Lots of People Suing Apple for iPhone 4 Reception

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

idisarmu

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2008
244
0
18,830
[citation][nom]Abrahm[/nom]Is it just me, or is anyone else failing to understand how a "software issue" can be caused by physical interactions that aren't interacting with the software?[/citation]

Ever heard of a "software overclock" (as opposed to a bios/hard overclock)? I think that Apple is going to introduce a new firmware that overvolts the hell out of the transmitters/antennae in the iPhone in order to mitigate the reception issues. The battery life, however, will take a hit.
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
429
0
18,930
@watcha So you FINALLY admit that software can NOT fix signal loss, which is what you have been saying all this time until the last two posts in which you suddenly start to imply that your hand produces a unique interference type that can be fixed with software. It's sad that you now believe this drivel you made up to replace your original argument but no matter, as long as I got through to you about the original point. Getting through to you about something is next to impossible.

I'm sure you'll now try to argue that this is what you've said all along, but if you really knew that software could not fix signal loss and "your hand produces special interference that can be identified and fixed", you should have said so to begin with instead of arguing across many posts.

I'm not going to go into technical details and argue about your new theory because with you, it's just a waste of time. If after many posts of you being confused, I finally get you to admit something, you'll change your story to something else and argue about that instead.

 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
429
0
18,930
@watcha Updating my post since reading the other article here: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/iphone-4-reception-antenna-iphone-signal,news-7330.html

Your entire argument is proven completely wrong in the Anandtech article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2

It shows there is REAL signal loss of -19.8db when held naturally. The software fix Apple is putting out ONLY changes the number of bars that drop, NOT the actual loss of -19.8db (and as high as -24db when squeezed).

There is no special hand interference that can cause the bars to drop but not the actual signal. The signal does indeed drop as proven because the article bypasses the "BARS" formula and shows the actual value.

You said I had a "fundamental lack of understanding on electronics and antennas". Please go read Anandtech's article thoroughly before making such claims.

If only I had read that article sooner...
 

raider37

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2008
1
0
18,510
I think the problem is this issue has been blown out of proportion, bad signal reception can happen from time to time on any phone. Just when people hear about these problems they subconsciously try and recreate the issue so that it looks like their phone is faulty and can make a noise about it. The Iphone 4 looks like a quality piece of work from all the reviews i've read. And as such i doubt it will drop calls often, even when signal strength is weak. People just need to use the Iphone 4 as normally as they used their previous Iphones and all will be well. There is a reason why people would rather sue than return the product, cause

A)when u return the product, u get ure money back but dont have the phone anymore.
B) Suing would allow u to make some extra cash (if the lawsuit is successful) and u get to keep the phone too (probably).

Everyone loves their apple products despite the fact that many of them have serious flaws....i would never buy an Iphone myself cause from what i've seen of the call quality of the 3G and 3GS it just plain sucks. Its a great multimedia device, but if it doesnt work well as a phone, u might as well buy the Ipod touch (which doesnt need to be jailbroken).
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
@beayn,

For you to post the link that I myself have been posting and trying to pass it off as evidence that I was wrong - is, well, laughable.

'Your entire argument is proven completely wrong in the Anandtech article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794 [...] 4-review/2

It shows there is REAL signal loss of -19.8db when held naturally.'

Did you read the article. Do you know HOW Anandtech MEASURED THE SIGNAL? That's right - with THE IPHONE SOFTWARE! Now, what did we learn in class yesterday kids? Oh THAT'S RIGHT, APPLE EVEN ADMITS THAT THE READING ON THE SOFTWARE ISN'T ACCURATE.

So what does this mean, kids? It means we CAN'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY ACTUAL SIGNAL LOSS UNTIL THE SOFTWARE IS FIXED.

'There is no special hand interference that can cause the bars to drop but not the actual signal'

This is complete speculative fallacy. If the hand is in fact shorting the antenna, it's VERY likely that it ISN'T interference that is being detected at all, but a SHORT. Which has a unique signature.

'The signal does indeed drop as proven because the article bypasses the "BARS" formula and shows the actual value.'

The software thresholds are being corrected, yes. But the assumption you make is that there is NO PROBLEM with the signal which is being calculated in the software. Apple specifically identifies the calculation of bars as a specific issue, but does not rule out improving the software to get a more accurate signal strength, and has identified a software correction as a fix to this reception issue.

As I've said all along - it IS POSSIBLE that when they fix the software, there is AN ADDITIONAL problem that physical reception is degraded - but (and has been my point all along) - it's VERY possible that the problem could be PURELY in the software which is giving a false reading.

'You said I had a "fundamental lack of understanding on electronics and antennas". Please go read Anandtech's article thoroughly before making such claims.'

The basis of all of my points comes from having read that article, LOL.

'If only I had read that article sooner...'

Yeah, then you would have seen things like 'best reception ever' , 'longest battery life of any smart phone', 'best screen', 'best performance' - that would have hurt, no? ;-)
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
429
0
18,930
@watcha blah blah blah Not even going to read your whole message because it's a waste of time. YOU clearly did NOT read and UNDERSTAND the entire Anandtech article, which is funny because you did use it as proof for your own pathetic argument. Now that I have read it, I can use it against you because I actually understand it.

