The 4 Major Issues Plaguing the iPhone 4 Today

[watcha]

'I'm glad you took so much time to go through and quote yourself. You simply proved my own point.'

No, I proved MY point, by DISPROVING your idiotic claim that I'd said it was categorically a software problem.

'You never once said that you can't fix signal loss by touching the antenna with a software patch'

Yet again, you miss the point entirely. Whether there IS 'Signal loss' or not is NOT A MATTER OF FACT, because all the readings taken use the SOFTWARE which apple admits is incorrect. So, IF the issue is purely with software, fixing the software WOULD CORRECT THE 'APPARENT' hardware issues. That is the key element that you don't get.

'In fact, you claim everything else "could" be happening and even say "just trying to make it clear that it COULD be just a software issue".'

Precisely - it COULD. Any problem which is only visible within the software (such as is the case here - ie the signal meter goes down) CAN be caused by the software. Like I already told you, I could write software which showed a signal of -2000db. Would that mean it was a hardware issue? Of course not, because it's the SOFTWARE which you are reading.

'BUT touching the antenna is NOT a software issue. Touching the antenna can NOT simply cause the BARS to go down and not actually cause signal loss like you suggest. '

Absolutely incorrect. It is ABSOLUTELY possible (like I've said before) that touching the signal COULD cause NO SIGNAL LOSS but still AFFECT THE WAY IN WHICH THE SOFTWARE INTERPRETS THE SIGNAL STRENGTH. In THAT CASE, it would be a software issue, not a hardware issue. And as you should have realised by now, my whole point is that it is POSSIBLE to be caused just by software, without making any claims to know the exact cause in this case.

'Even if software is giving wrong signal values, or the BARs go down more than they should (as is proven and being fixed with their patch), there is still signal loss, period. '

Er.. how do you know? LOL. You just considered the case (finally) that the software was showing an incorrect signal, so how do you KNOW that there is signal loss? THE ONLY WAY OF MEASURING SIGNAL IS VIA THE SOFTWARE. That was your dumbest statement yet.. lol.

'Every phone has this problem. People interfere with radio signals.'

First of all, if you're trying to suggest that every phone is the same, then any issue with the IPhone must apply to EVERY OTHER PHONE.

Secondly, if you're trying to argue that this issue is not DISTINGUISHABLE from the problem in other phones due to the fact that the problem appears to be more severe, then you've already failed.

Thirdly, given we've just established that SOME signal loss APPEARS to be normal in SIMILAR PHONES (not really proving anything), it is STILL ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE THAT the SOFTWARE could be misrepresenting the LEVEL OF THIS SIGNAL DEGRADATION (assuming there is ANY).

Fourthly - given the UNIQUE design of this aerial it does NOT NECESSARILY behave the same way as other antennas.

'You are the one who has failed to grasp this concept from the start. You keep suggesting everything else could be happening while failing to understand that people simply interfere with radio signals'

Yet again, totally hypocritical. I've never said that people touching phones can't affect the signal. If we simply apply that test, then EVERY PHONE has a 'fatal flaw' and should be recalled. Oh no, WAIT, the WHOLE POINT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE SOFTWARE SEEMS TO SUGGEST A GREATER LOSS IN SIGNAL THAN WOULD ORDINARILY BE EXPECTED. This can be caused by one, or BOTH, of the following:

1 - Software reporting the signal incorrectly.
2 - Hardware actually losing more signal than other phones.

It's beyond belief that you don't recognise that a problem which is only manifested in software COULD be just a software problem. It's also beyond belief that you think that an antenna for a radio is in ANY WAY COMPARABLE. It's like saying, my car broke down because the engine overheated - therefore any LORRY which breaks down must have a faulty engine, and it can't be caused by anything else.

To be completely honest with you, I genuinely think you don't really know what I've been saying all along, you lack the coherence to actually read something properly and understand the real implications.

It's exactly like the cost example, where you thought that proving that $200 goes to apple DOES NOT prove that all of the $2500 doesn't. It's like you're arguing for the sake of it without realising what you're arguing against, or that none of your comments are relevant.

Epic fail tbh.

 

[beayn]

@watcha You said: "blah blah blah same old crap I said before with no technical basis whatsoever, plus a new theory!!"

I wanted to avoid making huge posts but this one is just so full of holes I'm going to make it a big one.

You said: "because all the readings taken use the SOFTWARE which apple admits is incorrect. "

No, they stated only the BARS reading is incorrect, which Anandtech proved and bypassed. YOU are the ONLY one who says the actual numbers are incorrect and thus dispute Anandtech's article.

You said: "Er.. how do you know?LOL."

Because every cell phone has this problem. Every radio signal has this problem. The proof is right in front of you, how can you not get it? You claimed to have a tech background, you should get it.

"You just considered the case (finally) that the software was showing an incorrect signal"

No, I'm trying to get YOU to consider MY point by simplifying the equation and removing the readings completely. You still don't get it no matter how simple I make it.

You said: "touching the signal COULD cause NO SIGNAL LOSS but still AFFECT THE WAY IN WHICH THE SOFTWARE INTERPRETS THE SIGNAL STRENGTH. "

This is the point I keep making that you keep disputing. Touching the antenna will reduce signal strength. I would like to see the technical proof of how your theory can happen and how it can be bypassed with a simple software patch. If you can provide some excellent technical proof of how touching the antenna "affect the way in which the software interprets the signal strength" while at the same time, NOT actually reducing the signal strength, then I will finally believe you. Let's haul out the technical jargon here. I want information on signal vectors, frequency tuning, antenna capacitance, impedance, grounding, current induction, skin conductivity, you name it, if it applies, let's hear it. If you can't provide this technical evidence, it's proof you are simply making shit up so that you can argue for the sake of arguing and you really haven't got a clue. You will of course, not be able to come up with anything but claim I have no proof that there IS signal loss. I am not mentioning anything about frequency tuning or grounding or anything else because you claim you are so much smarter than me, you should know it all anyway, right?

You said: "Fourthly - given the UNIQUE design of this aerial it does NOT NECESSARILY behave the same way as other antennas."

Wait... What? Suddenly the iPhone has some sort of unique antenna? How is that a given? You see how you keep making this shit up? First it was purely software, then it was unique hand interference, now it's got a unique antenna... Arguing with you is so pointless it has just become a form of entertainment. What will he think of next? Does this unique iphone antenna work in tandem with the unique inference produced by your hand that can be fixed by a unique software patch from the totally unique and wonderful Apple?

You said: "Yet again, totally hypocritical. I've never said that people touching phones can't affect the signal."

You did, you said it several times throughout this post as well. You said it when you claimed my dumbest comment yet was that there IS REAL signal loss regardless of the software readings. You said it when you claimed yet again that touching the antenna could cause no signal loss and thus be bypassed in software. You said it a third time when you said the iPhone has some sort of unique antenna that is not affected the same way as other phones.

Each one of these comments can only be true if touching the antenna does NOT cause signal loss. It's one or the other, not both. If it's both, then you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You said: "then EVERY PHONE has a 'fatal flaw' ..."

No, nobody said it was a "fatal flaw" for every phone but you just now. It was only stated that there is signal loss from holding them and the iPhone's is more severe due to the positioning of the antenna.

Now, I'm going to save a few posts by posting what I *KNOW* will be your responses (Note: This is exactly how you argue in every single post): You will say: [beayn] implies the iPhone has a unique antenna by saying it is affected differently than other phones. If the iPhone does not have a unique antenna then how can [beayn] say it is affected differently? ie: more interference. Thus, it MUST have a UNIQUE antenna or else [beayn] contradicted himself!

I will say: The iPhone does NOT have some unique antenna that is not affected the same way as other antennas, it's only the fact that the antenna is exposed to touch that amplifies its problem. That doesn't make it a unique antenna. Is it made of something different than a standard antenna?

You will then say: "But if it is AFFECTED differently then it MUST be a different and UNIQUE antenna!!! LOL UR STUPID. "

And my response will be like explaining to a child: If you have one apple and I have two apples, we both have the same thing, I just have more of them. Apple's problem is the same as every other phone, just more of it - more interference from touch.

At this point, you will claim you somehow KNOW that the iphone's SOFTWARE is causing incorrect readings because Apple said so (even though it was the BARS they mentioned), and we'll have come full circle and the whole point will have been missed once again. Signal loss happens. Shit happens.

You will then make up some completely retarded argument that has no logic or technical basis to it at all and will end with LOL, STUPID, DESTROYED, PWNED, I SMARTER, or something else just as childish and predictable.

You said: "It's exactly like the cost example, where you thought that proving that $200 goes to apple DOES NOT prove that all of the $2500 doesn't."

Sigh. Again, you said NONE of the money goes to Apple, all I said was that SOME of it does. I wasn't trying to "not prove" anything else. I was arguing no other points in that discussion. That was by far the worst, most pathetic argument I have ever seen, even from you. It proves how idiotic and argumentative your logic really is.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt though and concede that you possibly read someone else's comment and thought it was mine because what you said made NO sense whatsoever with regards to what I said. It was the only explanation for such complete gibberish, aside from a very low IQ, (which is becoming more prevalent).

Wasn't that the article where you also redefined "sucks" just so you could argue I DID say Apple Sucks? Now you hypocritically tell me that *I* argue for the sake of it AND call me the hypocrite? I have been making the exact same point in every single post. I'm not the one changing my story constantly and making up random stuff to argue about such as what the definition of "sucks" is, unique hand interference, unique antennas etc etc.

Stop making stuff up and provide SOLID PROOF that touching the antenna causes a "SHORT" that you can bypass and essentially fully receive the original signal with zero loss.

If you want proof that signal loss occurs to begin with (because you keep claiming I don't know that signal loss actually occurs), just look at every single cell phone, radio and wireless gadget available in the world today. Yes, antenna for radio is VERY COMPARABLE to cell phone. If you don't think it is, you already fail at understanding the basics.

It'll be great to see what you come up with next.

PS:
I want to add that I'm actually surprised you haven't come up with one theory that is actually somewhat believable. I read in one article that the two antennas (cellular and WiFi) are being connected to each other when you "hold the phone the wrong way" Theoretically then, turning off the WiFi antenna (or possibly applying a filter) during cellular calls could fix much of the signal loss. That would indeed be a software fix and is a perfectly valid theory as opposed to everything else you've come up with. Maybe that's why you haven't thought of it. It makes sense and has a solid technical theory behind it.

 

[watcha]

@Beayn
‘No, they stated only the BARS reading is incorrect, which Anandtech proved and bypassed. YOU are the ONLY one who says the actual numbers are incorrect and thus dispute Anandtech's article.’

Does the fact that Apple stated that the BARS reading is incorrect mean that the numerical reading is necessarily correct? Or is the obvious fact that ANY part of ANY software can be wrong still an obvious fact? ;-)

‘Because every cell phone has this problem. Every radio signal has this problem. The proof is right in front of you, how can you not get it? You claimed to have a tech background, you should get it. ‘

Well hang on a minute, you’re getting confused again. If you think a Radio antenna is the same as a phone antenna, you’re already a huge fail – but lets put that idiocy aside for the moment. You have to be claiming one of two things:

1 – You’re claiming that the phone has a problem which is NOT shared by other phones (making it an actual problem)

or

2 – You’re claiming that the fact that this phone behaves (according to you) the same as every other phone, is why it’s WORSE THAN THEM?

If you claim 2 – then your whole point all along falls down, making you wrong.
If you claim 1 – then you are saying that the proof that a problem is caused by hardware, is that a DIFFERENT PROBLEM CAN BE CAUSED BY HARDWARE IN OTHER PHONES? Do you see the idiocy here? Your whole point depends on the fact that the antenna is behaving DIFFERENTLY, and to prove this, you are trying to prove that it’s THE SAME?

It’s a totally retarded and illogical statement to assume that all aerials on all devices respond the same way anyway. Even your own dumb example of your wife walking past the radio and that affects the signal – proves that they don’t all behave in the same way. If I walk past you when you’re on your phone – will your call go fuzzy? Of course not. Why not? Because they use DIFFERENT ANTENNAS, DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY, DIFFERENT MATERIALS, DIFFERENT SHAPES/SIZES and as a result YOU CAN’T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT ONE BY LOOKING AT ANOTHER. Particularly if they are behaving differently.

‘No, I'm trying to get YOU to consider MY point by simplifying the equation and removing the readings completely. You still don't get it no matter how simple I make it.’

Again, take a simple step back and ask yourself what I’m actually saying, and have been saying all along. I am making the obvious, logical, intuitive and simple statement that any problem which is only visible in software, CAN BE CAUSED BY SOFTWARE. I am not stating that it IS, in this case, or in ANY WAY IMPLYING that it CAN’T be caused by hardware. YOU, on the other hand, maintain that this problem MUST be caused by hardware, based on the readings taken from THE SOFTWARE and the fact that A MEASURABLY DIFFERENT PROBLEM HAPPENS IN DIFFERENT PHONES WITH DIFFERENT ANTENNAS. So, not only are you making a MUCH bigger claim, it’s OBVIOUSLY wrong. You cannot EVER prove that this problem COULD NOT have been caused by software. I know this for a fact because I could (within about 5 minutes) take any phone and recreate this problem using software. Read that last sentence again, and realise how silly you’re being. You haven’t even realised that the realities in this specific case are irrelevant, whatever the apparent signal loss is caused by – it doesn’t change the fact that it COULD have been caused by software. And that has been my point all along.


