves haven't completely figured it
>>> out.
>>
>>       There is nothing to figure out.
>
> yes there is.
>
>>   The antenna is in a bad
>> place. It's around the edge right where people hold it.
>
> as opposed to on the bottom, where people hold it?
>
> <http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/08/04/nokia-e71-2-reception-issues-
> mmm/>



>
> nokia, sanyo and samsung have warnings how to hold their phones
> properly, probably other brands too.

    What does this have to do with Apple's problem? That's what 
a lot of Mac freaks do, they say "Look someone else has a 
problem!" That's a very lame argument.

    Apple tried to blame the user, then they tried to say the 
problem wasn't hardware. Now they have to admit they screwed up 
in the design.


>
>> This allows me to figure out a couple of things. Apple rushed the
>> iPhone 4 to market without proper testing. They rushed it to
>> market to keep up with companies who are putting out phones that
>> are more advanced than the iPhone. Apple didn't want to fall
>> behind.
>
> nonsense.

     Apple is falling behind and losing sales on the iPhone 4 to 
Android devices. With the multiple problems with the iPhone 4, 
they will never catch up with The Blackberry and Android based 
phones will overtake them in a relatively short time.

>
>>> in short, there are a lot of variables that can affect reception,
>>> antenna placement being just one.
>>
>>        Exactly, Apple put it in the wrong place.
>
> read it again. antenna placement is *one* factor, not the *only* factor.

     It's the main factor here because they put it right where 
people are gonna touch it. Other companies put the antenna on 
the inside or in places that don't get touched with normal use.

John

On 7/13/2010 9:03 AM, John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:24:39 -0600, in
> <4c3b8bed$0$1323$815e3792@news.qwest.net>, Ted Nelson<ted@rnelson.org>
> wrote:
>
>> John Slade<hhitman86@pacbell.net>  wrote:
>>
>>>        Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one
>>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes
>>> to the antenna. Apple is flat out lying when they say it's only
>>> a software issue.
>>
>> you can fix most any hardware problem through software don't forget.
>> plus if you are one of the 1,400 people that had the problem, get a
>> case, problem solved.
>
> While there are some hardware problems that can be worked-around or at
> least alleviated in software, there are also some that cannot, and this
> looks to me to be more likely in the latter category, with only fig leaf
> fixes (e.g., no signal strength meter) possible.
>
> I think the interesting question is whether or not Apple will try to
> slipstream a change to the iPhone 4 hardware, or tough out this design
> for a year until iPhone 5.
>
> The problem of toughing it out is that the problem will continue to grow
> should it ultimately lose in court or in the court of public opinion.
>
> The problem with a slipstream change is that it would throw fuel on the
> fire of the criticism and lawsuits unless Apple is prepared to offer
> free hardware swaps, which would be a huge hit to the bottom line.
>
> I personally think Apple will probably continue to stonewall and push
> fig leaf "solutions", risking its brand, because that's the Steve Jobs
> Way.  How successful that will be only time will tell.
>

     Some people are already talking "recall" but Apple will 
probably never do this given their fear of losing face even when 
they're wrong.

John

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:41:11 -0700, John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>> however, everyone is suddenly an rf engineer and thinks they have all
>> the answers, even when apple themselves haven't completely figured it
>> out.
>
>     There is nothing to figure out. The antenna is in a bad 
>place.

Ummm... I are an RF Engineer (and I'm enjoying all the speculation). I
also design and model antennas in my spare time:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/>

It's not the location of the antenna.  The same antenna design located
anywhere on the phone will cause the same problem.  I don't think
anyone has tried it but I suspect that the BlueGoof and Wi-Fi
performance might also suffer when the other antenna is touched.

I posted my guesses previously (high impedance antenna with
excessively high Q) and am waiting for a chance to rip into the guts
of an iPhone 4 to see how the antenna is really designed.  The inside
photos that I've seen don't show enough.

