Lots of People Suing Apple for iPhone 4 Reception

[zaznet]

Apple will snuff out most of these lawsuits with the 30 day return policy. The lawyers unfortunately needed to act faster than 30 days so they could beat all the other law firms to the punch and I think it was a critical mistake for these suits.

Apple can reply with "return the phone and we will be happy to provide a full refund" and close them all out.

 

[rsud]

[citation][nom]Abrahm[/nom]If you truly don't understand the technical details occurring underneath the surface, don't talk about them like you do. There is no "Antenna touched" signal sent to the software when the antenna is touched. The software interacts with and displays the antenna signal, it has absolutely no knowledge or care if the antenna is touched. The signal drops when the antenna is touched because the signal is being killed. Not by the software, but most likely by a short that is created when it is touched.Also if you read, the software "bug" was OVER representing available signal, not under representing.[/citation]

here's the pot calling the kettle black....

The software is reading hardware registers where the antenna hardware is converting "signal strenght" into a number. Note the "" around signal strength. The affect to the hardware interpreting signal strength has a myrid of factors that includes the interpreter getting it wrong due to effects such as capacitance, etc. While textbook engineers like to pretend its an exact science it is not. The hardware that interprets the signal is not necessarily correct with the actual signal. Is it a real problem on the new iPhone? I still haven't seen much evidence of people saying their call drops when they hold the phone the "wrong" way.

 

[watcha]

'If you truly don't understand the technical details occurring underneath the surface, don't talk about them like you do. There is no "Antenna touched" signal sent to the software when the antenna is touched'

Well, lets be very clear here. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a specific INTENDED 'Antenna touched' signal which is programmed in - and the simple fact that when the antenna is touched, it affects the existing signals to the software which in turn reacts. Clearly, the software is affected when the antenna is touched - so it must be receiving information of some kind. It doesn't matter that nobody intended the software to react to this particular signal, but the fact is it does - by displaying fewer bars.

'The software interacts with and displays the antenna signal, it has absolutely no knowledge or care if the antenna is touched.'

It doesn't matter whether the software knows what happened. The only relevant point is that the signals to the software change in some way.

'The signal drops when the antenna is touched because the signal is being killed. Not by the software, but most likely by a short that is created when it is touched.'

And that 'short' then feeds into the software which displays fewer bars. The 'short' itself does not cause the dropped calls, except where the signal was weak in the first place. It is possible that the calls could be dropped just because the software believes the signal is lost, when it actually isn't.

'Also if you read, the software "bug" was OVER representing available signal, not under representing.'

Yes, precisely. The software was displaying say, 2 bars, when there were in fact zero. The short caused by touching the antenna then feeds into the software, and for some reason causes the software to now report the signal more closely to what it originally was. This is an error with the software, clearly. If the software was corrected to display the correct bars with or without a short, that would solve the issue of the bars going up or down. Whether we are then left with an ADDITIONAL problem that the signal is still destroyed (which WOULD be hardware), we'll only know after Apple builds the fix.

To be clear - I think a software problem is pretty much as bad as a hardware problem. I'm not trying to justify it - just trying to make it clear that it COULD be just a software issue, even though that software problem is triggered by touching the antenna.

 

[dextermat]

Like most electronics:

here's the saying: How to make big buck with something that doesn't do what it should do...

I really hope government, organism will protect the consumer against crook, crook companies like that. So much work to do.

 

[invlem]

This is generally why consumer protection laws and return policies exist... Return the phone and get your money back, why do people jump on the law suit bandwagon immediately.

If the product sucks bring it back, get your money and move on with life

 

[fusion_gtx]

How the hell can this company get away with at first saying "Hold it differently" and then saying "It's software" the two have nothing to do with each other. Clearly they tried saying it's a hardware issue when they were told to coach people on how to hold the phone. Now they're coming up with some ridiculous story on how it's a software issue now. I don't understand how anyone could accept this crap that Apple is feeding them.

 

[TemjinGold]

[citation][nom]Smochina[/nom]It says in the beginning, 5 people and 11 with that law firm.[citation]However, the lawsuits are piling up with Gizmodo reporting that five lawsuits have been filed against Apple. [/citation][citation]The law firm filed suit in the District of Northern California on June 29 on behalf of 11 people.[/citation][/citation]

Err... that's not 16 people. That's five LAWSUITS, one of which has 11 people. They never said how many people were in the other four.

 

[watcha]

Good point TemjinGold.

Having read up on some of the other lawsuits they appear to be from 1 or 2 people each.