Apple's BARS thresholds are off, and that is what they are fixing. Anandtech clearly shows that the scaling of the bars will show your signal as being stronger than it is. Apple admits it too. Apple says that's what they're fixing. End of story, you lose. Admit it.

They also said NOTHING about what you claim - Magical hand interference that can be detected and fixed in software. My point all along has been that you can NOT fix signal loss with software. You continue to say either you CAN fix it, or there IS NO signal loss.

You said: "This is complete speculative fallacy. If the hand is in fact shorting the antenna, it's VERY likely that it ISN'T interference that is being detected at all, but a SHORT. Which has a unique signature."

This is where I stopped reading, same old BS. You clearly do not have a grasp of electronics while claiming I do not. If you really think you know how this stuff works, then why don't you send a message to Anandtech and tell them that you have figured out the iPhone problem, explain to them about the new form of fully detectable "hand interference" that can easily be bypassed with a software patch. See what their response is. You could even put in an application at Apple for an Antenna Engineer. Use your newfound info as your resume of superior knowledge. Let me know if you get the job.

This discussion is over. (Unless you get the job at Apple, let me know!!)
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
'My point all along has been that you can NOT fix signal loss with software. You continue to say either you CAN fix it, or there IS NO signal loss. '

Completely wrong. I can say that EITHER there is no actual signal loss (because it's a false reading in the software) OR there is ACTUAL signal loss in ADDITION to the software problem which can't be fixed. I've been very clear all along.

'Anandtech clearly shows that the scaling of the bars will show your signal as being stronger than it is. '

By using the signal strength reading provided by THE SOFTWARE. What the software displays is NOT FACT. Comprende? lol

'This is where I stopped reading, same old BS. You clearly do not have a grasp of electronics while claiming I do not. If you really think you know how this stuff works, then why don't you send a message to Anandtech and tell them that you have figured out the iPhone problem, explain to them about the new form of fully detectable "hand interference" that can easily be bypassed with a software patch. See what their response is. You could even put in an application at Apple for an Antenna Engineer. Use your newfound info as your resume of superior knowledge. Let me know if you get the job.'

I think there's a fundamental lack of intelligence on your part to comprehend what I was saying, all along. Consider the case that the signal is, in fact, NOT reduced when you touch the phone. Consider the case that when you touch the antenna, the change in signals going to the phone causes it to FALSELY calculate the signal. It the uses a BAD formula to convert that FALSE calculation into bars. Now, in this 'CONSIDERED' case - this issue could CLEARLY be corrected by software.

Now, consider (and realise) the fact that all I've been saying, all along, is that JUST BECAUSE A PROBLEM APPEARS TO BE CAUSED BY INTERACTION WITH THE HARDWARE, doesn't mean it's not fixable by the software. I ALSO stated ALL ALONG that it MAY VERY WELL BE THE CASE that there is a hardware problem IN ADDITION to the software problem. However, I think it is too early to be certain on that because ALL WE KNOW SO FAR IS THAT THE SOFTWARE IS GIVING AN INACCURATE READING OF THE SIGNAL.

This is really EXTREMELY simple - and it's because of background in electrical engineering and programming that I get it and you clearly don't. It's such a layman's conclusion that it HAS TO BE a hardware problem because it happens when you do something with the hardware. That is an INVALID assumption.

Even if it turns out to be a correct assumption in this case, it would still be a correct assumption with incorrect logic behind it.

This discussion was over the second you didn't get that.... some people just aren't intelligent enough to understand these things.
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
429
0
18,930
@watcha you said: "blah blah blah Background in electrical engineering and programming' blah blah"

hahaha.. Guess what, I have an education in electronics, computer engineering and programming. I suspect most of the people who post on this site also have a firm background in technology, that's why they're here.

Using that laughable excuse for knowing more than someone else is both hilarious and pathetic, especially when you have no idea what the other person's education is.

Your argument is the same old drivel. I told you that the discussion was over. The evidence is in front of you, study it and strain yourself to understand.

You really do need to apply at Apple for the Antenna engineer job. You clearly know what's what and can solve the "hand interference" problem that no one else has solved.
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
'hahaha.. Guess what, I have an education in electronics, computer engineering and programming. I suspect most of the people who post on this site also have a firm background in technology, that's why they're here.

Using that laughable excuse for knowing more than someone else is both hilarious and pathetic, especially when you have no idea what the other person's education is.'

Just because you have an education in a particular field doesn't mean you aren't stupid. In fact, I based my comments not on your education background - but the fact that you evidently weren't very intelligent.

'You really do need to apply at Apple for the Antenna engineer job. You clearly know what's what and can solve the "hand interference" problem that no one else has solved.'

You STILL don't get it do you. My point is not even specific to Apple, or the IPhone. My point is that a problem that APPEARS to be a hardware problem, such as is the case here, CAN BE CAUSED BY SOFTWARE, particularly if you are only aware of the problem through the software. It's so painfully obvious I just don't get why you don't understand.

