5 ms·

Sure, because Consumer Reports is so prone to over-reaction. Do you think they have some kind of anti-Apple agenda? I can understand why people were skeptical

Sure, because Consumer Reports is so prone to over-reaction. Do you think they have some kind of anti-Apple agenda? I can understand why people were skeptical when Gizmodo started posting reports they culled from the Macrumors forums, but this is Consumer Reports. Just because your phone works fine doesn't mean that the issue does not exist.

tvon 16y ago
So you're saying that Consumer Reports is incapable of over-reacting and accusing them of such is to imply that they have an anti-Apple agenda?
- mrkurt 16y ago
  So you're saying that you kill baby seals?
- leviathant 16y ago
  What I'm saying is that Consumer Reports seem to have put their money where their mouth is. Countless bloggers, Youtubers, and Twitter users have made their anecdotal claims about having signal issues, and nearly every time they get published, a legion of Apple fanatics yells them down with "Doesn't happen on my phone/This is so overblown." There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old, because I read a book that said the earth is 4000 years old! Consumer Reports took the time and money to test three different iPhones in an RF isolation chamber, and presumably through scientific process, determined that indeed, the iPhone4 has signal attenuation issues that cause calls to be dropped. I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the experiment is run. I think it's good to question authority - and in fact that's what Consumer Reports often does, and is what they're doing here. The authority, Apple, is saying there's nothing wrong with one face, and with another face, they're hiring RF and antenna engineers. There are real people who paid at least $200 for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my iPhone underground in the subway? That's zealous, and I'm glad to see an organization with the means to test these things put some weight behind the bloggers and everyday users who are having real trouble with these phones.
  - leviathant 16y ago
    Oh nice. See that paragraph where I said "do it yourself"? Looks like Engadget had the same idea, and they found that every iPhone4 they have suffers from signal attenuation issues. http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/consumer-reports-confirms-iphone-4-antenna-problems-and-so-do/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/consumer-reports-confirms... That's how you refute -- or reinforce -- a published study. Not with rhetoric that a high school student would be embarrassed to get behind, but with independent study, publishing your methods and findings.
  - tvon 16y ago
    > (...) a legion of Apple fanatics yells them down with "Doesn't happen on my phone/This is so overblown." Anyone who doesn't have this problem or thinks it is overblown is an Apple fanatic, obviously, and of course they're all yelling all the time. > There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously. I can't seem to find that. Weird. > I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the experiment is run. Nobody said they were fudging numbers, nobody even implied it. > (...) and with another face, they're hiring RF and antenna engineers. Ah right, that whole conspiracy theory. > There are real people who paid at least $200 for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my iPhone underground in the subway? I haven't seen any comments recently (here or on reddit) which suggest that the problem does not exist, only that the problem does not affect them.
    - rmc 16y ago
      >> There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously. > I can't seem to find that. Weird. Further down the page http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1508566 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1508566
      - tvon 16y ago
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
dualboot 16y ago
A small flaw in your logic. I don't think Consumer Reports has an anti-Apple agenda. I do think they have a Pro-"Get everyone talking about Consumer Reports again" agenda though. How do you make that happen? Make a splash with a polarizing article making the case for why the object everyone is in love with sucks. It's sensational journalism 101. They show their hand by recommending people buy the now mostly inferior 3GS instead of the 4. It's like their way of saying "We still love the iPhone!" Because duh.. it's obviously already a huge success.

tvon 16y ago

So you're saying that Consumer Reports is incapable of over-reacting and accusing them of such is to imply that they have an anti-Apple agenda?

mrkurt 16y ago
So you're saying that you kill baby seals?
leviathant 16y ago
What I'm saying is that Consumer Reports seem to have put their money where their mouth is. Countless bloggers, Youtubers, and Twitter users have made their anecdotal claims about having signal issues, and nearly every time they get published, a legion of Apple fanatics yells them down with "Doesn't happen on my phone/This is so overblown." There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously. Dinosaurs can't be millions of years old, because I read a book that said the earth is 4000 years old! Consumer Reports took the time and money to test three different iPhones in an RF isolation chamber, and presumably through scientific process, determined that indeed, the iPhone4 has signal attenuation issues that cause calls to be dropped. I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the experiment is run. I think it's good to question authority - and in fact that's what Consumer Reports often does, and is what they're doing here. The authority, Apple, is saying there's nothing wrong with one face, and with another face, they're hiring RF and antenna engineers. There are real people who paid at least $200 for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my iPhone underground in the subway? That's zealous, and I'm glad to see an organization with the means to test these things put some weight behind the bloggers and everyday users who are having real trouble with these phones.
- leviathant 16y ago
  Oh nice. See that paragraph where I said "do it yourself"? Looks like Engadget had the same idea, and they found that every iPhone4 they have suffers from signal attenuation issues. http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/consumer-reports-confirms-iphone-4-antenna-problems-and-so-do/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/consumer-reports-confirms... That's how you refute -- or reinforce -- a published study. Not with rhetoric that a high school student would be embarrassed to get behind, but with independent study, publishing your methods and findings.
- tvon 16y ago
  > (...) a legion of Apple fanatics yells them down with "Doesn't happen on my phone/This is so overblown." Anyone who doesn't have this problem or thinks it is overblown is an Apple fanatic, obviously, and of course they're all yelling all the time. > There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously. I can't seem to find that. Weird. > I think that if one believes they are fudging the numbers, either duplicate their effort, or contact Consumer Reports and ask for more details on how the experiment is run. Nobody said they were fudging numbers, nobody even implied it. > (...) and with another face, they're hiring RF and antenna engineers. Ah right, that whole conspiracy theory. > There are real people who paid at least $200 for this phone who are having real signal issues, but I shouldn't believe them because AT&T's coverage in Philadelphia is so widespread that I can use my iPhone underground in the subway? I haven't seen any comments recently (here or on reddit) which suggest that the problem does not exist, only that the problem does not affect them.
  - rmc 16y ago
    >> There's already someone in the HN comments on this story who says it can't possibly be true because he's never had the problem with his iPhone. Seriously. > I can't seem to find that. Weird. Further down the page http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1508566 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1508566
    - tvon 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

dualboot 16y ago

A small flaw in your logic. I don't think Consumer Reports has an anti-Apple agenda. I do think they have a Pro-"Get everyone talking about Consumer Reports again" agenda though. How do you make that happen? Make a splash with a polarizing article making the case for why the object everyone is in love with sucks. It's sensational journalism 101. They show their hand by recommending people buy the now mostly inferior 3GS instead of the 4. It's like their way of saying "We still love the iPhone!" Because duh.. it's obviously already a huge success.