Drivel:  I wonder if the black silicon rubber prophylactic that Apple
wraps around the phone is doped with carbon black for static
reduction.  That should make a nice RF attenuator and/or slightly
conductive "short".

10 Things Apple Can Do to Fix iPhone 4 Antenna Woes 
<http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/10-Things-Apples-Can-Do-to-Fix-iPhone-4-Antenna-Woes-492275/>

AppleCare: The iPhone 4 Update Won't Solve the Antenna Problem
<http://gizmodo.com/5580587/applecare-the-iphone-4-update-wont-solve-the-antenna-problem>


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:00:09 -0700, John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>      The point I'm making is all computers from every vendor 
>are engineered. Even the small Mom and Pop store that puts them 
>together from retail and OEM parts are using engineered parts. 
>This is contrary to what Apple wants users to believe.

Yep.  You can even build your own iPhone 4 from parts:
<http://cnn.cn/shop/apple-iphone-c-256_1059.html>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:35:10 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> The antenna is in a bad place, plain and simple.
>
>where else would you put it?

See photos:
<http://gizmodo.com/5581253/there-fixed>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On 7/13/10 12:20 PM, John Slade wrote:
>
> Some people are already talking "recall" but Apple will probably never do
> this given their fear of losing face even when they're wrong.
>
> John

Why recall, when there's a simple solution already at hand (the silicon 
bumpers).  Apple could just send out a certificate to those who already 
bought an iPhone 4 for a free silicon bumper.  Problem solved.

Besides, those who don't like the antenna performance of their new iPhone 4 
can always return it for a full refund within 30 days of purchase.

(Which is why I find little merit in the class-action suit that has already 
been filed.)

- Peter

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:15:31 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>i tried it with 3 flip phones (2 samsung, 1 sanyo), 2 iphones and an
>old sanyo with a pull out antenna.
>
>on *all* of them, the number of bars dropped from full bars to 1 bar.

Take off the metal gauntlet or aluminized heat gloves?  Now, that's an
idea.  Maybe Apple should issue thick rubber gloves with the iPhone 4?

I have a mess of phones in my palatial office and will try it sometime
tonite.  Please don't use bars for signal strength unless you know
whether the phone uses SNR or signal strength for an indication, and
know the dynamic range of the bar graph.  In the current iPhone 4
algorithm, the bars are rather compressed at the low end of the signal
strength scale.  That creates spectacular drops in weak areas, and no
noticeable effect in strong areas.  If you can get into the test mode,
make a call and take a running average of the receive signal level.



-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

In article <t_2%n.19132$4B7.18392@newsfe16.iad>, John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >> However many people have implemented the patch and still have
> >> the problem. There are videos on the Internet confirming this.
> >
> > really? what videos confirm people have installed a nonexistent patch?
> 
>      Well I don't know if the patch is out yet, 

so why did you say it was?

> but that's what 
> some people have said. 

people say a lot of things

> Apple has already admitted that the patch 
> will not fix the problem.

where did they say that???

> >> The antenna is in a bad place, plain and simple.
> >
> > where else would you put it?
> 
>       On the inside, maybe on the top and bottom rather than all 
> around. I'm no antenna engineer but I would probably put it 
> where people won't touch it by normal use.

you're no antenna engineer, yet you have diagnosed the problem and have
a solution before actual antenna engineers have? how do you explain
that?

> > nokia, sanyo and samsung have warnings how to hold their phones
> > properly, probably other brands too.
> 
>     What does this have to do with Apple's problem? That's what 
> a lot of Mac freaks do, they say "Look someone else has a 
> problem!" That's a very lame argument.

actually it shows how hypocritical people are. if apple does it, it's
bad, but when someone else does it, nobody cares. why isn't it a
problem when nokia or sanyo phones tell you how to hold them properly?

