4 ms·

That 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), whi

by Entlin 16y ago

That 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 ago
I 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 ago
Except 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 ago
  The 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?
    - russell 16y ago
      It's so much easier to google than rant about someone else's use of a term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition_of_diamond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition_of_di...
      - ramchip 16y ago
        I know about CVD and have read this article. The applications listed are mostly related to cutting bits and actual diamond. It says notably: "[some nice properties] would make it a nearly ideal non-stick coating for cookware if large substrate areas could be coated economically." If coating cookware with it is economically infeasible, I imagine coating a screen would be pretty expensive too. Which is why I doubt the iPhone used this and would like to know where that info came from.
- Encosia 16y ago
  The "real-world" performance is only better if you don't hold it in your left hand. I can't hear very well out of my right ear, so I've always used my left hand to hold phones to my left ear. I never had any trouble with my 3GS, but my iPhone 4 is almost instantly transformed into an iPod Touch 4 when I hold it normally (i.e. the "wrong" way). Personally, I like the rest of the phone's new features enough to adapt my grip during non-voice usage (which is most of what I use it for anyway). However, people aren't exaggerating the attenuation issue at all.
  - jsz0 16y ago
    Out of curiosity do you plan to return it? If not why?
    - Encosia 16y ago
      Though I had seriously considered it, I decided not to return it (and do worry that I may yet regret that decision). I use my phone for voice calls infrequently, so the speed upgrade, better camera, and amazing display outweigh the reception issue for me. I also spend a lot more time with WiFi available than not, and WiFi reception doesn't seem to be affected. It wasn't an easy decision though. I paid a premium for a device that is effectively defective by design. That stings no matter how you slice it.
      - lushootseed 16y ago
        Yeah! Defective by design - but still folks would use it. Amazing...How many companies can get away with this. Just ONE if you ask me
- Entlin 16y ago
  Yeah but is the real-world antenna performance more than 18dB better? Probably not, because that would be revolutionary. So the net result is still negative.
- sp332 16y ago
  It's radio performance, not antenna performance. The electronics attached to the antenna are more sensitive, so the SNR is better even though the total power delivered to the electronics by the antenna might not be.
jazzdev 16y ago
It's not about the bar display. That page you linked to explains why the bar display matters: If your phone is at -60dB (5 bars) a 24dB drop is -84dB (5 bars) If your phone is at -84db (5 bars) a 24db drop is -108 (1 bar) Worst case: If your phone is at -90db (5 bars) a 24db drop is -114 (0 bars) That can be fixed with software. Given that the article says the iPhone 4 performs better than the 3GS at -113dB, the perception of the problem is twice as bad as the actual problem. So it might be worthwhile to fix that perception, though the fix will have other side-effects (a perception of worse reception overall).

by Entlin 16y ago

marze 16y ago

I 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 ago

Except 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 ago
The 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?
  - russell 16y ago
    It's so much easier to google than rant about someone else's use of a term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition_of_diamond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_vapor_deposition_of_di...
    - ramchip 16y ago
      I know about CVD and have read this article. The applications listed are mostly related to cutting bits and actual diamond. It says notably: "[some nice properties] would make it a nearly ideal non-stick coating for cookware if large substrate areas could be coated economically." If coating cookware with it is economically infeasible, I imagine coating a screen would be pretty expensive too. Which is why I doubt the iPhone used this and would like to know where that info came from.
Encosia 16y ago
The "real-world" performance is only better if you don't hold it in your left hand. I can't hear very well out of my right ear, so I've always used my left hand to hold phones to my left ear. I never had any trouble with my 3GS, but my iPhone 4 is almost instantly transformed into an iPod Touch 4 when I hold it normally (i.e. the "wrong" way). Personally, I like the rest of the phone's new features enough to adapt my grip during non-voice usage (which is most of what I use it for anyway). However, people aren't exaggerating the attenuation issue at all.
- jsz0 16y ago
  Out of curiosity do you plan to return it? If not why?
  - Encosia 16y ago
    Though I had seriously considered it, I decided not to return it (and do worry that I may yet regret that decision). I use my phone for voice calls infrequently, so the speed upgrade, better camera, and amazing display outweigh the reception issue for me. I also spend a lot more time with WiFi available than not, and WiFi reception doesn't seem to be affected. It wasn't an easy decision though. I paid a premium for a device that is effectively defective by design. That stings no matter how you slice it.
    - lushootseed 16y ago
      Yeah! Defective by design - but still folks would use it. Amazing...How many companies can get away with this. Just ONE if you ask me
Entlin 16y ago
Yeah but is the real-world antenna performance more than 18dB better? Probably not, because that would be revolutionary. So the net result is still negative.
sp332 16y ago
It's radio performance, not antenna performance. The electronics attached to the antenna are more sensitive, so the SNR is better even though the total power delivered to the electronics by the antenna might not be.

jazzdev 16y ago

It's not about the bar display. That page you linked to explains why the bar display matters: If your phone is at -60dB (5 bars) a 24dB drop is -84dB (5 bars) If your phone is at -84db (5 bars) a 24db drop is -108 (1 bar) Worst case: If your phone is at -90db (5 bars) a 24db drop is -114 (0 bars) That can be fixed with software. Given that the article says the iPhone 4 performs better than the 3GS at -113dB, the perception of the problem is twice as bad as the actual problem. So it might be worthwhile to fix that perception, though the fix will have other side-effects (a perception of worse reception overall).