‘Touching the antenna will reduce signal strength’

First of all, this sentence is so ridiculously presumptuous that I can’t believe you even said it. For this sentence to be true, in a way relevant to this discussion, you would have to maintain that NO ANTENNA will EVER BE CAPABLE of not operating normally whilst being touched. This is BEYOND IDIOTIC.

But more importantly, you’re forgetting your whole argument. Your whole point is that this phone is DIFFERENT to this ‘normal’ behaviour because it is losing ‘more’ signal (assuming it is losing ANY), so even if it were true that ALL ANTENNAS lose signal when touched (which it ISN’T, OBVIOUSLY), it WOULD STILL NOT MEAN THAT IT IS A HARDWARE PROBLEM.

You then ask for a whole collection of ‘technical proof’ which is ironic, since the only evidence you have for your VERY SPECIFIC claim that it MUST BE HARDWARE is based on what other people observed in the SOFTWARE. Clearly, my claim that a problem of this kind CAN BE CAUSED BY SOFTWARE is much easier to logically prove, without needing technical data.

Lets assume that we invent a new phone called the BeaynTard. Lets say the signal strength is measured by way of an internal electromagnet resulting in an electrical reading provided to the software. Lets say that when you touch two parts of the antenna, the signal is still usable. Suddenly, due to the short caused by your fingers, our antenna detection circuit sees a lack of resistance in the circuit where the antenna should be, and reports to the software that there is suddenly no resistance (a reading which would NEVER BE CAUSED BY A LOW SIGNAL OR SIGNAL DEGRADATION OF ANY KIND). The software then mistakenly thinks ‘oh, we have no antenna’ and accordingly sets the displayed signal strength to 0. Do you not see that in this case, the SOFTWARE is MISREPESENTING the signal strength when the phone is touched, and that it DOESN’T necessarily have ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY ACTUAL SIGNAL LOSS? If you simply amend the software to recognise that unique ‘lack of resistance’ signature as a user touching the case, you can entirely correct the problem via software. A very simple, HIGHLY plausible example which proves my entire point. And BEFORE YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THINGS PROPERLY AGAIN, I am not saying that this IS THE CASE in the IPhone, I’m simply saying that IT’S POSSIBLE. Like I’ve said before, a painfully obvious and very modest claim.

‘Wait... What? Suddenly the iPhone has some sort of unique antenna?’

LMAO – yeah the NON-UNIQUE ANTENNA is the ‘HARDWARE PROBLEM’ you talk about. Just how is it a problem where other phones aren’t, if it’s not unique?

‘First it was purely software, then it was unique hand interference, now it's got a unique antenna...’

Well, lets correct the complete failure here. Firstly, I stated that the problem COULD BE CAUSED BY SOFTWARE, I then went on to mention that IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PHONE MIGHT BE ABLE TO RECOGNISE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING TOUCHED AND LOSING SIGNAL, and I then pointed out the OBVIOUS fact which is the whole foundation of YOUR OWN ARGUMENT that this antenna is unique. So what’s confusing you?

Beayn said:
“You said: "Yet again, totally hypocritical. I've never said that people touching phones can't affect the signal."

You did, you said it several times throughout this post as well. You said it when you claimed my dumbest comment yet was that there IS REAL signal loss regardless of the software readings”

I did indeed state that it was your most idiotic comment to date (since surpassed) to argue that a problem MUST be hardware by referring to readings taken from software. That remains the case. Not only that, but if you very carefully read over my comments, you’ll realise that my comment did not, in fact, say ANYTHING about the POSSIBILITY that people touching phones MIGHT affect the signal. It doesn’t even say anything about software or hardware. It simply proves the obvious point that you can’t prove it’s a hardware issue as opposed to a software issue by referring to software. To reach any other conclusion from that statement just backs up my belief that you genuinely don’t even realise what you’re arguing about.

‘You said it when you claimed yet again that touching the antenna could cause no signal loss and thus be bypassed in software’

The answer is in your own quote here. Do you not realise that saying ‘touching the antenna COULD cause no signal loss’ IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING THAT PEOPLE TOUCHING PHONES CAN’T AFFECT THE SIGNAL? Firstly – it’s a simple statement that it COULD BE THE CASE for any given phone that the signal loss is not hampered by touch, and secondly, it therefore makes NO SWEEPING STATEMENTS about antennas responding to touch in general.

‘You said it a third time when you said the iPhone has some sort of unique antenna that is not affected the same way as other phones. ‘

Again, I did not say it is ‘NOT affected’ in the same way, I said that it is POSSIBLE that it COULD not be affected in the same way. And it is unique, that’s OBVIOUS. And I also said that EVEN IF IT WAS AFFECTED IN THE SAME WAY AS OTHER PHONES, THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE ‘ADDITIONAL’ SIGNAL LOSS IN THIS CASE IS CAUSED BY THE HARDWARE TOO. It could just as easily be caused by software.

‘No, nobody said it was a "fatal flaw" for every phone but you just now. It was only stated that there is signal loss from holding them and the iPhone's is more severe due to the positioning of the antenna.’

Well, hang on again – this is where you make your mistake again. You’re assuming that just because a minor problem is caused by X, that if a major problem happens, it must ALSO be caused by X? That is TOTALLY ILLOGICAL, and beyond idiocy. The whole point in this case is that the antenna in the IPhone is unique, and will therefore NOT NECESSARILY behave in the same way as another antenna. If it WASN’T unique, it WOULDN’T behave differently.

‘I will say: The iPhone does NOT have some unique antenna that is not affected the same way as other antennas, it's only the fact that the antenna is exposed to touch that amplifies its problem. That doesn't make it a unique antenna. Is it made of something different than a standard antenna?’

This post is wrong in so many ways I feel my keyboard will explode. LOL. Firstly, the IPhone4 DOES, CLEARLY and UNDISPUTABLY have a UNIQUE ANTENNA. A fundamental part of an antenna is its shape, its size, and its location and they are ALL unique on the IPhone. What you’re basically saying is that just because an Ice Cube stays frozen at the North Pole, it MUST therefore stay frozen at the surface of the sun. It is COMPLETELY IDIOTIC not to realise that EVEN IF IT’S THE SAME MATERIAL AS ALL OTHER PHONES (which it isn’t, by the way) – that DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESN’T BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY when in a different location/shape/environment, AND IS THEREFORE UNIQUE. Finally – again, you miss the entire point. Even IF it was a normal antenna, and even IF it was losing signal strength due to being touched, just like every other phone, IT WOULD STILL BE POSSIBLE THAT THE EXTRA SIGNAL LOSS IN THIS CASE IS CAUSED BY THE SOFTWARE MISINTERPRETING IT.

‘And my response will be like explaining to a child: If you have one apple and I have two apples, we both have the same thing, I just have more of them’.

Well this is a completely flawed analogy. A more appropriate one would be if you had an apple in your hand, and I had a DIFFERENT SHAPED, DIFFERENT SIZED apple which was found on the top of a CLOUD, which I could ACCURATELY describe as unique. It isn’t the case that the IPhone has 2x the Droid Antenna (for example), placed in the same place in the phone, with the same shape and size, and made of the same material. Repeat, that is NOT THE CASE. If you’re going to make dumb analogies, please make them relevant.

‘At this point, you will claim you somehow KNOW that the iphone's SOFTWARE is causing incorrect readings because Apple said so (even though it was the BARS they mentioned), and we'll have come full circle and the whole point will have been missed once again. Signal loss happens. Shit happens.’

Wheras software errors don’t happen? We do KNOW that the software is misrepresenting the bars, yes, and it’s JUST AS POSSIBLE that it’s misrepresenting the signal numerically. What we DON’T know is that the signal loss is real. All we know is that the software says it is. Whether or not this turns out to be a software or hardware problem doesn’t change the fact that it COULD be caused by software.


‘Sigh. Again, you said NONE of the money goes to Apple’

100% incorrect. I haven’t specified that NONE of the money goes to Apple AT ALL. NOT ONCE. That is the WHOLE REASON YOU FAILED.

‘all I said was that SOME of it does’

PRECISELY, proving my point that $2500 doesn’t all go to Apple.

‘I wasn't trying to "not prove" anything else’

It’s good that you realise now that you didn’t disprove anything I stated, effectively meaning you realised I was correct when saying that the $2500 doesn’t go to Apple, and that all you did was prove that point – which again, has been my point all along.


‘Wasn't that the article where you also redefined "sucks" just so you could argue I DID say Apple Sucks?’

Sorry, do you object to defining words? Isn’t that the fundamental basis in which we communicate? You have been visibly criticising Apple in a number of forums, yet you still try to make out like you don’t. You tried to defend yourself by effectively arguing that saying other phones are better is NOT a criticism? When faced with such idiotic self-destroying sentences, there is nothing to do other than to educate you as to what the word actually means, so you finally realise.

‘ I have been making the exact same point in every single post’

Yes, you have, and it’s STILL wrong, and you just don’t get why. You are unable to comprehend the possibility that a problem which is only visible in software COULD be caused by the software. You… just… don’t … get… it.

‘I'm not the one changing my story constantly’

We’ve already been through this and I already emphatically destroyed your point by pasting every single one of my comments which were of course, all pretty much identical and 100% consistent.

‘making up random stuff to argue about such as what the definition of "sucks’

Like I said, if a guy doesn’t realise what criticism is, the only way to enlighten him is to educate him – it’s your own fault for not understanding what words mean, and believing that saying that IPhone is flawed and inferior to other products constantly IS NOT CRITICISING (lmfao). Essentially that whole argument came down to you realising you were a crying anti-apple fan boy and you’re in denial.


‘Stop making stuff up and provide SOLID PROOF that touching the antenna causes a "SHORT" that you can bypass and essentially fully receive the original signal with zero loss.’

If I had to prove this for my point to be correct, then I would. Since my point is simply that it’s POSSIBLE for an issue which is only measurable in software to be caused by software, the proof is right there in the logic. Since YOU are claiming that it MUST be a hardware issue, the burden of proof in fact lies with you. That’s the beauty of my obvious, logical and modest claim – I haven’t actually stated what the reality is either way, I’ve simply said that x and y are possible. In comparison to your completely unfounded, presumptuous STATEMENT of fact that it MUST be the hardware to blame, which you of course would need to prove.

‘If you want proof that signal loss occurs to begin with (because you keep claiming I don't know that signal loss actually occurs), just look at every single cell phone, radio and wireless gadget available in the world today’

Sorry, the whole point of this discussion is that the IPhone is responding differently to other phones, so why should I ‘look at’ other phones, and what would this prove?

‘Yes, antenna for radio is VERY COMPARABLE to cell phone. If you don't think it is, you already fail at understanding the basics.’

You’re right, last time you walked past your wife while she having phone sex with me, the whole signal went fuzzy (just like your radio example) and we couldn’t talk anymore. Commuters everywhere are complaining of ‘radio like walk-by interference’ caused by a gang of anti-phone vigilantes. LMFAO! Cos lets face it, Phone antennas and Radio antennas are the same, so it makes sense? LOL

‘I want to add that I'm actually surprised you haven't come up with one theory that is actually somewhat believable. I read in one article that the two antennas (cellular and WiFi) are being connected to each other when you "hold the phone the wrong way" Theoretically then, turning off the WiFi antenna (or possibly applying a filter) during cellular calls could fix much of the signal loss. That would indeed be a software fix and is a perfectly valid theory as opposed to everything else you've come up with. Maybe that's why you haven't thought of it. It makes sense and has a solid technical theory behind it.’

It’s amazing that while writing this whole sentence you were in fact proving that even you know that my whole statement all along has been true. Since all I ever stated was that it’s possible for this problem to be caused by software, you closed by proving your entire weeks worth of nonsense wrong. As it happens, turning off the WiFi antenna is arguably a hardware fix, not a software fix – and the fact that touching both caused ACTUAL signal loss would still be a hardware error, so the example you created to prove yourself wrong, is also wrong. Ironic huh? I don’t need some theory related to physics, because my premise, claim and logic is VERY modest, and VERY SIMPLE. As the problem stands, the only evidence we have of any signal loss – is what the software tells us. Since what the software tells us can be affected by 1) the software, and 2) the hardware – EITHER COULD BE THE CAUSE. That is the ONLY fact we need. Saying that what happens to one phone MUST happen to another phone is, of course, ridiculous, and logically incorrect, PARTICUALARLY in light of the fact that the whole argument is based around the fact that the phone behaves DIFFERENTLY to other phones.