> >> This allows me to figure out a couple of things. Apple rushed the
> >> iPhone 4 to market without proper testing. They rushed it to
> >> market to keep up with companies who are putting out phones that
> >> are more advanced than the iPhone. Apple didn't want to fall
> >> behind.
> >
> > nonsense.
> 
>      Apple is falling behind and losing sales on the iPhone 4 to 
> Android devices.

nope. android is gaining momentum but apple still has a much larger
market share based on recent surveys. june & july numbers are not out
yet. apple sold 2 million iphone 4s in a couple of days, versus a
couple of weeks for android to do that.

> With the multiple problems with the iPhone 4, 
> they will never catch up with The Blackberry and Android based 
> phones will overtake them in a relatively short time.

blackberry is faltering. android probably will overtake apple in unit
sales but so what? there's room for more than one player. 

nikon and canon both share the majority of camera sales. neither one is
on the verge of disappearing. 

>      It's the main factor here because they put it right where 
> people are gonna touch it. Other companies put the antenna on 
> the inside or in places that don't get touched with normal use.

but where a hand covers it. there are always tradeoffs.

In article <o3ep36h0p80msjrgp2fs311at59hiu27he@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

>Did you actually try it?  I did with several phones that have
>projecting antennas.  LG VX8000, VX8100, and VX8300 on Verizon
>(900MHz).  Also, Motorola RAZR V3m.  I can wrap my hand around the
>antenna and get maybe a -4dB drop (about 1 bar). 

This was my experience with several older phones too.

Methinks Apple's problem is more than simply antenna
*placement* although that may be a part of it.

It does seem to be a RF problem and I doubt that can
be fixed with software although they may be able to
ameliorate it at the expense of some battery life.



-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:48:18 GMT, malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

>In article <o3ep36h0p80msjrgp2fs311at59hiu27he@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>Did you actually try it?  I did with several phones that have
>>projecting antennas.  LG VX8000, VX8100, and VX8300 on Verizon
>>(900MHz).  Also, Motorola RAZR V3m.  I can wrap my hand around the
>>antenna and get maybe a -4dB drop (about 1 bar). 
>
>This was my experience with several older phones too.
>
>Methinks Apple's problem is more than simply antenna
>*placement* although that may be a part of it.
>
>It does seem to be a RF problem and I doubt that can
>be fixed with software although they may be able to
>ameliorate it at the expense of some battery life.

Well, on the other foot, there are some software things that can be
done to mitigate the effects.  AT&T can convince their switch, and
Apple can tweak their firmware, to increase the time before the phone
or switch drops the call.  That should give the user a few seconds to
reposition their hand.  The phone might also be convinced to belch a
tone if the signal drops out.  My phone does that now when I go out of
range but only when I'm *NOT* making a call.  Some manner of weak
signal indicator might be useful.  Of course, writing an application
that actually displays the signal strength, SNR, and other key
parameters would be nice, but I'm sure AT&T can find a reason not to
do it.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

In article <h8gp36p0q615drdj9m055iks15jq3ni9am@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> Please don't use bars for signal strength unless you know
> whether the phone uses SNR or signal strength for an indication, and
> know the dynamic range of the bar graph. 

a very good point. now tell that to the masses who are basing their
criticism of the iphone 4 on the number of bars they see, rather than
actual data or whether calls drop (which some have said does not happen
as often).

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:37:10 -0700, in
<mn2%n.11348$xZ2.2285@newsfe07.iad>, "John Richards"
<JR@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

>I trust CR's engineers. They're not dummies.