I think it's a tiny minority of iphone owners.

It's happened before - when Apple's iPhone 3G first launched in 2008, a total of 12 lawsuits were brought against the company. I don't see them getting very far and I don't think it'll have a great impact on the demand for the phone.

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]'I tend to find the most idiotic people hating apple on apple articles, that's why I post on those mostly.[/citation]

Except, you're the one making the idiotic posts. Just look at the last one about Apple getting the network fees. Your posts were so moronic they boggle the mind.

'Well obviously it does. If it didn't, the software wouldn't change at all - and it does, it shows less bars. You're now claiming that the software is psychic?'

No, touching the antenna does not send a message to the OS, it degrades the signal and thus the OS changes the BARS it displays. It does NOT send a message to the OS saying "antenna touched". There is a fundamental difference between measuring the signal strength and sending an actual message to the OS that you just don't understand.

YOU'RE the one claiming the software is psychic by knowing that the antenna was touched and thus it can be fixed by a software patch.

Abrahm and I are saying that there is NO WAY it can know it was touched. It only reads the signal strength and has no idea what caused it to drop. It could have been interference from another signal, metal structures in the area, hills, power lines, who knows. The software does NOT know what caused the signal to drop, therefore a software fix can not solve the problem. The BARS will still drop when the signal strength is dropped by whatever means can cause it to drop.

By your theory, if a software fix can solve the issue of the signal strength dropping when the antenna is touched, then ALL causes of signal degradation can be solved in software. No more problems in elevators, or when you're driving over large hills, no more problems with other signals interfering, no problems with power lines - software can simply fix and amplify the signal to solve the problem.

If you still insist these problems can not be solved in software but that the antenna being touched can be fixed with Apple's software fix, then you are saying that the software IS psychic and knows it's being touched as opposed to a myriad of other problems that could be causing it.

'No, the REPORTED signal strength coming from the SOFTWARE changes. I think their whole point is that it only happens if your signal was weak in the first place - and the software only lets you know about that when the aerial is touched."

So, you're saying the software knows that you touched the antenna and is indeed psychic...

If you have a well in the desert with a hand pump and you're drinking from it. The well has a floater in it that measures how much water is there. After a while, the well starts to go dry, can you fix the problem by changing the way the meter reports how much water is left?

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]For example, if the phone believes that the signal is now non-existant, the software probably ends the call. We wont know until the software fix from Apple whether it was in fact JUST a software issue.[/citation]

Yes, indeed if the software reads the degraded signal strength and reports it as too low to keep the call when in fact there is still enough signal strength to keep the call, then a software fix will solve dropping calls.

It still won't solve the signal degradation from touching the antenna though, which is what we were discussing.

 

[watcha]

Beayn, it's like you didn't read any of my post... so I'll just repost it. Read it this time please.

Here is your first comment:

'No, touching the antenna does not send a message to the OS, it degrades the signal and thus the OS changes the BARS it displays. It does NOT send a message to the OS saying "antenna touched".'

And my response which already answered it, before you even typed it:

'Well, lets be very clear here. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a specific INTENDED 'Antenna touched' signal which is programmed in - and the simple fact that when the antenna is touched, it affects the existing signals to the software which in turn reacts. Clearly, the software is affected when the antenna is touched - so it must be receiving information of some kind. It doesn't matter that nobody intended the software to react to this particular signal, but the fact is it does - by displaying fewer bars. '

Here is your second comment

'The software does NOT know what caused the signal to drop, therefore a software fix can not solve the problem. The BARS will still drop when the signal strength is dropped by whatever means can cause it to drop.'

Here is the answer which I already listed:

'It doesn't matter whether the software knows what happened. The only relevant point is that the signals to the software change in some way'

Your next comment:

'By your theory, if a software fix can solve the issue of the signal strength dropping when the antenna is touched, then ALL causes of signal degradation can be solved in software'

The response I had already written:

'If the software was corrected to display the correct bars with or without a short, that would solve the issue of the bars going up or down. Whether we are then left with an ADDITIONAL problem that the signal is still destroyed (which WOULD be hardware), we'll only know after Apple builds the fix.'

To add to this one - you're missing the entire point. It might be the case that this is NOT A CASE of physical signal degradation - but just a software error which makes the phone BELIEVE THAT IT IS. And as I said, we will only know if it a hardware problem AS WELL AS A SOFTWARE PROBLEM after they fix the software (which answers various further paragraphs in your essay, lol)

Now, your next comment, is... inexplicably stupid.