Keep the tears lengthy please, I enjoy it when you destroy yourself so many times in a post ;-)

 

[beayn]

@watcha blah blah didn't read your whole post. I basically stopped when you precisely argued exactly what I said you would argue. You are so predictable it's pathetic.

All radio signals and antennas are governed by the same laws and theories. The fact that you dispute this is clear proof that you have zero technical background. Please Google Antennas or something and read up on how they actually work. Until then you have no basis for an argument other than to argue. And argue you do, with the most horribly flawed logic I have ever seen.

You could not provide any technical evidence that your sad theory was correct either. More proof of your incompetence and arguing for the sake of arguing. If you had any actual basis for magical hand interference that could be detected and bypassed, you would have provided it. Same with the suddenly "unique" antenna that is made of pure magic because you don't even know what it's made of.

The whole basis for your argument here at the start of your message anyway was that the antenna MUST be different because it behaves differently but I'm comparing it to other phones saying it's the same and therefore it's a contradiction. Your argument is laughable yet again. It's just more proof of your argumentative nature and your inability to form a coherent and logical technical response. You're arguing for the sake of it. Nothing more, nothing less. I've already shown that it is only being exposed to touch that amplifies its problem and that it is the same problem. Refer to the 1 apple 2 apples analogy once more and strain yourself to understand as it would be explained to a child. I know it's tough for you though. There are no such things as unique apples in clouds either.

You have no concept of logic or technology and at the same time, your ego makes you think you have a technical background and are more intelligent. In fact, your ego is so massive that you absolutely must argue with every single point I make. Not just a few, every one of them. You must try to prove yourself right in every way possible in every post, even if my argument is completely logical and proven in real life. (Antennas are governed by the same laws and theories, radio signals are affected by people and touch etc).

Your ego is so big and you are so argumentative that your next post will even attempt to argue the point above, claiming that I'm just so wrong that you must argue every point. In actuality, you're just a pathetic troll who can't stand losing. And lost you did. I proved you were wrong so many times and proved you continue to come up with something stupidly different every few posts. The latest being a "unique antenna that is not affected the same way as other antennas".

You even didn't understand the radio comparison, claiming that all cell phones would lose signal if you went near them. You obviously don't understand signal strength at all. If the radio signal was already weak then the interference you cause when nearing and touching could be enough to make it lose its signal. How does that mean all cell phones would lose their calls if you went near them? How do you not understand the whole concept if you claim to have a tech background? Because you don't.

Your BS is so laughable, I've posted some of your stuff to two friends on another forum, one works at Microsoft the other Intel. Both of them got a kick out of it. "Fanboys will say anything they can when confronted with real logic." to quote the Intel guy. So totally, unbelievably true, especially here.

Keep posting on your Apple-only related articles, fanboy. Keep coming up with "unique" ideas and theories. I will show the error of your ways every time I see the need.

 

[watcha]

@beayn


‘blah blah didn't read your whole post’

Yeah, I think failing to read has been your problem from the very beginning.

‘I basically stopped when you precisely argued exactly what I said you would argue. You are so predictable it's pathetic.’

You mean you were so dumb to argue something when you already knew you were wrong, and when proved correct in knowing that you were wrong, you gave up?

‘All radio signals and antennas are governed by the same laws and theories’

Well this is a ridiculous statement. It’s like saying that all OBJECTS are governed by the same laws of PHYSICS. It means NOTHING, because your WHOLE POINT ALREADY is that the IPhone antenna is BEHAVING DIFFERENTLY. It therefore must have SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT IT WHICH CAUSES IT TO BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY. That is obvious logic

‘The fact that you dispute this is clear proof that you have zero technical background.’

To not recognise the MASSIVE amount of different technologies in antennas ALREADY IN EXISTANCE actually shows that YOU have the overly simplistic view. The fact that EVEN IF THEY WERE ALL THE SAME, THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE COULD STILL BE CAUSED BY SOFTWARE again proves you wrong.

‘You could not provide any technical evidence that your sad theory was correct either. More proof of your incompetence and arguing for the sake of arguing. If you had any actual basis for magical hand interference that could be detected and bypassed, you would have provided it. Same with the suddenly "unique" antenna that is made of pure magic because you don't even know what it's made of.’

Sorry, fundamental logic fail on your part here. I don’t have to PROVE something is the case after claiming that it is POSSIBLE. This is where actually reading comes in, you know, words and stuff? YOU have yet to prove that the signal loss in this case is hardware (a specific claim which MUST be proved), and EVEN IF YOU DID, you would then FURTHER HAVE TO PROVE THAT THIS COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SOFTWARE, to prove me wrong. The mistake you make, really, is not reading key words like ‘it’s possible’ and ‘could’ and mistaking them for statements of fact. It’s a reading fail, tbh.

‘ Your argument is laughable yet again. It's just more proof of your argumentative nature and your inability to form a coherent and logical technical response. You're arguing for the sake of it. Nothing more, nothing less’

You managed to say so much without saying anything at all, LOL

‘I've already shown that it is only being exposed to touch that amplifies its problem and that it is the same problem’

Er, no you haven’t? You haven’t provided ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever that doesn’t COME FROM THE SOFTWARE that there is ANY SIGNAL LOSS WHATSOEVER. And EVEN IF THERE WAS SIGNAL LOSS, you would have to prove that the ADDITIONAL SIGNAL LOSS IN THE CASE OF THE IPHONE was also the same problem. EVEN THEN, you would not have proved me wrong, because IT REMAINS POSSIBLE TO REPRODUCE THIS PROBLEM VIA SOFTWARE. Fail, fail and fail.

‘Refer to the 1 apple 2 apples analogy once more and strain yourself to understand as it would be explained to a child. I know it's tough for you though. There are no such things as unique apples in clouds either.’

LMFAO!!! There’s no such things as Apples which can have degraded signal strength when touched either, but that didn’t stop you making the idiotic claim. OK lets clarify just for you. The IPhone antenna is a unique shape, a unique size, and positioned in a unique place. Lets take a uniquely shaped apple (lets say, a perfect right angle L shape), a unique sized apple (lets say it’s 10x bigger than any apple seen before), and position it in a unique place (I used the cloud example but that confused you), so lets say it is found growing in sand. Is an L shaped all, which is 10x bigger than any other apples, and found in sand, unique? OF COURSE. LMFAO!! It’s so simple you are laughable, lol.

‘You have no concept of logic or technology and at the same time, your ego makes you think you have a technical background and are more intelligent. In fact, your ego is so massive that you absolutely must argue with every single point I make. Not just a few, every one of them. You must try to prove yourself right in every way possible in every post, even if my argument is completely logical and proven in real life’

Yet again, you say so much without actually saying anything at all.. Your insults are a tragic last resort as you finally realise that you can NEVER prove that software can’t cause software to behave differently.

‘Antennas are governed by the same laws and theories, radio signals are affected by people and touch etc ‘

Again, you miss the entire point. Even IF they were all the same, technology wise (which they aren’t) and even IF they were all affected by touch (which they aren’t, by the way), you would STILL BE WRONG. Please, please read that. You are desperately trying to claim that the fact that all phones (according to you) lose signal when touched, and trying to say that therefore one phone doing something that all the others don’t MUST be that same problem. How can you prove one phone is doing one thing based on another phone doing something DIFFERENT? NOT ONLY THAT, but EVEN IF IT WAS the signal loss being greater on the IPhone, it WOULDN’T CHANGE A THING, because I could STILL REPRODUCE THIS PROBLEM USING SOFTWARE, and therefore it is POSSIBLE THAT THIS PROBLEM COULD BE CAUSED BY SOFTWARE. You are clinging to basic silly statements like ‘laws of physics’ apply without realising that your whole case is that they are being applied differently in this case, and STILL not realising that even IF it was true, it DOESN’T CHANGE the truth of what I said, at all, in that this problem could be caused by software.


‘Your ego is so big and you are so argumentative that your next post will even attempt to argue the point above, claiming that I'm just so wrong that you must argue every point. In actuality, you're just a pathetic troll who can't stand losing. And lost you did. I proved you were wrong so many times and proved you continue to come up with something stupidly different every few posts’

Yet again, angry insults flying round. Beyond ironic really since you’ve been arguing with every post since the very start, and in fact started to pick an idiotic argument in the first place by disagreeing with my OBVIOUS fact that just because the problem is triggered by hardware, doesn’t make it a hardware problem, and that it is possible it could be caused by software. How can you further your idiocy to the extent that you are now trying to ARGUE that ARGUING is ‘pathetic’ LOL!! How can someone be so stupid, to sit there arguing, and then insult someone else for arguing. That is BEYOND dumb. LOL!

‘The latest being a "unique antenna that is not affected the same way as other antennas".’

I think the whole world knows that this antenna is unique, apart from you. In fact, it being unique is the ONLY way it could ACTUALLY be a hardware problem, so to dispute that is BEYOND dumb. To also be so naïve to think that technology and advances can’t lead to antennas based on different technologies, despite the fact that they already exist, is also beyond belief. Finally, even IF there was only one antenna technology – it DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THIS PROBLEM COULD BE RE-CREATED BY MODIFYING THE SOFTARE, WHICH ALSO MEANS THAT IT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE SOFTWARE.

‘You even didn't understand the radio comparison, claiming that all cell phones would lose signal if you went near them’

Sarcasm escapes you then? My point was that it’s RIDICULOUS to say a Radio antenna and a mobile phone antenna are the same when YOUR OWN EXAMPLE proved that they behave differently.

‘You obviously don't understand signal strength at all. If the radio signal was already weak then the interference you cause when nearing and touching could be enough to make it lose its signal.’

Again, you’re exposing your complete lack of knowledge here. When a radio signal is already weak, the interference you cause when near it can make it lose it’s signal, that is a fact, which I agree with. It is ALSO A FACT that when you WALK NEAR A PHONE (which has a MUCH WEAKER SIGNAL to start with) – it DOESN’T LOSE IT’S SIGNAL. Hence, people can WALK PAST EACH OTHER WHILST TALKING. Why? Because the antenna technology is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

‘How does that mean all cell phones would lose their calls if you went near them?’

So sarcasm actually DOES escape you then? My whole point was that this claim is LAUGHABLE, and for YOUR point to be true, it would HAVE TO BE TRUE. Making your point laughable. I’m glad you laughed ;-)

‘Your BS is so laughable, I've posted some of your stuff to two friends on another forum, one works at Microsoft the other Intel. Both of them got a kick out of it. "Fanboys will say anything they can when confronted with real logic." to quote the Intel guy. So totally, unbelievably true, especially here.’

The fact that you’re crying so much you desperately claim that you’re so tragic to go posting obvious logic around to your ‘friends’, is already proof you’re broken. Lets face it, it’s a pretty desperate last resort to say ‘my mate agrees with me’ LMFAO.

It REMAINS a fact, that ANY PROBLEM which is ONLY MANIFESTED in software, COULD POSSIBLY be caused by that software. That is the one, simple, undeniable truth here, which nobody with any trace of intelligence could POSSIBLY deny.

‘Keep posting on your Apple-only related articles, fanboy. Keep coming up with "unique" ideas and theories. I will show the error of your ways every time I see the need.’

There’s only one theory here, and there has only been one theory, all along. It’s VERY simple, VERY obvious, and UNDENIABLE. So of course, you’re confused, you don’t get it, and you deny it (because you hate anything truthful which potentially makes Apple look good).

I will repeat the fundamental fact which, in essence – is the ONLY fact which I need to be true for my whole claim to be true. I (or any other software programmer) could write software which takes ANY ORDINARY PHONE , and causes this EXACT PROBLEM to occur. Deny that fact, and you deny that software can affect software. Accept that fact, and you inherently prove that this problem COULD be caused by software.

Game over – please insert coin ;-)

 

[beayn]

@watcha

This is your best post yet. There is some serious hilarity in here and I didn't even read the whole thing again.

The first thing I noticed when skimming your post is that you are angry I didn't read your whole post last time. I don't have to, and didn't this time. It's meaningless drivel, and large quantities of it. (Note: we'll talk about quantities later). I also notice you're angry because I pointed out you have a massive ego affecting your judgment. You got pretty upset throughout your last post because of it, tossing around even more insults than usual. Typical egotistical response.

You could not provide any evidence of your wild theories and so you have no basis for an argument whatsoever. Thus you are arguing for the sake of it, and I will always point it out when you do it.

You want me to say something like "there are UNIQUE things about the iPhone antenna that go beyond the basic laws of RF signals and antennas." If I told you I DID know those UNIQUE problems and they couldn't be fixed in software, you would then tell me there were OTHER UNIQUE problems that I don't know about. You would provide no solid evidence or theory behind what is happening, not even a BASIC ballpark explanation of what you claim. That's simply how you argue. You just make it up as you go along while claiming to be intelligent. It really is humorous.

