10 ms·
Translation From Apple's PR-Speak to English of the Letter Regarding iPhone 4
- bradleyland 16y agoI wish he had commented on the remark that Apple is going to make "bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see". Right, so they're easier to see. Not intending at all to play any Jedi mind tricks on you. How stupid is it that Apple is going to increase the height of the first three bars? This sounds like the kind of design by committee that happens elsewhere. Not naming names, because it happens all over the place. It's as if someone in engineering stood up and said: "Hey, we knew our 'bar' algorithm was shit when we implemented it, and we in engineering said something about it, but no one listened. So fuck those guys in marketing, we need to implement a realistic algorithm, pronto." Then the marketing team responds: "Well, it might be good engineering, but users certainly aren't going to get the warm and fuzzies. Isn't there something else we can do?" UX reluctantly speaks up: "Well, we could make bars 1-3 taller, so they appear more like the old 4-5 bars." Marketing and UX: <HIGH FIVE> Engineering: <cries in a corner>
- ttol 16y agoI made this comment/question in the other thread about iPhone 4 letter, but I'll paste here: "i'm wondering why bars are not equally the same height across. the quantity alone should be enough (1 vs 5) to convey strength. with the height being variable, it seems to make things seem worst in the worst possible way -- 5 will still be 5, but when its a 1, because the height is so much shorter, it seems worst than 1. what is the upside to variable height when you already have variable width in terms of number of bars? it's not as if there's an algorithm that determines the correct height for that particular signal, as there is a (faulty?) algorithm to determine the correct width (bars)."
- jerf 16y agoMy cheap POC phone does that, and I do prefer it. I think it is because the "varying heights" icon has become part of brand identity. Woe betide the putatively-informational display that becomes part of the "brand identity".
- parallax7d 16y agoHow about a number 0% - 100%. I think we as humans could grasp this system without having to interpret or count bars. Also, less room for apple to graphically misrepresent signal strength.
- pstuart 16y agoGood idea. Make it a user selectable option.
- hadley 16y agoYup, that's the apple design philosophy right there.
- dustingetz 16y agosignal strength is measured in logarithmic units, not linear.
- glhaynes 16y agoAnd, even then, I hear that the relative metric is signal-to-noise, not raw signal strength.
- a-priori 16y ago
- judofyr 16y agoActually, I think they didn't think the bar algorithm was shit when they implemented it. They just changed what "5 bars" meant: "~100% reception" vs "good enough reception for all uses".
- jfager 16y agoEngineers cry over how many pixels are used in an already simplistic arbitrary visualization of a set of complex analog values? Really?
- huhtenberg 16y agoA friend of mine said that Apple should just switch to showing either 4 bars or no bars (and patent this of course). With proper customer education everyone will soon be able to see the wisdom of this decision. It either works really well (with a some room for improvement) or it doesn't, and it's AT&T fault.
- jsz0 16y agoMeasuring RF and presenting it in a way a normal person can understand is difficult. I've had first hand experience trying to explain to customers that a 0dB signal is not a problem -- in fact it's ideal in our system, or that there's such thing as too much signal, or that signal quality alone isn't a very good indication of reliability/speed without taking into account other important factors such as SNR or real bit error rates, or that a ~4dB signal range swing due to thermal conditions alone is completely normal. In the wireless world you have to represent all this in a little 20 or 30 pixel wide meter. A better method than the traditional 5 bar icon meter would be a status icon that could show signal strength, signal quality, and also take into account other experience factors like latency and speed. To you could have 5 orange bars showing strong signal while also acknowledging there was some other factor causing less reliability such as SNR problems or channel congestion. You could have 3 green bars showing good RF and network conditions. More accurate but we'd have to ween people off the old system. Ideally you could the choice in your settings for a basic or advanced meter icon.
- Aaronontheweb 16y agoI was thinking about buying an iPhone 4.0 when I qualify for an upgrade later this month, but given all of the issues with the antenna doesn't it seem like they're going to release an upgraded version of the hardware in a relatively short peroid of time?