No, but they do have a spotty track record in areas where they don't
have established expertise.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:11:44 -0700, in
<o3ep36h0p80msjrgp2fs311at59hiu27he@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:54:04 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <98L_n.737$o27.20@newsfe08.iad>, John Slade
>><hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>       Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one 
>>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes 
>>> to the antenna.
>>
>>touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.
>
>Did you actually try it?  I did with several phones that have
>projecting antennas.  LG VX8000, VX8100, and VX8300 on Verizon
>(900MHz).  Also, Motorola RAZR V3m.  I can wrap my hand around the
>antenna and get maybe a -4dB drop (about 1 bar).  A 1900Mhz PCS phone
>will probably have a larger drop.
>
>Might as well try it right now....  Going into field test mode, and
>making a call.  Rx power = -75dBm.  Wrap my hand around the antenna,
>and it drops to -78dBm (average).  Not much but enough to drop a call
>if I'm in a marginal area.  Now, compare that to the iPhone 4 drop of
>about 30dB.
>
>Try it:
><www.wpsantennas.com/pdf/testmode/FieldTestModes.pdf>

T-Mobile myTouch 3G 3.5mm Jack (aka HTC Magic, Android 1.6)
No case. Signal strength unaffected by holding it in any
way I can think of.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:11:05 -0700, in
<i1ia7r$1hs$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Peter Lawrence
<hummbaby@aol.com> wrote:

>On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, John Navas wrote:
>>
>> While there are some hardware problems that can be worked-around or at
>> least alleviated in software, there are also some that cannot, and this
>> looks to me to be more likely in the latter category, with only fig leaf
>> fixes (e.g., no signal strength meter) possible.
>>
>> I think the interesting question is whether or not Apple will try to
>> slipstream a change to the iPhone 4 hardware, or tough out this design
>> for a year until iPhone 5.
>>
>> The problem of toughing it out is that the problem will continue to grow
>> should it ultimately lose in court or in the court of public opinion.
>>
>> The problem with a slipstream change is that it would throw fuel on the
>> fire of the criticism and lawsuits unless Apple is prepared to offer
>> free hardware swaps, which would be a huge hit to the bottom line.
>>
>> I personally think Apple will probably continue to stonewall and push
>> fig leaf "solutions", risking its brand, because that's the Steve Jobs
>> Way.  How successful that will be only time will tell.
>
>Probably the least costly solution for Apple would be to repackage the 
>iPhone 4 with those new "bumpers" that Apple is trying to sell for an 
>additional $29.  Those silicon bumpers probably doesn't cost more than 10 
>cents to manufacture and they solve the iPhone 4 antenna problem.  They 
>could offer this bumper (in basic black) for free to anyone who already had 
>bought an iPhone 4.
>
>http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC597ZM/A?fnode=MTY1NDA0NA&mco=MTM3NTI0ODg
>
>They could still try to sell the bumpers that come in other colors for those 
>who are into customizing the look of their iPhones.

Or give the bumper away free, one to a customer, in Apple and AT&T
stores if you bring in an iPhone 4, for $5-10 by US mail.  But that
would be admitting a problem, which is not the Steve Jobs Way, and
dangerous in the litigation.

-- 
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

In article <rnss361grsdicbd06rbajlgniho8d4877o@4ax.com>,
 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> 
> Think regeneration and borderline oscillation.
> 

1)  Thanks -- all sounds sensible.

2)  "Super-regeneration" was a major technique way long ago, nicht wahr?  
My impression is it's no longer common, if used at all.

3)  Apologies about the name (whenever I'm in Deutschland, a second 'n' 
gets auto-added to my name on paperwork everywhere I go).

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:01:02 -0700, in
<4c3c8db9$0$22138$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 13/07/10 8:41 AM, John Slade wrote:
>
>> I agree. Apple tries to keep the image that their products are better by
>> design. This was actually true years ago. I remember an Apple user who
>> was clueless who told me that Apple computers are "engineered" when
>> computers from other companies are not.
>
>In some cases that's true. I.e. Apple uses the same king of magnetic 
>power cord latch for their laptops that my Zojirushi hot water boiler 
>uses--if you trip over the cord it releases, it doesn't drag the 
>computer to the floor or destroy the power jack on the computer. It's a 
>little thing that costs little to implement, but it's thoughtful 
>engineering.