I'm working off the basic ways behind how antennas work (which you proved you know nothing about), real life quantifiable incidents (other phones, radio devices & iphone itself) and sticking to the exact same point each time while usually ignoring anything else you claim that doesn't directly affect REAL signal loss.

You, however, keep coming up with random things like a "unique" antenna not affected by normal antenna & RF laws, special interference caused by your hand that can be detected and more idiotic and unproven points that are just plain hilarious they're so dumb. Your "logic" in trying to explain most of your crap is so backwards that 90% of the time it isn't even worth repeating.

Now, I already explained how the antenna is NOT unique and will do so again for your young, feeble mind to understand.

You are disputing that all antennas are governed by the same laws and theories... By your logic then, this means the radio signal received by Apple's antenna does NOT induce a current in the material? I suppose it isn't sensitive to positioning either, meaning it won't reflect any signal? It has no impedance? Is its length tuned to the frequency wavelength it's receiving or does that not apply either? Does it work on electricity? Is it not affected by grounding at all or other electromagnetic fields? (ie: People).

You're so clueless it's hilarious. Seriously, Wikipedia Antennas and you'll get some basic info on them. It should give you the basics and is actually relatively simple for someone with a tech background. They explain the way it works for all antennas, including those on radios and cell phones, wifi etc.

Claiming there is something beyond the basic laws which govern these things that totally defies said laws is more evidence of your LACK of understanding. When people can't explain stuff, they often call it "magic". A word used often by fanboys such as yourself. Since you can't explain your theories, they are simply magical to you.

By your flawed logic using the 1 apple, 2 apples analogy that was clearly too complicated for you, it would mean EVERY SINGLE antenna in the world that is a different length and shape is totally UNIQUE and thus governed by an entirely different set of RF laws. The sheer idiocy in your statement is astounding.

Also consider that your 'L' shaped apple that is 10x larger than normal and placed in the sand is still an apple. Even if it is unique among apples due to its shape and size, it is STILL an apple governed by said laws. Its taste, texture, density, and genetic structure is all still an apple. If it is not governed by the basic things that define the apple, then it is NOT an apple at all, is it. It's something else entirely.

By your logic, that must mean that the iPhone antenna is not actually an antenna... AND If all different length and shaped antennas are all unique and governed by different laws, then none of them are actually antennas, are they? How can you define an "antenna" or an "apple" if they are completely different and each governed by a different set of laws?

I realize this is quite a complicated philosophical idea for you to understand, but you must try. It's pure comedy watching you try.

You are also claiming that the fact that it is "behaving differently" (because I said it was MORE sensitive to interference) means it is TOTALLY UNIQUE and thus I'm somehow contradicting myself and proving your point. This is the most ridiculous logic I've ever seen and more great entertainment. This is your favorite way to argue as proven in many different posts.

Again, you must re-read the apple analogy and strain to understand the fundamental difference between one and two apples. Concentrate now. Nothing but the difference between ONE and TWO apples. Anyone with basic cognitive functions should come to the conclusion that the difference is QUANTITY. By simple logic then, having MORE or LESS of something, does not make it UNIQUE. You can then logically conclude that iPhone's antenna has more signal loss (or less signal strength depending on how you look at it), but it doesn't make it UNIQUE because of that.

We can even apply your flawed logic about QUANTITY being UNIQUE to the QUANTITY of BS you spew each day. Just because the amount you SPEW each day is DIFFERENT, does not mean it isn't still BS. Each post is not UNIQUE because it is a different size, it's still crap and it's still meaningless.

Now after confronted with logic, the fanboy will respond with your usual twisted logic. You'll say that you weren't ACTUALLY disputing the laws of RF and antennas but that Apple's antenna is SO UNIQUE due to its SHAPE, it has some special UNIQUE RF laws that apply ONLY to it. When I ask what those laws are, you won't have any to provide. You will simply say I don't know them and I will add it to the long list of UNIQUE (failed) stuff to do with the iPhone that you have come up with. Oh, and again we'll have to define all differently shaped antennas as UNIQUE.

Next, On TOP OF ALL THIS, you even dispute the LAWS OF PHYSICS by saying quote: "It’s like saying that all OBJECTS are governed by the same laws of PHYSICS." Are you serious? You really just claimed this as a point in your favor? You're actually disputing that all antennas are governed by the same laws by disputing the fact that all objects are governed by the same laws of physics? Hysterical!! This is by far your BEST ONE YET.

So this means the laws of physics do NOT apply to Apple. They have their very own set of MAGICAL laws of Non-Physics that govern everything they do. Funniest one yet!

Like I said, it's great entertainment to see you continue to come up with these things and use them as a point of argument while insulting my intelligence. The sheer hypocrisy and utter stupidity involved in all of your comments is mind boggling and just pure comedy gold. AND they get better each time.

You said: "Some BS about if signal loss happens, ALL phones would lose their calls." You are ignoring signal STRENGTH again. Keep twisting your "logic" to suit your needs. It makes you look dumber every time.

Yes, I plan to share your humorous, twisted logic with my friends again. They'll get a kick out of your disputing the laws of physics. It's like linking failblog vids to your friends. Don't get angry just because you have no fanboy friends to share your UNIQUE drivel with.

My point stands true no matter what laws you try to dispute. People interfere with signals. Signal strength can be reduced with said interference. Signal strength can not be fixed in Software. The iPhone has the same type of antenna as every other cell phone out there regardless of shapes as proven with the "apple" analogy that you set up for me so eloquently. The iPhone is more prone to human interference by touch because the antenna is exposed. Everything else you say is pure unsubstantiated drivel.

Now, put down your "Apple Educated! Diploma" and stop thinking in "magical" terms. There are real laws of physics at work in the world and they govern that world. Antennas too! Apple can not defy them or make up their own laws, and neither can you!

 

[watcha]

@beayn

‘The first thing I noticed when skimming your post is that you are angry I didn't read your whole post last time. I don't have to, and didn't this time. It's meaningless drivel, and large quantities of it. (Note: we'll talk about quantities later). I also notice you're angry because I pointed out you have a massive ego affecting your judgment. You got pretty upset throughout your last post because of it, tossing around even more insults than usual. Typical egotistical response.’

Yeah, cos saying somebody is angry is a really good way to prove them wrong? Not to mention that you actually have to tell yourself I’m angry just to make yourself feel better for having no answers to the obvious truth I’m stating. In case you misinterpreted capital letters as anger, I only included them because the only explanation for your idiocy is that you missed them the first time.

‘You could not provide any evidence of your wild theories and so you have no basis for an argument whatsoever. Thus you are arguing for the sake of it, and I will always point it out when you do it. ‘

Sorry? There is no evidence that software can make software behave differently? LMFAO! Not to mention the fact that I already said I don’t have to PROVE anything for it to be POSSIBLE. Even if the reality was that it was a hardware issue, it would still not make me wrong. As I’ve also said, since you’re stating that it MUST be a hardware issue, you in fact have to prove that this is the case.

‘You want me to say something like "there are UNIQUE things about the iPhone antenna that go beyond the basic laws of RF signals and antennas." If I told you I DID know those UNIQUE problems and they couldn't be fixed in software, you would then tell me there were OTHER UNIQUE problems that I don't know about. You would provide no solid evidence or theory behind what is happening, not even a BASIC ballpark explanation of what you claim. That's simply how you argue. You just make it up as you go along while claiming to be intelligent. It really is humorous.’

You say nothing whatsoever, again, in this lengthy tearful paragraph. Again, you refer to the IPhone specifically though, which makes me wonder if you even know what we’re arguing about. I invite you to journey back and realise that this whole discussion is based on the fact that the issues WHICH ARE SEEN in the IPhone COULD POSSIBLY be caused by software. Not that they are, or anything PROVABLE, just a simple statement that the possibility exists. It’s beyond belief that you are still trying to maintain that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for software to cause software issues.

‘I'm working off the basic ways behind how antennas work (which you proved you know nothing about), real life quantifiable incidents (other phones, radio devices & iphone itself) and sticking to the exact same point each time while usually ignoring anything else you claim that doesn't directly affect REAL signal loss. ‘

Again – if you look closely you make no actual points here. You effectively just said ‘im looking at other phones, and incidents’. It’s a completely meaningless, content-free, point-less comment. And to suggest I’ve deviated at all, just shows your inability to read, particularly after the long post which proved you wrong on that count.

‘You, however, keep coming up with random things like a "unique" antenna not affected by normal antenna & RF laws, special interference caused by your hand that can be detected and more idiotic and unproven points that are just plain hilarious they're so dumb. Your "logic" in trying to explain most of your crap is so backwards that 90% of the time it isn't even worth repeating.’

This time you go back to false claims? Saying an antenna is unique is not the same as saying it ISN’T affected by ‘normal’ antenna and RF laws (which btw, is so vague you may as well not have said the sentence at all). First of all, it’s possible for any new type of antenna to respond to any of these ‘normal’ laws in any way. Secondly, even if it was responding in exactly the same way as all other antennas, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The point is that it’s doing something… ELSE. Something which other devices which follow the ‘normal’ rules DON’T. You claim it’s doing the same, but more, but you try to evidence this by pointing to the devices that DON’T do ‘more’. So even IF EVERY antenna had to respond in the exact same way (which it doesn’t), and even IF the IPhone antenna worked exactly the same way as other phones (which it DOESN’T), it STILL wouldn’t mean that I couldn’t reproduce this problem by programming software. Which in turn means that it could potentially be a software problem.

‘Now, I already explained how the antenna is NOT unique and will do so again for your young, feeble mind to understand.’

Yeah, you’re right, the antenna which the whole world has described as unique, the uniqueness of which being the very fabric of your whole argument that the antenna is to blame, is in fact, the same as the rest. LMFAO.

‘You are disputing that all antennas are governed by the same laws and theories...’

Again, your inability to understand English is exposed. Your definition of ‘laws and theories’ is so vague you may as well not even say it, by the way. You may aswell say ‘all objects follow the laws of physics’ in an attempt to prove that a mountain will behave the same when you kick it as air does.

‘By your logic then, this means the radio signal received by Apple's antenna does NOT induce a current in the material?’

When have I ever said anything remotely meaning that? You’re now claiming I said that the Antenna doesn’t get a signal? LOL

‘I suppose it isn't sensitive to positioning either, meaning it won't reflect any signal? It has no impedance? Is its length tuned to the frequency wavelength it's receiving or does that not apply either? Does it work on electricity? Is it not affected by grounding at all or other electromagnetic fields? (ie: People).’

The sensitivity to all of the above is dependant on a whole host of factors. The size, the shape, the location, any insulated covering, the sensitivity, the signal strength. AS A RESULT, the fact that it is DIFFERENT IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES means it will RESPOND DIFFERENT IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES. Even IF it was the same size, the same material and exactly the same sensitivity and technology as other phones, that does NOT prove that this has to be a hardware issue. There are numerous ways to engineer antennas and each of them produce antennas with different sensitivities to interference. Your whole argument is based around this premise. You claim that the antenna is more sensitive to interference because of its location, whilst at the same time claiming that the claim (I made) that antennas can be affected by interference at different levels depending on a whole host of factors is ‘hilarious’. Your own logic completely defeats your point. If an antenna can be MORE susceptible to interference, it NECESSARILY follows that antennas CAN BE LESS susceptible to interference. And IF that was the case (which IS possible), the additional ‘interference’ manifested purely in the software, could just as easily be caused by the software.

‘You're so clueless it's hilarious. Seriously, Wikipedia Antennas and you'll get some basic info on them. It should give you the basics and is actually relatively simple for someone with a tech background. They explain the way it works for all antennas, including those on radios and cell phones, wifi etc.’

Again, this statement has no content or logical argument at all. I may as well tell you to go and look on wikipedia for ‘phones’ or ‘software’ because it is an alien concept to you, but that would just be an angry last resort, so lets not be tragic ;-)

‘Claiming there is something beyond the basic laws which govern these things that totally defies said laws is more evidence of your LACK of understanding. When people can't explain stuff, they often call it "magic". A word used often by fanboys such as yourself. Since you can't explain your theories, they are simply magical to you.’

LMFAO!!! New winner for dumbest statement yet. Now you’re claiming that my argument that different materials, technologies, sizes, shapes and orientations of antennas can respond differently is in fact an argument that basic laws don’t apply? Beyond dumb. You know, it’s absolutely ironic. You’re reaching the conclusion that I must be stupid because you are too stupid to properly interpret anything I’ve said. ;-)

‘By your flawed logic using the 1 apple, 2 apples analogy that was clearly too complicated for you, it would mean EVERY SINGLE antenna in the world that is a different length and shape is totally UNIQUE and thus governed by an entirely different set of RF laws. The sheer idiocy in your statement is astounding.’