You said:
'If you still insist these problems can not be solved in software but that the antenna being touched can be fixed with Apple's software fix, then you are saying that the software IS psychic and knows it's being touched as opposed to a myriad of other problems that could be causing it.'

How am I saying the software is 'psychic' by pointing out the obvious fact that it is CONNECTED via signals to the antenna - hence it is able to detect signal strength. My whole point is that obviously it ISN'T psychic, it's bizarre that you don't follow.

And your next post was similarly bizarre:

'So, you're saying the software knows that you touched the antenna and is indeed psychic...'

..... lol. I'm saying that when you touch the antenna, it affects the signals going to the software so it responds by drawing less bars. Is it seriously too complicated for you to get? :S

Your final example, which I'll humour ;-)

'If you have a well in the desert with a hand pump and you're drinking from it. The well has a floater in it that measures how much water is there. After a while, the well starts to go dry, can you fix the problem by changing the way the meter reports how much water is left?'

1 - You make the false assumption that the well is going dry, when in fact all we know is that the floated is giving a false reading. Lets say it's stuck at the bottom.
2 - You can therefore, of COURSE fix the problem by changing the way the meter reports how much water is left - you prevent it sticking at the bottom, and then the user realises how much water they actually have.
3 - AFTER you've fixed the floater - you will know if the well was ACTUALLY drying up, because you will have an accurate indicator.

And to post the *strangely* parallel post which (again) I posted before you wrote... lol

'If the software was corrected to display the correct bars with or without a short, that would solve the issue of the bars going up or down. Whether we are then left with an ADDITIONAL problem that the signal is still destroyed (which WOULD be hardware), we'll only know after Apple builds the fix.'

Maybe you needed the water example to dumb it down? Bless.

 

[beayn]

@watcha Again your stupidity is astounding. You have not read everything I said and don't fully understand what you did read. You're just trolling at this point, trying to get more and more petty arguing going when you have no valid points left to make.

You said: "'It doesn't matter whether the software knows what happened. The only relevant point is that the signals to the software change in some way'"

Yes, it does matter. Nice attempt to sidestep the issue here. You continue to say software can fix the antenna being touched. If it could, then without knowing what caused the problem, ALL signal loss issues can thus be fixed by software.

Answer the question you keep avoiding: Can REAL signal loss issues be solved with software? We're saying there is ACTUAL SIGNAL LOSS. Can you fix that with software? Answer the question or don't respond at all, troll.

 

[watcha]

Beayn said

'@watcha Again your stupidity is astounding. You have not read everything I said and don't fully understand what you did read. You're just trolling at this point, trying to get more and more petty arguing going when you have no valid points left to make.'

So, nothing relevant to the discussion then. The definition of trolling.

'Yes, it does matter. Nice attempt to sidestep the issue here. You continue to say software can fix the antenna being touched. If it could, then without knowing what caused the problem, ALL signal loss issues can thus be fixed by software.'

I never said the software can stop the antenna being touched. I said that when the software is touch - the signals being sent to the software are changing (hence the bars on the software change). If the software is misinterpreting the change of signal which happens when you touch the phone, it is a software issue. To claim that that means that 'all' signal loss could be caused by software shows that you don't understand the point, which I'll come to in response to your next comment.

'Answer the question you keep avoiding: Can REAL signal loss issues be solved with software? We're saying there is ACTUAL SIGNAL LOSS. Can you fix that with software? Answer the question or don't respond at all, troll.'

As I already said, it may be the case that once we've fixed the software problem, there MAY BE an actual hardware problem which causes signal loss. The mistake you make is when you say that there is 'Actual signal loss' - when in fact all that you can go off is the reading from the SOFTWARE. Nobody, on any website, has any way to measure whether there is an actual signal loss without using the software. Until the software is fixed and is reporting the ACTUAL signal - you have no evidence that this is ACTUAL signal loss as opposed to MISREPRESENTED signal (as Apple states it is).

As I've said in all of my posts, if we get a CORRECT SIGNAL METER BY FIXING THE SOFTWARE, we will then know if there is also a hardware issue which causes actual signal loss ;-)

 

[watcha]

Sorry, first paragraph should read 'I said that when the antenna is touched - the signals being sent to the software change'

 

[beayn]

@watcha You are still sidestepping the question and trying to argue a moot point for the sake of arguing. The phone is measuring the signal, regardless of if it is reporting a correct value, the signal reduction is still there. Otherwise, the phone would not report any change. You claim I have no evidence of signal loss (when the phone is reporting the loss) but you have no evidence of your own feeble point. Why would your hand produce some kind of unique interference that nothing else produces? Signal loss is signal loss.