The same sort of thoughtful engineering that created the iPhone 4
antenna, cracked Mac cases, exploding batteries, fanless computers that
overheat, etc?

The magnetic power cord catch is actually a cute solution looking for a
real problem to solve, with cons to offset the pros.

-- 
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:20:32 -0700, in
<Pdn%n.8221$Zp1.1906@newsfe15.iad>, John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>On 7/13/2010 10:12 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<s4hq365j61fg1vkbrmrcethnvv4d8j1fbv@4ax.com>, Jeff
>> Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering why Apple has the RF engineer position open for so long.
>>> If I were suspicious, I would suspect that they're really trying to
>>> hire a scapegoat.  Someone to noisily thrash around with fixes,
>>> tweaks, kludges, and improvisation.  In the end, nothing will change,
>>> but the newly hired engineer will get all the blame for NOT fixing the
>>> problem.  When I was young and stupid, I actually took on a job that
>>> turned into exactly that nightmare.  Been there, and no thanks.
>>
>> based on the actual job requisition (which few people bothered to
>> actually hunt down and read), it looks like it's for an unrelated
>> project, maybe an lte iphone or maybe a completely new product.
>>
>> but that doesn't fuel a conspiracy theory.
>
>      I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory but it's clear that 
>Apple needs some help in that department. I didn't bother to 
>actually read it because that would really be a waste of time. 
>I'm just being entertained by this whole debacle as I watch 
>Apple and Jobs jump through hoops to try and spin this one.

It now appears to have a conscious choice of style over function,
ignoring warnings from engineers, accordingly to a report by Bloomberg.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:50:10 -0700, in
<33gq369au9jlqfqjgclooijdb6vptifga1@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:13:29 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <h8gp36p0q615drdj9m055iks15jq3ni9am@4ax.com>, Jeff
>>Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please don't use bars for signal strength unless you know
>>> whether the phone uses SNR or signal strength for an indication, and
>>> know the dynamic range of the bar graph. 
>>
>>a very good point. now tell that to the masses who are basing their
>>criticism of the iphone 4 on the number of bars they see, rather than
>>actual data or whether calls drop (which some have said does not happen
>>as often).
>
>The GUM (great unwashed masses) don't seem to care.  A friend just
>ordered an iPhone online and found that Apple has a 3-4 week backlog.
>I don't know who's really doing the complaining and litigation, but
>it's probably not owners of the iPhone 4.  Besides, with a 30 day
>return policy, what's there to complain about?

What does backlog have to do with sales?  In other words, how do you
know Apple hasn't throttled sales while it investigates the problem?

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:48:14 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:50:10 -0700, in
><33gq369au9jlqfqjgclooijdb6vptifga1@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:13:29 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <h8gp36p0q615drdj9m055iks15jq3ni9am@4ax.com>, Jeff
>>>Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please don't use bars for signal strength unless you know
>>>> whether the phone uses SNR or signal strength for an indication, and
>>>> know the dynamic range of the bar graph. 
>>>
>>>a very good point. now tell that to the masses who are basing their
>>>criticism of the iphone 4 on the number of bars they see, rather than
>>>actual data or whether calls drop (which some have said does not happen
>>>as often).
>>
>>The GUM (great unwashed masses) don't seem to care.  A friend just
>>ordered an iPhone online and found that Apple has a 3-4 week backlog.
>>I don't know who's really doing the complaining and litigation, but
>>it's probably not owners of the iPhone 4.  Besides, with a 30 day
>>return policy, what's there to complain about?
>
>What does backlog have to do with sales?

It's a tolerable indication of continued demand or selling more units
than was originally predicted.  If the ABC (Apple Buying Consumers)
considered the antenna problems to be significant, then sales and the
attendant backlog, would not exist.  Apparently, the ABC's do not
consider the antenna problems to be sufficient reason to either wait.

>In other words, how do you
>know Apple hasn't throttled sales while it investigates the problem?