- ttol 16y agothe antenna issue seems like it indeed is software and really a non-issue. the "feature" to show 50% of signals as 5 bars was introduced in OS 2.1 update back in '08. Here is a graphic to showcase that: http://fscked.co.uk/post/754590440/this-infographic-hopefully-shows-that-im-not http://fscked.co.uk/post/754590440/this-infographic-hopefull... The fix is to undo that hard-coded reality distortion field into AT&T's recommended formula. In this case, AT&T isn't the bad guy as it seems like apple was trying to show their phones had better signal by misrepresenting the strength. The other, IMHO bigger, issue is the proximity sensor. To me, that's a NEW issue, and needs to be addressed (hopefully by software patch), since I've had issues with 100% of my calls.
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoIs there any evidence either way on whether the proximity sensors problems are hardware or software in nature, and if they're hardware problems whether they can be worked around in software?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- rodh257 16y agobut what does any of this have to do with the fact the signal goes down when you hold the phone in a certain way? whether it drops from 4 to 2 bars or 2 to 1 based on whatever algorithm they had surely doesn't change the fact that it is still going down?
- ttol 16y ago
- ttol 16y agoSeems like Apple put the algorithm in place via OS 2.1 update back in '08. http://www.newsoxy.com/technology/apple-iphone/article11156.html http://www.newsoxy.com/technology/apple-iphone/article11156.... If you don't remember, back then every blogger was saying things like "my signal has improved drastically with this update!!11!!1one". AT&T's recommendation = more accuracy and less reality distortion. (Look at the graph Gruber linked to for what iPhone 4 currently uses for algorithm -- ~50% = 5 bars: http://fscked.co.uk/post/754590440/this-infographic-hopefully-shows-that-im-not http://fscked.co.uk/post/754590440/this-infographic-hopefull...) Next update, you should see OS 2.1's 3g signal update reversed to what it used to be. Let's hope they fix the bigger (read: REAL) issue related to the proximity sensor that actually kills calls.
- Greyface 16y agoHuh? Apple's PR letter specifically says that their 'mistake' has been there since the "original iPhone". And the 'grip of death' can kill calls and more importantly, IMO, affects data transfer rates (as I use my iPhone more as a browser than a phone and naturally hold it the 'wrong way') so I'm not sure why you conclude it's not a real issue. Gruber has never tired of making jokes at AT&T's expense even though he personally has great service in Philly and AT&T has the fastest network. Let's see if he brings the same level of snark to his Apple and Jobs posts henceforth.
- ttol 16y agoWell played, sir. My emphasis on REAL in the parent comment was meant as proximity sensor bug being more severe/higher priority (IMHO) than antenna bug in terms of dropped calls.
- Greyface 16y agoI see in another comment that your phone is afflicted with the proximity bug. I understand why you see that as a more important issue now. My comment is getting downvoted without any contradicting replies. shrug
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ck2 16y agoCorporations have reached the masterstroke of PR where they don't even have to lie about how they are lying to you. They just tell you outright how they are going to fool you. Next BP will issue a press release admitting how they are moving around sand to cover up oily sand to improve perception and how people should appreciate that.
- stcredzero 16y agoThe dispersants were already all about perception. Oh, and the exact sand thing you describe was already done after the Exxon Valdez.
- lukifer 16y agoThis has been happening in politics for quite a while now. Serious pundits and campaign advisers openly discuss issues of narrative, image, and perception on mainstream news programs, with little regard to how well that perception matches reality, and without any concern that viewers will read between the lines and realize that they're being sold an illusion. Meanwhile, everyone knows that no politician writes their own speeches anymore, but clap and cheer anyway when they're told what they want to hear by a professional marketer whose job is to create warm fuzzies around a brand.
- Entlin 16y agoThat letter is a distraction. It's not about the bar display. The iPhone 4 drops signal by 19.8dB when held normally (compared to not being touched at all), while the previous one drops by 1.9 when held normally. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2 http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2 No software update will be able to fix this. Externalizing the antenna was a fun idea in theory, but badly realized in practice. I bet iPhone 5 will have a yet again redesigned antenna.