Sorry, this again is a completely false conclusion. Sometimes I wonder why your comments make no sense, and have no relevance to any of my points. What I SAID would mean that:

Firstly: Antennas of different lengths, shapes sizes ARE unique, that is correct. Do you know what unique means? If there isn’t one the same, it’s unique. Arguably, each apple is unique too (showing your previous example to be wrong again)
Secondly: Saying something is UNIQUE does NOT, (I repeat does NOT) mean the same thing as saying that fundamental laws of physics don’t apply. It simply means that the item in question will RESPOND DIFFERENTLY by applying the SAME LAWS in DIFFERENT CONTEXTS (such as my ice cube example by the sun, or at the north pole). Not only that, but depending on the technology and materials in question, sometimes the SAME LAWS may not even APPLY. What YOU’RE claiming is like saying that a Cathode Ray Tube must behave the same way as an LCD because the ‘same laws apply’. LOL. It’s RIDICULOUS. It’s like you don’t even recognise that there are different ways to pick up radio signals, different ways to protect against interference, different technologies to amplify and filter etc, there’s just THOUSANDS of variables, and yet you’re trying to argue that they MUST always (and this includes in the future too) behave the same. You just don’t get it, lol.

‘Also consider that your 'L' shaped apple that is 10x larger than normal and placed in the sand is still an apple’

So does that mean when I kick it it will roll away?

‘Even if it is unique among apples due to its shape and size, it is STILL an apple governed by said laws. Its taste, texture, density, and genetic structure is all still an apple’

How do you know? If scientists found an L shaped apple which was 10x the size and grows in sand, it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY it isn’t the same test, texture, density OR genetic structure. HIGHLY unliky. Even if it was made of the same material, the very shape itself would inherently cause differences to the density, taste and texture, not to mention the size issue that it would have an entirely different physical composition. At the very least, no scientist would EVER try to CLAIM that this unique, L-Shaped apple which is 10x the size of a normal one and grows in completely separate conditions, must BEHAVE THE SAME WAY AND RESPOND TO EVERYTHING IN THE SAME WAY as a normal Apple. They would just NEVER be that stupid, presumptuous or illogical.

‘If it is not governed by the basic things that define the apple, then it is NOT an apple at all, is it. It's something else entirely.’

This could not really be much further from correct. You’ve completely lost your sense of direction whilst making this point. An Apple can be unique, and can behave completely differently to other apples, and yet still be defined as an Apple. That is a fact. Is it a ‘basic’ law of an Apple that it must roll away when I kick it? Of course not? Would a normal Apple roll? Of course. Would our L shaped apple roll? Of course not. Does this prove that two objects with the same ‘label’ can behave differently? Of course. Not to mention that for my example to be correct, we could EVEN be talking about IDENTICAL APPLES, but placed in different situations, different surroundings, and read/interpreted in different ways. And finally (I know I’ve already found about 10 ways in which you’re wrong AND irrelevant) but finally, the definition of an ‘antenna’ does not specify ANYTHING to do with a) what it’s made of b) what it actually picks up b) how it picks it up .. or really ANYTHING, other than something which picks up some kind of signal from something, it DOESN’T EVEN HAVE TO BE ELECTROMAGNETIC. So that makes it...11 ways in which your comment was completely irrelevant and wrong.

Lets make it 12? EVEN IF this antenna was the same as every other phone and NOT unique, it STILL doesn’t change the fact that I could reproduce this problem in any phone, using SOFTWARE. So it STILL wouldn’t mean anything. So why are you so idiotically pursuing an argument that isn’t even relevant? Let alone the fact that it couldn’t be much further from the truth.

‘By your logic, that must mean that the iPhone antenna is not actually an antenna... AND If all different length and shaped antennas are all unique and governed by different laws, then none of them are actually antennas, are they?’

Again, you seem to fail to interpret basic English. I never said it wasn’t an antenna, I simply said that a DIFFERENT antenna can respond in a DIFFERENT WAY. It couldn’t be much more obvious, to be honest.

‘How can you define an "antenna" or an "apple" if they are completely different and each governed by a different set of laws?’

This is, I think, the fundamental area where your brain just can’t comprehend, lol. If we label a car and a motorbike a VEHICLE, does that mean that a motorbike behaves the same way as a car? OH wait, have you now realised that things can be DIFFERENT whilst still being defined as the same word? Congratulations, you just passed year 1 of play school. LMFA!

‘Again, you must re-read the apple analogy and strain to understand the fundamental difference between one and two apples. Concentrate now. Nothing but the difference between ONE and TWO apples. Anyone with basic cognitive functions should come to the conclusion that the difference is QUANTITY. By simple logic then, having MORE or LESS of something, does not make it UNIQUE’

Actually, it does. If one car is the only car in the world to have 10 wheels, it IS UNIQUE. That is a fact. Quantity alone CAN be enough to define uniqueness, PARTICULARLY when comparing the object that contains those sub collections as a whole. Even if you look at the individual apples, you could argue that the apple on it’s own is unique because it’s on it’s own. You seem to not understand what unique means, to be honest. For this whole point to even be relevant you would have to show that the Apple Iphone was not infact a new phone with a totally unique aerial (as the world already knows), and that it instead it has 2 (or any multiple) of the same antennas as some other phone. And EVEN IF YOU COULD PROVE THAT complete lie – it would STILL be unique because the antennas would impact each other in a way that a single one wouldn’t be, causing different responses in various conditions.

‘We can even apply your flawed logic about QUANTITY being UNIQUE to the QUANTITY of BS you spew each day. Just because the amount you SPEW each day is DIFFERENT, does not mean it isn't still BS. Each post is not UNIQUE because it is a different size, it's still crap and it's still meaningless.’

Er, of course it is? JUST LIKE THE ANTENNA EXAMPLE, each post is unique because it is a different size, shape, location, and has different surroundings (context). Of COURSE each comment is unique. How are you seriously this stupid? Lol

‘Now after confronted with logic, the fanboy will respond with your usual twisted logic.’

LOL

‘You'll say that you weren't ACTUALLY disputing the laws of RF and antennas but that Apple's antenna is SO UNIQUE due to its SHAPE, it has some special UNIQUE RF laws that apply ONLY to it. When I ask what those laws are, you won't have any to provide.’

So you realised how stupid you were, again, before you even typed. I don’t have to prove that any unique RF laws apply. Even if the same laws applied, and even if the antenna wasn’t unique, and even if the Apple antenna was just two Nokia antennas shoved together, it would STILL NOT MATTER. Even putting aside the comprehensive proof I’ve provided as to why all of what you claimed is not the case, the fundamental point you don’t realise is that EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT IN TERMS OF THE ANTENNA DESIGN, IT WOULDN’T MATTER – because I could still reproduce the effects of the antenna in this case using software. As a result, it is POSSIBLE for the problem we saw in this case to be caused by software. ;-) You’ve now become so irrelevant that even if I posed the hypothetical situation that everything you said was correct, you would STILL BE WRONG, lool!

‘Next, On TOP OF ALL THIS, you even dispute the LAWS OF PHYSICS by saying quote: "It’s like saying that all OBJECTS are governed by the same laws of PHYSICS." Are you serious? You really just claimed this as a point in your favor?’

Yes, precisely. The fact IS that all objects are governed by the laws of physics, but that can NEVER BE USED in ANY WAY to try and prove that say, cheese will behave the same way as COPPER when faced with say, an electric current. The point (which I genuinely think you just didn’t get) is that it’s a NOTHING-STATEMENT, A TRUISM, an IRRELEVANT OBVIOUS TRUTH. THAT’S why it was a ‘point in my favour’ – because it was obvious, irrelevant, and didn’t prove a thing?

‘You're actually disputing that all antennas are governed by the same laws by disputing the fact that all objects are governed by the same laws of physics? Hysterical!! This is by far your BEST ONE YET. ‘

Sadly, this is the proof of my suspicions, that you just don’t realise what people are saying when they criticise. I think you are genuinely not intelligent enough to discuss with, but I’ll continue anyway because it’s fun/

‘So this means the laws of physics do NOT apply to Apple. They have their very own set of MAGICAL laws of Non-Physics that govern everything they do. Funniest one yet!’

… which makes this sentence all the more hilarious. ;-)

‘Like I said, it's great entertainment to see you continue to come up with these things and use them as a point of argument while insulting my intelligence. The sheer hypocrisy and utter stupidity involved in all of your comments is mind boggling and just pure comedy gold. AND they get better each time.’

Again, no content whatsoever.

‘You said: "Some BS about if signal loss happens, ALL phones would lose their calls." You are ignoring signal STRENGTH again. Keep twisting your "logic" to suit your needs. It makes you look dumber every time.’

LOL, so now you’re saying that the problem is SPECIFIC to Apple because the Apple phones have lower SIGNAL STRENGTH than ANY OTHER PHONE? Lmfao!!!!!!!!!

‘Yes, I plan to share your humorous, twisted logic with my friends again. They'll get a kick out of your disputing the laws of physics. It's like linking failblog vids to your friends. Don't get angry just because you have no fanboy friends to share your UNIQUE drivel with.’

= just in from our ‘cry for help’ department.

‘My point stands true no matter what laws you try to dispute. People interfere with signals. Signal strength can be reduced with said interference. Signal strength can not be fixed in Software.’

Again, your point, if as stated above, has been irrelevant from the start. My point all along is that we don’t actually KNOW that the ACTUAL signal strength is reduced, all we KNOW is that the software is telling us it is. In this case, as I have said all along, the problem could be caused by EITHER the hardware actually suffering signal loss OR the software MISREPRESENTING the signal. That is so obvious, when you read it it must make you cry that you dispute it. The whole premise of your argument is that it is a FACT that the signal is reduced, but that is a FALSE assumption – and is NOT NECESSARILY the case, in every case. For example, a case where I take a normal phone which isn’t adversely affected as much as you claim the iphone is, and I program the software to report lower signal loss when certain conditions are met, such as the pressure on a particular point which can be detected. That example alone, PROVES my point, which has been my point all along, that JUST because a problem is TRIGGERED by hardware, DOESN’T necessarily make it a HARDWARE problem, PARTICULARLY when the ONLY EVIDENCE OF THE PROBLEM is within the software. It’s OBVIOUS.

You also can’t prove that it’s a FACT that the signal is lost MORE in the Iphone based on the fact that it is lost LESS on another phone. That’s another huge flaw in your whole point.

‘The iPhone has the same type of antenna as every other cell phone out there regardless of shapes as proven with the "apple" analogy that you set up for me so eloquently.’

Even if this were true, your whole argument is that the ‘same types of antenna’ can behave differently. Your whole argument is that the IPhone antenna is behaving differently, so you render your own argument irrelevant.

‘The iPhone is more prone to human interference by touch because the antenna is exposed. Everything else you say is pure unsubstantiated drivel.’

Again, EVEN IF this were true, it DOESN’T mean that the SAME PROBLEM can’t POSSIBLY be caused by software. Even assuming this claim is correct, it has NO relevance to my original claim whatsoever. And you should note, I’ve ALWAYS and CONSISTENTLY (from post one) said that the problem could JUST AS EASILY be caused by Hardware.

‘Now, put down your "Apple Educated! Diploma" and stop thinking in "magical" terms. There are real laws of physics at work in the world and they govern that world. Antennas too! Apple can not defy them or make up their own laws, and neither can you!’

Yes, we all have to live by the ‘real laws of physics’ and that means that the space rocket is in fact, the same as a block of cheese. In fact, I wonder why NASA doesn’t save money by arguing that Cheese follows the laws of nature just as much as their rockets do, and therefore they must behave in the same way?

L M F A O ;-)

 

[beayn]

@watcha Too much crap, didn't read.

You still don't understand. You continue to claim that "the iphone's antenna is so unique that it is affected in a unique way when you touch it that makes the software misinterpret the signal strength and somehow report a lower strength without there being any actual signal loss". This is what you said, this is what I'm disputing. There is real signal loss. It was proven and it is part of the basic RF laws. Signals are affected by other electromagnetic fields, other signals, and a host of other things. You're claiming the iphone is NOT affected by said things, that it is just some magical software problem.

You said: "Sorry? There is no evidence that software can make software behave differently?"

That isn't what I have been arguing about. YOU are the only one who has said this. I have IGNORED it until now.

You say you can recreate the problem in software? You can make it say anything you like, but the fact will remain when you touch it, there will be signal loss regardless of if you force it to report something different. There is real signal strength reduction from interference. There are no unique laws that apply to Apple's antenna that don't apply to every other antenna. It's what I've said from start, especially when you refused to believe that Anandtech's article was accurate and that Marcus Yam was also incorrect.

Now you've even disputed the laws of physics without a full understanding of how they apply to objects. What makes it all even funnier is that you actually think you're RIGHT.

You said: "cheese will behave the same way as COPPER when faced with say, an electric current. "

So the Apple's antenna is NOT an antenna? You can't say comparing copper to cheese is like comparing Apple's antenna to another antenna. They are both the same thing, not COMPLETELY different. They are both Antennas. If they aren't, the sky isn't blue (and I'm sure you'll argue that too).