Like most big manufacturers, Apple orders parts and finished units
well in advance of any anticipated demand, along with a well
controlled delivery rate.  I'm not sure they could throttle sales as
delivery rates are probably contractually negotiated well in advance,
with penalties attached.

If Apple was restricting deliveries, it would be much like admitting
that there is a real problem.

More:  I had lunch with several geeks yesterday.  At the table were
four iPhone 4's (with rubber bumpers), one Droid, and me with my
ancient junk cell phone.  Peer pressure was dutifully applied, but I
resisted.  We did the finger test to see if the signal strength would
drop.  It did on three of the phone, but the 4th phone acted
differently.  The signal strength was somewhat less (4 bars instead of
5) and the finger test only dropped it one bar (from 4 to 3).  Of
course, I managed to mix up which phone belonged to whom.

Drivel:  Air Phone No. 4
<http://www.clonedinchina.com/2010/06/air-phone-no-4-got-unboxed.html>
<http://www.shanzhaiji.cn/labs/20100628/18524.html>  (Chinese)
There are others, but this seems like the best looking clone.
-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

In article <7i6146dk4ppidehc4m8e3ofabfo1djbarf@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> The same sort of thoughtful engineering that created the iPhone 4
> antenna, cracked Mac cases, exploding batteries, fanless computers that
> overheat, etc?

apple did not make the batteries and which fanless computers do not
overheat? 

> The magnetic power cord catch is actually a cute solution looking for a
> real problem to solve, with cons to offset the pros.

it actually is a real problem, having experienced it a couple of times
and had a bent power cord (not just apple products either) as a result.


the only con is the worthless airline adapter that apple makes.

In article <7n6146p64ij5qpoqblttpmvs3bnefmqc8k@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> It now appears to have a conscious choice of style over function,
> ignoring warnings from engineers, accordingly to a report by Bloomberg.

bloomberg cited an unnamed source and another source said it's bullshit
(ny times), along with apple themselves.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:49:06 -0700, in
<j79146hj6d7rn586gis8ant7n0ucku9p04@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:48:14 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>>The GUM (great unwashed masses) don't seem to care.  A friend just
>>>ordered an iPhone online and found that Apple has a 3-4 week backlog.
>>>I don't know who's really doing the complaining and litigation, but
>>>it's probably not owners of the iPhone 4.  Besides, with a 30 day
>>>return policy, what's there to complain about?
>>
>>What does backlog have to do with sales?
>
>It's a tolerable indication of continued demand or selling more units
>than was originally predicted.  If the ABC (Apple Buying Consumers)
>considered the antenna problems to be significant, then sales and the
>attendant backlog, would not exist.  Apparently, the ABC's do not
>consider the antenna problems to be sufficient reason to either wait.
>
>>In other words, how do you
>>know Apple hasn't throttled sales while it investigates the problem?
>
>Like most big manufacturers, Apple orders parts and finished units
>well in advance of any anticipated demand, along with a well
>controlled delivery rate.  I'm not sure they could throttle sales as
>delivery rates are probably contractually negotiated well in advance,
>with penalties attached.

My experience is quite different.  It's not uncommon to restrict
deliveries when a problem is found that might require an engineering
change, and standard sales contracts generally don't have any sort of
delivery penalties -- the risk is losing sales against the risk of
delivering products with defects.

>If Apple was restricting deliveries, it would be much like admitting
>that there is a real problem.

It's pretty much already done that, and restricting deliveries isn't
something likely to get out.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:08:44 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:49:06 -0700, in
><j79146hj6d7rn586gis8ant7n0ucku9p04@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:48:14 -0700, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>In other words, how do you
>>>know Apple hasn't throttled sales while it investigates the problem?

>>Like most big manufacturers, Apple orders parts and finished units
>>well in advance of any anticipated demand, along with a well
>>controlled delivery rate.  I'm not sure they could throttle sales as
>>delivery rates are probably contractually negotiated well in advance,
>>with penalties attached.