- marze 16y agoI wonder if the fake-3GS case the real-world test units were encased in (as in the phone found in the bar) masked the issue during testing.
- jfager 16y agoExcept that same article explicitly says real-world antenna performance is actually better, despite the increased drop. Can this whole stupid nonstory please go away?
- MrFoof 16y agoThe reality is Apple will likely insulate the antenna bridge with a non-conductive coating, i.e. using diamond vapor-phase deposition like Anand and Brian mentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple followed his (their) recommendation exactly. SSD manufacturers actually switched/redesigned controllers for future models based on Anand's findings and recommendations before. The man (and Brian Klug) is usually spot on in his (their) analysis.
- ramchip 16y ago> diamond vapor-phase deposition I've seen this repeated at a lot of places, but I'm quite sure this should be "diamond-like carbon" and not actual diamond deposition. Even then, I could not see any source for this, besides one blog comment somewhere saying the screen coating "may even be" DLC. All articles on the topic made no mention of the composition. Where does this information come from? Not that it matters a whole lot, but I find it annoying when people repeat technical information carelessly. Even to a layman (and I know nothing about chemical deposition), doesn't "diamond vapor-phase deposition" sound fishy?
- aresant 16y agoGuys, give up the conspiracy / corporate overlord theories please. Conclusive data already out there from independent sources: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/07/iphone-4-anandtech/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/07/iphone-4-anandtech/ "the iPhone 4 did show a greater dropoff in signal strength in every holding position compared to the iPhone 3GS." "However. . . the iPhone 4’s reception is definitely better in low-signal situations than the other two phones." “Reception is absolutely definitely improved,” AnandTech wrote. "There’s no doubt in my mind this iPhone gets the best cellular reception yet, even though measured signal is lower than the 3GS."
- alexfarran 16y agoIt's all gone a bit spinal tap hasn't it. Why not just add a sixth bar.
- hoprocker 16y agoThis letter illuminates an important question: what the hell do those bars actually mean, and who watches to make sure there's fairness-in-advertising when an AT&T commercials makes claims about "5-bar reception"?
- Naga 16y agoI'm pretty sure bars don't actually mean anything, and that they are just arbitrary.
- doron 16y agoSolutions aboundhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?device=iphone&storyId=128267716 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?device=iphone&#...
- fserb 16y agoTranslation from Apple's PR-Speak to Mac-fanboy PR-Blog-Speak.
- phalanx 16y agoI know. Could John Gruber suck Apple's dick any harder?
- mbreese 16y agoSeriously? Did you create an account just to make that comment? Wow...
- p0ppe 16y agoYeah. Such as "We decided from the outset to set the formula for our bars-of-signal strength indicator to make the iPhone look good - to make it look as if it "gets more bars". That decision has now bitten us on our ass."
- TrevorBramble 16y agoHilarious. I read bits of the letter to my wife this morning as she dashed about before work (she ordered her iPhone 4 a few days ago) and after the bit about bar display I said "the subtext here is that this is AT&T's fault!" The blame-shifting approaches subliminal. If you aren't looking for the hidden message, you probably won't see it.
- ttol 16y agoI'll probably get downvoted for this comment but in this case, I think Apple tried to hard-code in a reality distortion field with the bars and it backfired.. A heavily-biased 3G signal meter that shows 5 bars for over half the signal range seems to have been implemented in iPhone OS 2.1 back in 2008. Problems show up with that display implementation due to antenna being on the outside on iPhone 4 and crossing the threshold from 5 bars to "other". AT&T on the other hand is recommending a more accurate approach instead of interpretting 50% as 5 bars. Not sure why people are reading this as an AT&T issue.
- jokermatt999 16y ago>I'll probably get downvoted for this comment but in this case, Good post except for this bit. Please don't bring that phrase to HNs. Good posts can stand on their own. And yeah, I think the main issue is that the RDF algorithm is collapsing. It was originally a great way to alter perception about AT&T's service, but it backfired due to the issues the 4 may or may not be having with the antenna. The problem of sudden dropping calls at low has been there all along, but with the antenna holding issue (or "issue"), the bubble has been popped. Out of curiosity, is Apple the only company that does this? Does anyone else display <100% as 5 bars, or is that strictly an iPhone thing?