I already explained "how do you define an antenna" If it is SO DIFFERENT that it has has totally different laws that apply to it, then it is NOT AN ANTENNA. Pretty simple concept. I should have known it would be beyond you. We will get no where if you simply can't agree on something so basic as the DEFINITION of something like "what is an antenna". More arguing for the sake of it.

You said: "Actually, it does. If one car is the only car in the world to have 10 wheels, it IS UNIQUE. That is a fact. "

It's still a car. It still transports you around by rolling on wheels. It might be unique among cars, but it's still governed by the laws of cars. Like your cheese and copper analogy, if your car was an elephant, it wouldn't be a car would it? More arguing for the sake of it.

Arguing that quantity makes something unique isn't even worth arguing. Again, you're arguing for the sake of it because you know you've lost. I made it clear that quantity is not unique. Take your cars example. If one car goes faster than another, it's still a car, it just has MORE SPEED. It does NOT make it unique just because it's faster and it does NOT make it an elephant by your definition.

But..it's what you do. You just babble on about anything you can, in fact, EVERYTHING you can just for the sake of it. You have no real basis for an argument in any paragraph you posted and it's all just a waste of storage space. This is why I don't read your whole post.

You say the rules that define an apple make it an apple is incorrect? haha. Your argument is so trivial and stupid it isn't worth a response. Again, arguing for the sake of it. The concept I said in the previous post was totally correct and you have no valid argument against it.

What you argue in every post is just every single thing. Our discussion can NEVER get anywhere if you can't agree on a SINGLE THING that is said. Even when trying to form the basis of a definition of a word or concept, you disagree and argue about it to no end. It's no wonder you don't understand basic technology, you would just argue about every concept the entire time when learning it.

Would you happen to be from Texas? Perhaps your name begins with an S or J? I know two people just like you down there.

You lose again, btw. Keep up the entertainment! I'll expect some new and UNIQUE thing that the iphone can do within a few posts.

 

[watcha]

@beayn

‘watcha Too much crap, didn't read.’

Yeah, like I said, your inability to read is why you keep failing

‘You still don't understand. You continue to claim that "the iphone's antenna is so unique that it is affected in a unique way when you touch it that makes the software misinterpret the signal strength and somehow report a lower strength without there being any actual signal loss"’

That is 100% incorrect. Read that previous sentence. All I have actually claimed is that DUE TO THE FACT that the antenna is UNIQUE, it COULD respond differently to being touched, it COULD not be affected that much, it also COULD BE badly affected. My simple claim has NEVER been to state what the ACTUAL cause is, but simply to state that it IS POSSIBLE for that SAME PROBLEM to be caused by software.

‘There is real signal loss.’

Like we’ve been through before, even IF the signal loss was real and caused by the hardware (which, in EVERY SINGLE POST I’ve written I stated was possible), it DOES NOT PROVE ME WRONG. You just don’t understand, do you? My claim all along has been that the problems seen on the IPhone COULD POSSIBLY be caused by either Software, or Hardware, or both. Whatever it is ACTUALLY caused by doesn’t change that fact.

‘It was proven and it is part of the basic RF laws.’

Even IF it was proven in the case of the IPhone, it wouldn’t matter. It doesn’t change the fact that the problem could just have easily been caused by software. If you say it’s a ‘part of the basic RF Laws’ which again, is so vague you may as well not have said it, then by your own logic – EVERY phone has to follow those same laws. Given that NOT EVERY phone has the signal problems, just saying ‘it follows normal laws’ means NOTHING, unless you claim that the IPhone is the only phone which follows them? LOL

‘Signals are affected by other electromagnetic fields, other signals, and a host of other things. You're claiming the iphone is NOT affected by said things, that it is just some magical software problem.’

Again, this is completely untrue. You are just unable to read things properly. I have said it is POSSIBLE that EVEN IF THE IPHONE IS AFFECTED BY EVERYTHING that SOME other antennas are affected by (and I say some because ALL ANTENAS are affected IN DIFFERENT DEGREES AND WAYS to various other fields ‘and other things’ (lol)) – the WHOLE point is that each phone and its antenna is affected by those SAME FACTORS, in a DIFFERENT WAY. The WHOLE point of your argument is that the IPhone is MORE sensitive to these factors (or it wouldn’t lose more signal), and yet you try to DEFEND that claim by saying they all have to behave the same?

Not only that, but YET again, EVEN IF the issue IS ACTUALLY 100% HARDWARE, it DOESN’T mean that it couldn’t have been caused by software. Let me try to simplify it for you. You find a ball in the park. Some guy comes along, and says, ‘It is possible that this ball was placed in the park by a man’. What you are then saying is ‘no, it was a robot who did it, here’s the proof’. The original guy then replies by saying ‘how does that prove that it isn’t possible for the ball to be placed in the park by a man’. You JUST DON’T GET IT DO YOU. That guy, has ALL ALONG stated that the ball could have been placed there by a MAN, OR a ROBOT, yet you think that stating that it ‘WAS A ROBOT’ proves him wrong. It’s just completely illogical :-(

‘You said: "Sorry? There is no evidence that software can make software behave differently?"

That isn't what I have been arguing about. YOU are the only one who has said this. I have IGNORED it until now. ‘

LOL, this was THE WHOLE POINT I MADE FROM MY VERY FIRST POST. That the software COULD cause this. You now say that all this time every single one of your disagreements with me has been COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT? Unfortunately for you, even making this claim, you’d still be wrong, since you claimed that I was wrong to say that it COULD be caused by software, so it is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the argument and that is where your whole point fell down.

‘You say you can recreate the problem in software? You can make it say anything you like, but the fact will remain when you touch it, there will be signal loss regardless of if you force it to report something different.’

So you now realise that the same issues CAN be caused by software. ‘You can make it say anything you like’. That COMPLETELY ends the argument, by PROVING that you finally realised the OBVIOUS truth that this COULD be caused by software, what I’ve said from post 1, in every single post right up until now

‘There is real signal strength reduction from interference.’

Again, this doesn’t change the fact that the same results can be achieved within software. Other phones prove that to have an antenna you don’t have to have an antenna which loses the signal to the extent that the Apple does. That in itself proves that it is possible to have an antenna which doesn’t cause this problem. Combine that fact with the fact that you FINALLY realised that software can do anything the programmer wants, AND YOUR OWN POINTS HAVE PROVED MY POINT CORRECT – that this problem can be caused by software.

‘There are no unique laws that apply to Apple's antenna that don't apply to every other antenna’

That is irrelevant. Again, that’s like saying ‘all laws of physics apply to all objects’ whilst trying to claim that rock behaves the same as water. The WHOLE POINT is that as DIFFERENT OBJECTS the same laws produce DIFFERENT RESULTS.

‘It's what I've said from start, especially when you refused to believe that Anandtech's article was accurate and that Marcus Yam was also incorrect.’

Yet again, your failure to read surfaces. In EVERY SINGLE POST from the word go, I’ve stated, EXPLICITLY, that it COULD be caused by hardware. I NEVER stated categorically that there wasn’t a problem with the hardware, or that there wasn’t interference, I simply stated the OBVIOUS fact which is that it is POSSIBLE that the SAME ISSUE could be caused by software. Not that it WAS caused by software, or that it IS caused by software in this case, simply that it COULD BE. Other phones are the proof that it is possible to have an antenna which doesn’t cause the problems you claim the hardware of the iphone has. That proves that just because ‘all antennas follow the same rules’ doesn’t mean that any phone with an antenna will suffer the same signal loss you claim Apple does. THAT fact, combined with the fact that as you FINALLY realised, software can make the screen say anything, ENTIRELY make my point all along.

‘You said: "cheese will behave the same way as COPPER when faced with say, an electric current. "’

Actually, I stated that if what YOU said was relevant, THAT would HAVE to be the case. You are just too dumb to understand, lol. You tried to claim that the Antenna in the Apple MUST be behaving the same way as every other Antenna, simply on the basis that it is called an ‘Antenna’. I took that ridiculously dumb response to the extreme, by saying that both Cheese and Copper are physical objects, and therefore, ACCORDING TO YOU, they should behave the same way. The idea was to make you realise that just because objects are labelled in the same way, DOES NOT MEAN they behave the same way, or respond the same way to things. Clearly you just didn’t get it. :-(

‘So the Apple's antenna is NOT an antenna?’

I’ve never said anything which even remotely implies this. Please learn to read.

‘You can't say comparing copper to cheese is like comparing Apple's antenna to another antenna. They are both the same thing, not COMPLETELY different. They are both Antennas. If they aren't, the sky isn't blue (and I'm sure you'll argue that too).’

Cheese and copper are both physical objects, which follow the ‘normal’ laws oh physics. Does that mean they respond in the same way? To claim that the antennas are the same, well lets start by saying that it DOESN’T EVEN MATTER, EVEN IF THEY ARE – it’s completely irrelevant, because even if Apple did use the exact same antenna, it wouldn’t change the fact that software could have caused these issues. Now to prove it wrong anyway (as irrelevant as it is) – To claim that two objects which are different sizes, different shapes, different thicknesses, densities, different materials, connected to different equipment with different components, in a different shaped phone with a different orientation .. is THE SAME THING? Is beyond dumb. You’re whole argument hinges on the point that they are NOT the same – if they WERE THE SAME then there wouldn’t be any issues. If, within your definition, the ‘same’ objects are allowed to respond in different ways (lol), that would make the label of the ‘same’ COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Like I said, it would be like saying that cheese and copper are the same, because they are both made of atoms. Just to repeat, so you stop wasting your time being wrong AND irrelevant – even IF the antenna was EXACTLY THE SAME as ANY OTHER PHONE, it wouldn’t contradict my original point, which was that software could recreate the ‘apparent’ lost signal in the case of the IPhone. You need to journey back to my very first posts to actually understand what you’re trying to disprove, because this post right here is basically proving my point. The whole discussion centred around the fact that just because a problem is TRIGGERED by hardware, doesn’t mean that it is necessarily a hardware fault, particularly when the only way of detecting the problem is via the software. Even if you went on to prove that the IPhone issues are caused by hardware (which I’ve always maintained is possible) , it WOULDN’T CHANGE THE TRUTH OF MY VERY SIMPLE STATEMENT.

I understand that you’re now changing your argument though. Initially you were arguing that this COULDN’T be caused by software, and now you’ve tried to change it to IN THIS CASE IT ISN’T caused by software, two very different things. Fortunately, if you DO reduce your argument to that, then you render every single point you’ve made irrelevant.

‘I already explained "how do you define an antenna" If it is SO DIFFERENT that it has has totally different laws that apply to it, then it is NOT AN ANTENNA. Pretty simple concept. I should have known it would be beyond you. We will get no where if you simply can't agree on something so basic as the DEFINITION of something like "what is an antenna". More arguing for the sake of it.’

That is THE MOST RIRICULOUS definition I’ve ever heard. Why don’t we say that copper and cheese are the same because ‘totally different laws’ don’t apply to them? Ironically, your definition of an antenna is COMPLETELY wrong anyway. An antenna is not defined by the ‘laws’ which apply – but why what it attempts to do, ie to pick up electromagnetic ways. But I don’t really understand why you’re trying to talk about the definition anyway? Are you trying to prove that the IPhone has an antenna? Because if so, that’s pretty pointless given that every man and his dog knows it. Perhaps you think that if you define it as an antenna it will mean that it HAS to behave the same way as ANYTHING else you define as an antenna? But surely, even you wouldn’t be that stupid, since your whole argument is that it behaves differently?

‘You said: "Actually, it does. If one car is the only car in the world to have 10 wheels, it IS UNIQUE. That is a fact. "

It's still a car. It still transports you around by rolling on wheels. It might be unique among cars, but it's still governed by the laws of cars. Like your cheese and copper analogy, if your car was an elephant, it wouldn't be a car would it? More arguing for the sake of it.’

Why would you be so irrelevant to say ‘its still a car?’ when my whole point was precisely that. You also admit it’s unique due to QUANTITY, which is the EXACT point you denied in your former post. Do you not even understand what point is being proven when you get out-argued? :s You claimed that just having MORE of something doesn’t make it unique. That is INCORRECT. I simply proved this with a simple car example, by proving that a 10-wheeled car could be unique, and you respond to that by saying ‘it’s a car’? I NEVER expected you to be so retarded, tbh.

‘but it's still governed by the laws of cars’

This is both true, and false. Like I said before, you could argue that EVERY OBJECT in the WORLD is governed by the laws of PHYSICS (which encompass every other ‘law’ you mention), but it’s a truism, an irrelevance, a meaningless statement, because THE CAR WITH 10 WHEELS WILL RESPOND IN DIFFERENT WAYS to a whole selection of environmental effects. So you see now, that labelling it a car DOES NOT MEAN it will respond in the same way, so if you label something a car IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN it will behave in the same way as cars that you are familiar with.


‘Arguing that quantity makes something unique isn't even worth arguing. Again, you're arguing for the sake of it because you know you've lost. I made it clear that quantity is not unique. Take your cars example. If one car goes faster than another, it's still a car, it just has MORE SPEED. It does NOT make it unique just because it's faster and it does NOT make it an elephant by your definition.’