>My experience is quite different.  It's not uncommon to restrict
>deliveries when a problem is found that might require an engineering
>change, and standard sales contracts generally don't have any sort of
>delivery penalties -- the risk is losing sales against the risk of
>delivering products with defects.

True.  The standard sales contract does not have delivery penalties.
The standard manufacturing contract does.  The iPhone is made built
and assembled by contract manufacturers in China.  They all have a
delivery schedule and a draconian list of prophetic disasters itemized
in excruciating detail, should they fail to deliver or to deliver
late.  If Apple wants product cheap and on time product, they have to
accept their own delivery schedule for no better reason than the
general lack of warehouse space in China.  In my limited experience,
doing anything to derail manufacturing and delivery usually created
havoc, especially with JIT (just in time) manufacturing.  2 million
phones in 3 weeks is going to take some careful planning and
logistics.

>>If Apple was restricting deliveries, it would be much like admitting
>>that there is a real problem.
>
>It's pretty much already done that, and restricting deliveries isn't
>something likely to get out.

As I read the various reports from the "We're not perfect" press
conference, Apple never admitted that there was something actually
wrong. 
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704913304575371131458273498.html>
All that Jobs did was claim that other phones have "similar" problems.
A -24dB worst case drop in signal strength for the iPhone 4, compared
to maybe a -10dB drop for the others is not my idea of similar.
Claiming that it was impossible to make a phone that doesn't have a
weak spot, is not admitting that there's a problem.  It's the degree
of the weak spot that's important.  A -10dB drop is a 90.0% loss in
signal, which is drastic, but usually not a problem unless in a weak
signal area.  A -24dB is a 99.995% drop, which is a problem.  If Jobs
had indicated that everyone else as a similar effect, and that the
iPhone 4 is far worse, it would have been closer to the truth.  

Then, there's the allegedly glitchy proximity sensor issue which
wasn't even mentioned at the press conference:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/200024/another_apple_iphone_4_flaw_a_glitchy_proximity_sensor.html>
At lunch on Thurs, one of those attending received a call on his
iPhone 4.  It was interesting to watch the display ocassionally flash
during the call.  

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:36:09 -0700, in
<n8mp36p6tkg5ckfvu9ufnlk0vi04tlp04k@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:11:44 -0700, in
><o3ep36h0p80msjrgp2fs311at59hiu27he@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:54:04 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <98L_n.737$o27.20@newsfe08.iad>, John Slade
>>><hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>       Yea it's clear from Youtube videos and tests like the one 
>>>> from CR that the iPhone 4 has a hardware problem when it comes 
>>>> to the antenna.
>>>
>>>touch any phone's antenna, watch what happens.
>>
>>Did you actually try it?  I did with several phones that have
>>projecting antennas.  LG VX8000, VX8100, and VX8300 on Verizon
>>(900MHz).  Also, Motorola RAZR V3m.  I can wrap my hand around the
>>antenna and get maybe a -4dB drop (about 1 bar).  A 1900Mhz PCS phone
>>will probably have a larger drop.
>>
>>Might as well try it right now....  Going into field test mode, and
>>making a call.  Rx power = -75dBm.  Wrap my hand around the antenna,
>>and it drops to -78dBm (average).  Not much but enough to drop a call
>>if I'm in a marginal area.  Now, compare that to the iPhone 4 drop of
>>about 30dB.
>>
>>Try it:
>><www.wpsantennas.com/pdf/testmode/FieldTestModes.pdf>
>
>T-Mobile myTouch 3G 3.5mm Jack (aka HTC Magic, Android 1.6)
>No case. Signal strength unaffected by holding it in any
>way I can think of.

I've since determined that this was due to being in a strong signal
area.  When the signal is strong, the phone won't show any drop in
signal strength no matter how you hold it.  It's only in a weak signal
area where it will show a drop, on the order of about 6 dB for either
hand, no matter how the phone is gripped.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]