- doron 16y agoI keep wondering, If the iPhone 4 does indeed have better reception than previous models, doesn't that mean that previous model (3g, 3gs) antenna design is partly to blame for dropped calls and not just AT&T?
- nuclear_eclipse 16y agoShhh, don't question Apple.
- ajkirwin 16y agoAnd once again, John Gruber has his lips firmly wedged into Apple's asscrack.
- threepointone 16y agoWow, you didn't read the article at all, did you? If anything, he's being rather critical of apple's PR team here.
- ajkirwin 16y agoYeah, I did. It was pretty much, "LOOK AT THE SHINY. LOOK AT THE SHINY SHINY. NOW SHUT UP. SHINY."
- phalanx 16y agoObviously ajkirwin is better at deeper reading than you are because Gruber is basically saying the iPhone 4 is unassailable technically. He blames everything on a white lie that Apple's bars were telling and refuses to see that the design of the phone is bad for people who hold it a certain way. Like Jobs, he brushes these people off as complainers and "dares" people to return their iPhones.
- mirkules 16y agoOne thing nobody is questioning: why does the perceived signal strength (what is displayed) affected by how users hold the phone? If the displayed signal strength doesn't correlate well with actual signal strength, I don't see how gripping it a certain way should make any difference??
- ynniv 16y agoThe little bar diagram that phones display is an oversimplification and generally wrong. It's a bit like downsampling your monitor to 5 pixels and complaining that they don't accurately represent the original. Most bar displays compute some form of signal or signal to noise ratio, but even that is a joke compared to the complexity of modern digital multiplexing, shared control channels, inter-tower hopping, and that doesn't even consider what happens to your voice packets after they are on the ground at a tower. Your phone doesn't even have the proper instruments to deduce the likely hood that you will have a clean connection. If people want to complain about actual dropped calls, thats one thing. To nitpick the weather prediction that is your reception "bars" is absurd.
- mirkules 16y agoMy question has nothing to do with the formula used to render the display, or the accuracy of visualization of signal strength. What I'm questioning is: if it's truly just a display (software) issue, why is it affected by gripping the phone in a certain way? The software problem (incorrect visualization) is seemingly triggered by a hardware issue (gripping the phone). They describe the problem as if it is strictly a software issue, but it is clearly triggered by a hardware issue.
- panacea 16y agoNo, they admit it's a hardware issue. They're just saying that the software 'readout' overstates the degree of signal loss. Simplified example: Holding the phone the 'wrong' way drops signal strength 20% If the bars displayed signal strength as such: 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Then the hardware issue would result in the loss of one bar. However they're saying their bars display (for instance): 20% 85% 90% 95% 100% So the hardware issue can show you losing 4 bars.
- jamesseda 16y agoIf you are in favor of the capitalist system you have to respect Job's attitude of: "I think we have the best products. If you don't think so please return it for a full refund, and buy a competitor's. Thanks, bye"
- zacharypinter 16y agoEnjoyable read, but this didn't seem like much of a translation to (plain) English: "...wherein it can suffer from unintended attenuation when you bridge the lower-left antenna gap with your skin..."
- CamperBob 16y agoUpon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. "Oh, and we also disabled the Field Test mode so that you can no longer obtain a quantitative RSSI reading in dBm. Because if somebody were to, say, hack the phone to re-enable it, they might notice that holding the phone by the antenna could degrade its noise figure by as much as 24 dB (http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2 http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2), killing all but about 1/250th of the signal power seen by the front end. And we don't know about you, but that just wouldn't be magical enough for us. "Not only that, but we've either fired the RF engineers who designed our 'magical' antenna, or we're just now getting around to hiring our first ones. Sure, we only release one or two new products a year, but we apparently need three full-time PhD-level antenna engineers ( http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/30/apple-hiring-iphone-antenna-engineers-for-some-reason/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/30/apple-hiring-iphone-anten... ). "You know, to put the magic in." I now literally feel ill after reading that.