It’s like you aren’t even aware of what you just said. You already admitted that a 10-wheeled-car is unique, lets make it a 1,000 wheel car, is it unique? OF COURSE. You’re trying to claim that it isn’t unique, just because it falls within a BROAD category named ‘car’? That’s like saying YOU are not unique, because you are a ‘PERSON’. It’s BEYOND IDIOTIC. You even ADMITTED that the car example would be unique, and now you’re completely contradicting yourself.

‘If one car goes faster than another, it's still a car, it just has MORE SPEED’

I think you’re extremely confused. Nobody said that if a car goes faster than all other cars, it isn’t a car. The point is, if a car can go faster than any other car, IT IS UNIQUE. Of COURSE it is unique. Like I said, it’s like you have no idea what unique means. You are EXPLAINING the WAY IN WHICH it is UNIQUE, whilst at the same time claiming that it isn’t. You also seem to think that just because it’s a car, means it can’t be unique? I’m… flabbergasted! LOL. You aren’t even at the dumb level that I thought you were.

‘But..it's what you do. You just babble on about anything you can, in fact, EVERYTHING you can just for the sake of it. You have no real basis for an argument in any paragraph you posted and it's all just a waste of storage space. This is why I don't read your whole post.’

That’s the most ironic and self-contradicting sentence I’ve ever read ;-)

‘You say the rules that define an apple make it an apple is incorrect? haha. Your argument is so trivial and stupid it isn't worth a response. Again, arguing for the sake of it. The concept I said in the previous post was totally correct and you have no valid argument against it.’

Er, again, WHAT? Lol!!!! I’ve never said that the ‘rules’ (which don’t exist by the way) or what you probably meant to say, THE DEFINITION of Apples is incorrect. I simply stated that JUST BECAUSE two things are apples, DOESN’T MEAN they can’t be unique. If we find an apple which is L shaped, 10x bigger than normal, and grows in the desert, it IS unique, and it WILL behave differently to a whole selection of environmental factors, EVEN THOUGH IT’S STILL AN APPLE. Do you know why? Because an apple, or an antenna, is NOT DEFINED BY THE WAY IT RESPONDS TO THINGS, but by (in the antenna example) what it attemps to do (ie to receive signals). This IN TURN, means that when you LABEL something an ‘Apple’ or an ‘Antenna’ it DOES NOT prove ANYTHING about the way it responds to environmental factors. And that is where your whole ‘its still an antenna’ argument completely falls on its face. Throughout history, technology and antennas have been improved, the materials, technology, method, sensitivity etc has ALL been progressed in a MASSIVE WAY, meaning that you have a WHOLE RANGE of ANTENNAS, which ALL BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY, despite your awesome truism that ‘they all have to follow the laws of physics LMFAO! The VERY fabric of your point is that this Apple antenna behaves differently, which IN ITSELF proves that you can’t prove the behaviour of one antenna by saying that A DIFFERENT antenna does something.

Not only that, but your WHOLE ARGUMENT about antennas, overall, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Even IF your RIDICULOUS claims were correct, like I’ve said, and Apple in fact used the same antenna as in every other phone, that WOULD STILL NOT REFUTE MY CLAIM THAT THIS PROBLEM COULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY SOFTWARE. You’re spending days of your time, losing an argument about something that is completely irrelevant. To repeat, ever since my very first post, I’ve recognised that it COULD be a hardware issue, COULD be an antenna problem. So you’re trying so desperately hard to prove… nothing. (And still failing)

‘What you argue in every post is just every single thing. Our discussion can NEVER get anywhere if you can't agree on a SINGLE THING that is said. Even when trying to form the basis of a definition of a word or concept, you disagree and argue about it to no end. It's no wonder you don't understand basic technology, you would just argue about every concept the entire time when learning it.’

What you mean is that when you mis-use a word or fail to understand what something simple like ‘unique’ means, you don’t like being called and exposed on it, because it proves you to be the idiot that you are?

‘Would you happen to be from Texas? Perhaps your name begins with an S or J? I know two people just like you down there.’

LOL

‘You lose again, btw. Keep up the entertainment! I'll expect some new and UNIQUE thing that the iphone can do within a few posts.’

Ah, the classic ‘You lose’… LMFAO!

 

[beayn]

@watcha blah blah blah another HUGE wall of text that is totally, utteryly and completely meaningless. Man, you think you're intelligent but you really are the stupidest person I have ever met.

You said: 'watcha Too much crap, didn't read.’

Yeah, like I said, your inability to read is why you keep failing"


I have no desire nor time to read such an enormous amount of absolute CRAP. Everything you say is just so stupid it boggles the mind how anyone can come up with it. And look, you responded to EVERY SINGLE line of text I wrote. You can't let ANYTHING go. Did you argue that the sky was blue? I didn't bother to go through and read but I'm betting you did, since it appears you're arguing that an Antenna is NOT an antenna yet again and making up your own retarded way to "define" it.

By the way, you have been proven wrong again by another article on Tom's. Consumer Reports uses external hardware to prove there is REAL signal loss when you touch the iphone's antenna. This is what I've been saying all along and this is what you have been disputing while claiming to be more intelligent.

In fact, you thought you were SO INTELLIGENT that the UNIQUE interference caused by your hand would be detectable and bypassed with Apple's software patch. You then also said that the iphone's antenna was SO UNIQUE that it was NOT affected by all the same things that affect other antennas. The stupidity in those comments is beyond anything seen before on Tom's.

And yet again, you have been proven wrong by someone else. Why haven't you posted on THAT article? Come up with some UNIQUE reason why the CR testing was "wrong", or how Apple would make a MAGICAL patch to fix real signal loss.

Everything else you say is just so fundamentally wrong and horribly flawed it isn't even worth repeating, or even reading. It's great to know that you probably spent an hour or more writing something that nobody is going to read.

You lose, again. The fail is strong with this one. I hope you spend another couple of hours writing an ENORMOUS wall of text that I won't bother to read again. If you like, I can paste some random crap from the net and watch you argue with it to no end.

 

[watcha]

@beayn

‘blah blah blah another HUGE wall of text that is totally, utteryly and completely meaningless. Man, you think you're intelligent but you really are the stupidest person I have ever met.’

You say it best… when you say nothing at all 

‘I have no desire nor time to read such an enormous amount of absolute CRAP’

If you admit you don’t read it, how do you know it’s crap? The fact that you have failed to read is why your whole argument has been a fail from the word go.

‘Everything you say is just so stupid it boggles the mind how anyone can come up with it. And look, you responded to EVERY SINGLE line of text I wrote. You can't let ANYTHING go.’

Is addressing every issue a bad thing? Do you not like it?

‘Did you argue that the sky was blue?’

I did not mention the sky.

‘I didn't bother to go through and read but I'm betting you did, since it appears you're arguing that an Antenna is NOT an antenna yet again and making up your own retarded way to "define" it.’

Again, you don’t understand what I’m saying. I’m not saying it ISN’T an antenna. I’m saying that just BECAUSE it’s an antenna, doesn’t mean it will behave in the same way. The whole point you’re making is that it’s possible for different designs of antenna to be more susceptible to certain interference. That means that they don’t all behave the same way, and that ALSO means that it is possible to REDUCE interference by using different designs. Do you see? If you argue that a design can increase interference, you can’t argue that all designs behave the same, or that designs can’t therefore REDUCE interference too.

‘By the way, you have been proven wrong again by another article on Tom's. Consumer Reports uses external hardware to prove there is REAL signal loss when you touch the iphone's antenna. This is what I've been saying all along and this is what you have been disputing while claiming to be more intelligent.’

And again, you completely fail to realise the point I’ve been making all along. I’ve read the article, and it is 100% in line with what I’ve been saying since my first comment which started this whole discussion.

Allow me to provide you with some quotes so you can maybe realise that I never stated that it wasn’t a hardware problem.

Quoting myself, 8th July
‘I said all along that there MAY be a hardware issue as well. I still stand by my assessment that we wont know for sure until the software is fixed, since that's how we measure the signal. And even if it turns out there is a hardware issue as well, that doesn't mean that it wasn't possible that it was just a software issue, as I said all along ;-)’

Quoting myself, 8th July
‘Even if this issue does turn out to be hardware in addition to the software problem, (as I've said all along it could do), it doesn't make me wrong - I have always left open the possibility that this is also a hardware error. ‘

Quoting myself, 8th July
‘@beayn, please carefully read over all of my posts. I said you were WRONG to think that it COULDN'T be a software issue. No more, no less.

And you still are - EVEN IF it turns out to be a hardware problem AS WELL AS a software problem.’

Quoting myself, 8th July
‘And that's the difference, by the way. I am claiming it isn't NECESSARILY hardware, and you're claiming it CAN'T be software. You're making a much bigger and untrue claim, wheras my claim is very modest and OBVIOUSLY true. Maybe you genuinely don't get it though, and I'm banging my head against a brick wall.. lol’

Quoting myself, some date before 9th July
‘'You miss the whole point of my post anyway. My point was that JUST BECAUSE something is TRIGGERED by hardware DOESN'T NECESSARILY make it a hardware fault. '’

Quoting myself, some date before 9th July
‘'If you prevent the software responding improperly to that change in signal, you prevent the problem (assuming that the problem is JUST software related). The problem, may of course, be Hardware related too.'’

….I could go on, since this same content has been in EVERY single one of my posts since you started to deny that software can affect software.

I have said all along – that it COULD be hardware, and the fact that, arguably, it IS hardware in this case, DOESN’T MAKE ANYTHING I SAID WRONG. This is where reading would have really helped you. You have no clue what you’re arguing, why you’re arguing it, or what any of it means. You have no perspective. You keep telling yourself ‘Im right, it IS hardware’ without realising that even the FACT that it IS hardware, wouldn’t make me wrong. You don’t have a clue of the context, so let me clear it up for you:

Step 1 – Some article is on Toms saying that Apple claims it’s a software problem
Step 2 – Some user on Toms says ‘how can any issue possibly be caused by software when it’s caused by touching the case’
Step 3 – I explain that while it may or may not be a software issue, it IS POSSIBLE for software to be the cause of the problem, even if that software fault is triggered by the hardware. I give the example of pressing a button which then causes the software to flip the screen upside down. Hardware trigger, software fault.
Step 4 – You read the words ‘software’ and instantly your anti-apple inferiority complex surfaces, you believe I’m claiming something pro-apple, rather than just stating an obvious logical fact, and pointing out an invalid inference, so you go all out to state that it MUST be hardware, and cannot possibly be software.
Step 5 – I continue to explain to you, over and over, that it COULD have been software, and I know this because even if they fix the issue, I could write software which would make the issue appear to return. I also try to explain that I’m not saying that it isn’t a hardware issue, just that you can’t ASSUME it’s a hardware issue just because it is triggered by doing something with the hardware.
Step 6 – You completely fail to read my comments and continue to believe that the mounting evidence which says that it is a hardware issue in this cases disproves my statement.
Step 7 (this post) – I try to advise you what exactly you’re trying to disprove, what the context is, and where you’ve gone wrong.
Step 8 (in the future) – You either don’t read this, and continue to say ‘but it is hardware’, or you deny all knowledge, or maybe you finally realise you’re not disproving anything I’ve said and switch your stance to claim you just meant that it is hardware in this case, thereby making every comment you said irrelevant (in the context of my initial comment).


‘In fact, you thought you were SO INTELLIGENT that the UNIQUE interference caused by your hand would be detectable and bypassed with Apple's software patch’

Again, your failure to read surfaces. I said that it’s POSSIBLE that something OTHER THAN Actual signal loss was being passed to the software, such as a short, which COULD mean that the software was responsible for responding in an inappropriate way. I did not say that it ‘is’ or that it ‘will be’ – simply that it COULD BE. If you actually read the new Anandtech article, it proves that the problem with the IPhone4 is not actually losing signal due to ‘normal’ signal loss – but rather (like you argued against yourself) by the coupling of two different antennas. This alone proves me correct when I told you that you can’t assume that signal loss is caused by the same thing which causes signal loss in other phones. I had pointed out that in this case the signal loss was apparently more severe, and therefore you can’t assume the cause is the same as other phones which don’t have the problem. But please, remember, all of that is irrelevant, like I said – this issue, whether caused by coupling or by interference, would still be hardware – a possibility which I’ve left open from the very start.

‘You then also said that the iphone's antenna was SO UNIQUE that it was NOT affected by all the same things that affect other antennas’

Again, this is completely wrong. I said it IS UNIQUE (which it is) and THEREFORE it MIGHT respond in different ways to a whole host of environmental effects. If an object responds differently to a whole host of environmental effects, you can’t just assume that any problem it has is caused by a problem which other antennas have. Your whole point is that OTHER PHONES are not affected in the same way as the antenna, so you’re stating just as much as you claim I am, and then you go on to prove it wrong.