1 - Antenna gets signal
2 - Software gets signal from Antenna
3 - Software calculates signal strength
4 - Software calculates bars to display based on strength, or displays calculated signal strength numerically (in case of Anandtech article).

IF all we know is that the displayed strength is wrong, than ANY ONE OF steps 1,2,3 or 4 COULD BE to blame. It could also be more than one.

IF it was only step 3 or 4, then it would be a SOFTWARE PROBLEM which only MANIFESTS when the hardware is touched.

In addition, your post answered none of my logical points whatsoever, and ironically your insults are pretty much the definition of trolling ;-)
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
429
0
18,930
@watcha Why are you still babbling? You have changed your position more times than I can list. You told me flat out that software could solve signal loss. You then slowly mutated it into "your hand produces interference that can be detected and fixed" and now THIS post.

There's no point in continuing because you keep changing your position from the original disagreement.

You can believe all you want that you are more intelligent if it makes you feel better about yourself. In the end, I think you know deep down that you really didn't know what you were talking about, you just can't admit it. "Hand interference" is proof of what you do NOT understand.


 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
'You told me flat out that software could solve signal loss'

No I didn't. I told you that SOFTWARE could solve SOFTWARE INDUCED INCORRECT REPORTING OF SIGNAL STRENGTH.

'your hand produces interference that can be detected and fixed'

Correction - I said that it is POSSIBLE that the software can distinguish between the touch of a user (a short) and the signal being weakened.

It's obvious really, and all entirely consistent.

'You can believe all you want that you are more intelligent if it makes you feel better about yourself. In the end, I think you know deep down that you really didn't know what you were talking about, you just can't admit it. "Hand interference" is proof of what you do NOT understand.'

Well I evidently am more intelligent. I think it's you who doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about, spouting irrelevant replies and talking about 'hand interference' like it means that no software on any phone ever can possibly misreport the signal strength.

When you realise how ludicrous that previous statement is you realise you're wrong.
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
429
0
18,930
@watcha

Blah blah blah same old BS.

You said: "...talking about 'hand interference' like it means that no software on any phone ever can possibly misreport the signal strength. When you realise how ludicrous that previous statement is you realise you're wrong."

It is ludicrous because I never once said such a thing about other phones. I only said all phones have the problem of signal loss when you touch them. Are you trying to say they're ALL 'possibly" misreporting it? Is that really what you're arguing here?

I don't know how many times I have to say it. Software can not solve signal loss. That is the only point I have been saying since the beginning while you made up half a dozen reasons why it CAN. My response will continue to be You CAN'T fix signal loss with software, no matter how many "unique" reasons you come up with. Keep trying though, it's entertaining.

 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
'It is ludicrous because I never once said such a thing about other phones. I only said all phones have the problem of signal loss when you touch them. Are you trying to say they're ALL 'possibly" misreporting it? Is that really what you're arguing here?'

No, I'm obviously saying that GIVEN THE SOFTWARE IS REPORTING A POOR SIGNAL IN THIS CASE, it can EITHER BE DOWN TO THE SOFTWRAE OR DUE TO THE HARDWARE.

'Software can not solve signal loss'

Who says there is signal loss? OH, THAT'S RIGHT, THE SOFTWARE!! 'Click'?

'My response will continue to be You CAN'T fix signal loss with software, no matter how many "unique" reasons you come up with.'

Well lets not go changing our posts now. You didn't say you can't fix Signal loss with software, you argued that the same issues that are seen on the IPHONE can't be fixed with software, and you DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT THE SIGNAL ITSELF IS LESSENED, IT COULD JUST BE THE SOFTWARE.

You will, one day, realise this point, and finally understand how wrong you are.
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
429
0
18,930
@watcha

As proven in the other article, you have no technical background or understanding of radio signals and theories, thus you have no basis for an argument whatsoever other than to argue.

I Win. You lose. Bye!
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
@beayn

'As proven in the other article, you have no technical background or understanding of radio signals and theories, thus you have no basis for an argument whatsoever other than to argue.

I Win. You lose. Bye!'

Probably the weakest argument, by anybody, EVER. You address none of the points, make no points of your own, try to make your points by insulting a person you clearly have no clue about, and conclude with the textbook fail of declaring 'I win', in a classic example of failed denial.

Hang on, I've got a great idea, I'm gonna use your INCREDIBLE logical argument against you. Sorry Beayn, I WIN, YOU LOSE. See how that changes everything?

LMFAO you just became more laughable, if that was possible.
 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
429
0
18,930
@watcha

As I said in the previous post, I already posted in the other article. You want me to repeat it here? No thanks.

I still win. Cry more.



 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
'@watcha

As I said in the previous post, I already posted in the other article. You want me to repeat it here? No thanks.

I still win. Cry more.'

Yet more content-free tears.

Bless ;-)
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
@beayn

'".. must..get..last..word.in.. can't.. stand..losing."'

LMFAO, is that really what you believe? You are just desperate to get the last word in? OMG lol! A projection of your own failings, I think. How pathetic to even suggest such a thing, given that you keep repeating 'I win' .... LOL

It's textbook ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.