You said: "I never said the software can stop the antenna being touched."

That is not what I meant. I forgot things need to be explained perfectly or you get easily confused. You say that software can fix the antenna's signal loss due to being touched. Since we have established that the phone is not psychic and can not know the cause of the degradation like you keep implying, then all causes of the signal loss can be fixed in software. How else do you propose it is going to be fixed if it does not know the cause of the loss? Why would your hand produce some sort of special interference that can be fixed with software and nothing else produce the same interference?

I think any logical person would make the same conclusions. Trying to say that your hand causes some sort of signal reporting error and not actual signal loss has no factual basis or evidence at all.

You just argue for the sake of it though, as proven on numerous Apple articles.

 

[watcha]

'The phone is measuring the signal, regardless of if it is reporting a correct value, the signal reduction is still there.'

The only evidence you have for there being signal reduction is the fact the SOFTWARE displays less bars. It's just as possible that there is no signal reduction but the short is causing the software to misrepresent it.

'You claim I have no evidence of signal loss (when the phone is reporting the loss) but you have no evidence of your own feeble point'

So firstly - you now realise you DO have no evidence. And I do have evidence - Apple is releasing a software fix. Does that, or does that not, suggest there is an issue with the software? ;-) Not only that, I've even said that there still may be a hardware problem - but that at the very least it IS a software problem and COULD BE JUST a software problem. I've not tied myself down to either though.

'Why would your hand produce some kind of unique interference that nothing else produces? Signal loss is signal loss.'

I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding on electronics and antennas in play here. To assume that what the software actually 'measures' is signal, is where you go wrong. VERY simply - the software gets all kinds of different data, in the form of currents. It's the job of the software to gather together all of that data and calculate the signal. It is ABSOLUTELY possible that a 'short' caused by touching the antenna RADICALLY changes these signals in a way that nothing else would. To assume that a lack of signal produces the same signal as a short, is where you go wrong.

'You say that software can fix the antenna's signal loss due to being touched'

Again, this is wrong. I say that there MIGHT NOT BE ANY SIGNAL LOSS. Do you understand yet? You are assuming there is signal loss based on the fact that the software tells you so - but Apple has already CLEARLY stated that the software is NOT ACCURATE. So why is your whole argument based on the fact that it IS ACCURATE?

'Since we have established that the phone is not psychic and can not know the cause of the degradation like you keep implying, then all causes of the signal loss can be fixed in software'

Like I said before, the software of the phone doesn't get a message from the phone saying 'Signal now down to 97%' - it gets a whole series of readings, currents etc and CALCULATES THE SIGNAL. The phone CAN be programmed in such a way as to recognise the specific signals which occur with a short, it is highly likely that would be a unique, identifiable pattern. It may be the case that when the antenna is shorted, the SIGNAL ITSELF is actually FINE, but the signals to the SOFTWARE are MISINTERPRETED as meaning there's low signal. Please not the 'may be the case' in that sentence. This logical argument doesn't at all imply that any hardware problem can be resolved by software. If there ACTUALLY IS a signal problem, then of course that couldn't be fixed by software - the point is that WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S AN ACTUAL SIGNAL PROBLEM YET BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE READING IS INACCURATE. It's VERY simple.

 

[trekker9876]

omg you americans, all you want to do is sue someone to try to make money.
grow up babies

 

[rooket]

*yawn* tbh, I don't see the need to purchase an iphone. and people are making a big deal out of a product that nobody really even needs. more foxconn workers will suicide, rich people will get richer etc etc.. I don't feel like supporting this whole mess. count me out.

 

[rooket]

[citation][nom]trekker9876[/nom]omg you americans, all you want to do is sue someone to try to make money.grow up babies[/citation]

speak for yourself. I'm no friggin yuppy and I don't own these stupid apple products. maybe you need to be burped.

 

[antilycus]

I CALL B.S.!!! I bet this original formula was designed by ATT to start off with. We already know about ATT's room 641A ( [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [/url] ) and now you want us to believe that ATT has the fix? The iPhone is for ATT networks only. ATT spend BILLIONS a year to convince people they have the best network (and the most expensive data plan to top it off). If the truth came out that ATT's network SUCKED think about how that would 1) damage ATT's money and 2) damage Apple's image. I OWNED a total of 6 apple products...guess how many of them work today, less than 5 years after purchase? 1...and I repaired it myself after Apple quoted me a 700 dollars to fix it, which cost me about 100 bucks total to fix.