‘The stupidity in those comments is beyond anything seen before on Tom's.’

Agreed. If only you could read *facepalm*

‘And yet again, you have been proven wrong by someone else. Why haven't you posted on THAT article? Come up with some UNIQUE reason why the CR testing was "wrong", or how Apple would make a MAGICAL patch to fix real signal loss.’

When you push and push an incorrect and irrelevant point, failing to understand the very thing you’re arguing against, you come across quite silly :s

‘Everything else you say is just so fundamentally wrong and horribly flawed it isn't even worth repeating, or even reading. It's great to know that you probably spent an hour or more writing something that nobody is going to read.’

If only saying something made it true hey? Console yourself on being wrong by the fact that I typed a reply, that sounds like a good pick-me-up ;-)

‘You lose, again. The fail is strong with this one. I hope you spend another couple of hours writing an ENORMOUS wall of text that I won't bother to read again. If you like, I can paste some random crap from the net and watch you argue with it to no end.’

I still find it hilarious every time you type ‘you lose’ , LOL. When your best argument is that you wont listen and respond to the answers provided by the other person, you’ve already failed ;-)

 

[beayn]

@watcha

You said: "If you admit you don’t read it, how do you know it’s crap? "

Because it came from you.

You said: "Is addressing every issue a bad thing? "

For you, yes it is a bad thing.

I even GAVE you a plausible software solution. I said it was possible the interference was caused by connecting the wifi antenna to the cellular antenna and a software patch that would either turn off the wifi antenna or filter it might solve a portion of the signal loss issue. Despite this being a believable solution, you STILL argued against it. You were the one arguing it was 'software fixable' but you couldn't even accept a believable software solution. You HAD to argue every single thing even if it totally contradicted what you had been saying.

I could go on for an hour listing the trivial and stupid things you have argued and contradicted yourself on (razor blades, all advertising is true, UNIQUE antenna, UNIQUE interference, definition of "sucks", what is an apple... the list goes on.) You even argued with the very article you quoted from against razor blades...

If all you want to do is argue absolutely EVERYTHING, be my guest, I am not going to waste my time reading every piece of drivel you write. I mean, you're even arguing with the fact that you argue about everything...

Do you still believe that physical bare-skin touch can somehow not cause any signal loss whatsoever, yet somehow register in the software as incorrect signal loss? If you still argue this point, it makes everything else that you've "been saying all along" completely irrelevant. As soon as you originally gave this UNIQUE theory, I've been arguing only the opposite. I have argued no other point, only you have been arguing what you "said all along". Sure, we've branched out and argued other stupid things like what is an apple, but this particular theory of yours completely ignores the fundamental and basic things that affect signal strength.

Several articles have proven your theory wrong on Tom's now. You've lost. You can continue to post massive walls of text and claim you are more intelligent than everyone who proved you wrong all you want. It's all pure argumentative garbage and I'm not going to waste my time reading more than a few lines.

 

[watcha]

@beayn

‘Because it came from you.’

You could only know that everything I said was bad if you had read it all.

‘Is addressing every issue a bad thing?
For you, yes it is a bad thing.’

So you are trying to argue that your points should not be addressed? LOL

‘I even GAVE you a plausible software solution.’

This from the man who is trying to argue against someone who effectively said, from the very start ‘there are plausible software solutions’. Do you even know what you’re trying to argue against?

‘I said it was possible the interference was caused by connecting the wifi antenna to the cellular antenna and a software patch that would either turn off the wifi antenna or filter it might solve a portion of the signal loss issue.’

Firstly, this would be a software fix to a hardware problem, not a software problem. Secondly, if you actually believe that is a software problem, then you (in your own incorrect mind) prove my point – it was possible that this issue could have been caused by software.

‘Despite this being a believable solution, you STILL argued against it.’

Just because it’s believable doesn’t mean the example you gave isn’t hardware.

‘You were the one arguing it was 'software fixable' but you couldn't even accept a believable software solution.’

Again, I never stated that it ‘WAS’ ‘software fixable’ – I said that it was POSSIBLE that the issue COULD be purely a software problem.

‘You HAD to argue every single thing even if it totally contradicted what you had been saying.’

Even the point you make which you believe totally disproves everything you’ve ever said is wrong. I’m not going to agree with something that’s fundamentally logically incorrect. You, in the same sentence, say that it could be the wifi antennas and the celluar antennas interfering with each other, and that it would therefore be a software problem? You’re mistaking my assertion that the PROBLEM could have been in the software, rather than the SOLUTION. That’s why it’s wrong.

‘I could go on for an hour listing the trivial and stupid things you have argued and contradicted yourself on (razor blades, all advertising is true, UNIQUE antenna, UNIQUE interference, definition of "sucks", what is an apple... the list goes on.) You even argued with the very article you quoted from against razor blades...’

1 – Razor blades? The items you even admitted you have no evidence whatsoever which even suggests that the advertising claims aren’t true?
2 – All Advertising is true? All adverts are true in the opinion of the advertising authorities. It is the other companies responsibility to alert them if any advert states anything which is untrue, and if it is untrue they are entitled to seek legal action.
3 – Unique antenna – The antenna on the IPhone is the most obviously unique item the tech world has ever seen. Your whole point depends on its uniqueness. It’s unreal that you don’t get this.
4 – Unique interference – Actually, I wasn’t saying that it had unique interference. I stated that it was POSSIBLE that it WASN’T getting any UNIQUE INTERFERENCE (which you claim) – and that INSTEAD the SOFTWARE could have been misrepresenting the signal.

‘If all you want to do is argue absolutely EVERYTHING, be my guest, I am not going to waste my time reading every piece of drivel you write. I mean, you're even arguing with the fact that you argue about everything... ‘

Again, completely logically incorrect. I never said I don’t argue against everything which is incorrect – I explained that I DO and why it’s a GOOD THING. There’s a difference.

‘Do you still believe that physical bare-skin touch can somehow not cause any signal loss whatsoever, yet somehow register in the software as incorrect signal loss?’

The fixes that various companies have demonstrated for the IPhone prove that the positioning of the antenna doesn’t necessarily have to cause the issue. Various materials, finishes and other forms of insulation have been applied – which prove that it was possible to engineer the phone not to have this problem. Given that it is possible for the antenna to have been engineered to not suffer from the ADDITIONAL interference which constitutes this whole problem, it is therefore possible that this COULD HAVE BEEN the case, and IN THAT CASE the SOFTWARE could have been responsible. You’ve already admitted that you can do anything with software, yet you still deny that it can change the signal strength bars/numbers on the screen? LOL

‘If you still argue this point, it makes everything else that you've "been saying all along" completely irrelevant.’

Er… how can you even make such a dumb statement? LOL. EVERYTHING I’ve said, from day one, has been making the point that the additional signal loss seen on the IPhone COULD be caused by software OR hardware.

‘As soon as you originally gave this UNIQUE theory, I've been arguing only the opposite.’

Again, it wasn’t a theory – just a fact. You were claiming that the antenna on the iphone behaves differently to on every other phone, whilst trying to argue that it wasn’t unique? Beyond idiocy. I was making it clear to you that it IS unique, and therefore it WILL respond differently to interference (which HAS to be the case in the case of a hardware issue). That means that you can’t use the behaviour of other antennas to PROVE that this antenna MUST be doing the same thing. You’re trying to argue that the antenna is doing different things BECAUSE it’s doing different things, and because it’s not unique? Ridiculous.

‘I have argued no other point, only you have been arguing what you "said all along". Sure, we've branched out and argued other stupid things like what is an apple, but this particular theory of yours completely ignores the fundamental and basic things that affect signal strength.’

Yes, you have been consistent. You have maintained that this issue COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been caused by software. Being consistent isn’t being correct. It is a FACT that it was possible from day one that this issue could have been caused by software. It IS STILL a fact, despite it now being proven as a hardware problem.

‘Several articles have proven your theory wrong on Tom's now. You've lost.’

Sorry, but again, if you believe that, then you don’t actually understand what you were arguing against. I stated all along that it could be hardware. I also stated all along that it COULD be software. And it could have been. And it remains the case that it could be, even if they fix the hardware, I could reproduce it in software. So it IS possible that this issue and others like it could be caused by software, despite being triggered with hardware. The fact that in this case it turned out not to be, is irrelevant. Notice, that previous paragraph exactly mirrors my first post See, I’m consistent too, the only difference is I’m consistently correct.

‘You can continue to post massive walls of text and claim you are more intelligent than everyone who proved you wrong all you want. It's all pure argumentative garbage and I'm not going to waste my time reading more than a few lines. ‘

Head in the sand is definitely the best way forward for lesser beings. You’ve probably even realised by now how dumb it was of you to argue that it wasn’t possible for software to cause problems to be manifested in the software. ;-)

 

[beayn]

@watcha You're still here? Wow dude, get a life. It's time to move on. You lost.

Nothing you said here means anything at all, and I didn't even have to read it all. You were proven wrong. Just admit it. You aren't intelligent at all, you just think you are. Your "UNIQUE" crap is all just crap with no logical, technological or scientific basis at all and proves how unintelligent you really are.

The iPhone does not have a unique antenna. It's been explained to you what the meaning of UNIQUE is countless times yet your IQ is just too low to get it. Either that or you're just too stubborn to agree to something after losing the main argument. Or both.

It just isn't special, it's badly designed. Face it. Apple made something that isn't perfect. Deal with it. Even Consumer Reports doesn't recommend it.

You argue with absolutely everything regardless of its significance because you lost and you hate losing. Keep believing all advertising is true and have fun with the Shopping network and your razor burn.

 

[watcha]

Hi Beayn

'@watcha You're still here? Wow dude, get a life. It's time to move on. You lost.'

Ironic much?

'Nothing you said here means anything at all, and I didn't even have to read it all. You were proven wrong. Just admit it. You aren't intelligent at all, you just think you are. Your "UNIQUE" crap is all just crap with no logical, technological or scientific basis at all and proves how unintelligent you really are. '

Looks like dolls-out-of-the-pram syndrome to me? I know how I can respond, I will say that all of that sentence above means nothing at all, and I know this because 'I didn't even have to read it all'. Oh and of course the obligatory 'you're wrong' tears

'The iPhone does not have a unique antenna. It's been explained to you what the meaning of UNIQUE is countless times yet your IQ is just too low to get it. Either that or you're just too stubborn to agree to something after losing the main argument. Or both. '

I would say that this is the single most retarded claim you've EVER made. The IPhone antenna is probably the most unique part of the IPhone, full stop, and it is the most obviously 'different' (ie Unique) part of the IPhone compared to any phone which has ever been built. I dunno if you're aware of the IPhone design, but the antenna is actually the EDGE OF THE PHONE. That is UNIQUE. Full stop. This isn't even debatebale, this isn't even something you can 'try' to claim, it's just obvious. Simple, clear, obvious fact. And every 'issue' with the antenna that we've spoken about is DUE TO THAT FACT. The Antennas UNIQUENESS is what caused all the problems. How can you deny such blanant reality?

'It just isn't special, it's badly designed. Face it. Apple made something that isn't perfect. Deal with it. Even Consumer Reports doesn't recommend it.'

I agree that it is not designed as well as it could have been, and I agree that it isn't perfect. But that is completely irrelevant to our discussion. I never claimed it was perfect, or that it was well designed. I mean, can you even read? Do you even know what this discussion is about, or are you just closing your eyes, facing away, putting your hand out and saying 'Apple is bad, Apple is bad, Apple is bad'? You're beyond tragic, dude. The actual content of this discussion has NOTHING whatsoever to do with how good or bad the design is on the antenna. The point being made is that the issues which we now know to have been caused by the antenna, COULD have also been caused by software. I mean, how can even you think that has anything to do with how good or bad the design of the antenna is? Seriously.

'You argue with absolutely everything regardless of its significance because you lost and you hate losing. Keep believing all advertising is true and have fun with the Shopping network and your razor burn.'

No, I argue with people who are wrong, regardless of its significance. Lets face it, you are the definition of insignificance to me, but your tragic, irrational and insecure hatred of a company leads me to enjoy correcting your pathetic anti-apple rage, by imposing a bit of logic in there. I've never said all advertising is true, and I've never said that the unique antenna on the iphone is perfect. If you continue to just dream up things I've said, maybe that's why you never see the plain, obvious and logical facts that I am stating. I'll repeat it one more time, just for good measure.
The issues which surfaced on the IPhone, ie the fact that the signal bars appeared to reduce when it was held in a certain way, COULD have been caused by both hardware AND software. That is the simple, obvious fact which I've been stating all along. As we now know, it was caused by the hardware, and I always stated that that was just as likely as being caused by software. But it remains the case, and will always remain the case, that it was possible for those issues to have been caused by software. The fact that the antenna isn't perfect, or the fact that consumer reports doesn't recommend the iphone, have nothing to do with that simple fact, at all.

I don't think you could possibly have strung together a more irrelevant selection of comments, tbh.