Consumers Reports’s ‘Recommended’ Smartphones, July 2010—all attenuate when held

Daring Fireball ^ | ★ Monday, 19 July 2010 | John Gruber

[Swordmaker]

Curiously, Consumer Reports’s list of “Recommended” smartphones includes all of the smartphones suffering from “holding it wrong” attenuation I’ve linked to tonight (Palm Pre, HTC Incredible, Nexus One, BlackBerry 9650) as well as three of the phones Apple posted videos about (iPhone 3GS, Droid Eris, BlackBerry 9700). I’d link directly to Consumer Reports’s web page for this list, but can’t, because it’s behind a paywall that their coverage of the iPhone 4 antenna is not. I’m sure they’ve been performing the exact same attenuation testing with all of these phones that they have with the iPhone 4, and that they have published precise technical standards regarding how much attenuation is acceptable to still qualify for a “Recommended” rating.

My next payola check from Apple is going to be a doozy.

[ConservativeMind]

Yes, they all attenuate, but none EXCEPT THE APPLE short the antenna when used without a case.

Shorting the antennas together is the reason APPLE GOD STEVE JOBS said to give the masses free cases.

Get real.

[ConservativeMind]

Oh, one more funny tidbit about this. Consumer Reports may show that all attenuate, but THE APPLE IPHONE COULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED BECAUSE IT WAS SO BAD, even though the other phones attenuated as well.

That’s some pretty bad press. I wouldn’t be trumpeting this much.

[Mr. Blonde]

So why aren’t all of these iPhones being returned if they are so bad?

[ConservativeMind]

One last thing: Your “bars of reception strength” have always been lies.

Those aren’t my words. Those are Apple’s.

Be sure to update your phone with Apple’s new “lower bars of reception” patch. Remember, they said they’ve ALWAYS made the bars look like your signal strength was better than it really was.

[ConservativeMind]

Fanbois don’t care if things work, they just want the prestige.

Why did people buy pet rocks and mood rings?

[randog]

Why did people buy pet rocks and mood rings?

At least those worked as advertised.

[Tzfat]

I cancelled my iPhone 4 order. I have had all models in the past. When asked if a software patch could fix the problem, Jobs played dumb, “How could a software patch fix something that every phone does.” NO, you are simply you are trying to draw attention away from YOUR crappy phone, Steve. Stop being such an arrogant jerk.

[Mr. Blonde]

You don’t think a phone has a little more usefulness than a mood ring or pet rock? Apple has had products that do not sell well before. Where are these millions of fanbois with AppleTV?

Could this issue be totally overblown in the press because it is Apple?

[bigbob]

It’s attenuation, not “shorting” per se. All antennas are subject to attenuation, the iPhone just more than others because of design errors, caused by the capacitance of the hand detuning the antenna, thus impairing it’s ability to transmit and receive RF power. Apples design screw-up was in exposing the antenna the way they did, and the biggest joke of all was the insinuation this could be fixed by software. As Scotty would have said, “Ye canna change the laws o’ physics Jim!”

There is, however, a stylish accessory that some might want to check into: http://fosfor.com/iphone-4-antenna-kit

[Swordmaker]

All of the Consummers Reports recommend smart phones ALSO suffer from identical antenna attenuation as the iPhone when held normally -PING!

Please don't feed the anti-Apple Trolls,
it just encourages them!

Apple iPhone 4 Ping!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[ConservativeMind]

You don’t think a phone has a little more usefulness than a mood ring or pet rock?

A phone? Yes. AN IPHONE 4? No.

[ConservativeMind]

Oh, yes, please bring in your fanbois.

This will be a fun thread.

[ConservativeMind]

“It’s attenuation, not “shorting” per se. All antennas are subject to attenuation, the iPhone just more than others because of design errors, caused by the capacitance of the hand detuning the antenna, thus impairing it’s ability to transmit and receive RF power.”

Uh, that's “shorting” there. When your skin connects two antennas together, shorting them, they greatly attenuate.

Where did you learn your electronics knowledge? A Cracker Jacks box?

[itsahoot]

Why did people buy pet rocks and mood rings?

To surf the web and take videos, and send email?

[San Jacinto]

I don't know beans about i-phones and I don't care one way or the other, but Consumer Reports is a joke and has been for a long, long time. I have no doubt payola changes hands when they rate a product.

[Mr. Blonde]

Does hating on a product ever get tiring?

[Snickering Hound]

[Dr. Sivana]

I don't know beans about i-phones and I don't care one way or the other, but Consumer Reports is a joke and has been for a long, long time.

I stopped taking them seriously around 1972, when they rated some car unacceptable because there was a twist in the shoulder belt when connected to the lap belt.

When there was a LOT of measurable difference in small electronics and appliances, and the features list was small enough to cover in a short article, CR might have made more sense. An Emerson table radio really was better than a Grundig or an Arvin.

In reality, many of today's electronics components are all coming from the same factory in China, regardless of the brand name slapped on it. More of the decision making is best made by which feature set you like rather than the actual stuff inside.

Now in the case of smartphones and computers, CR is way out of its league. They don't use computers the way a magazine prepress artist, a corporate database developer, or a developer does. They apply the same attitude that they did to those Arvin table top radios, with an extra dash of Political correctness shifting the scales.

The same could be said about their attitude towards cars. They rated the Honda NSX over the Corvette, even though the Corvette actually won the performance tests, because of the Honda's looks. Excuse me? I have to buy a magazine to find out which car's looks I prefer? (They also didn't figure out the Honda's propensity to chew up $500 tires.)

CR is an idea whose time has come and gone. Go to Smartphone sites to find out about smartphones, Tom's Hardware about computer builds and news, Edmunds and others for cars. And try to dig up the 1966 Consumer Reports Buyers Guide if you still want to know the ways in which a Zenith or Magnavox 23" Black and White console runs rings around the Admiral or Philco.

[Swordmaker]

Oh, one more funny tidbit about this. Consumer Reports may show that all attenuate, but THE APPLE IPHONE COULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED BECAUSE IT WAS SO BAD, even though the other phones attenuated as well.

You are misrepresenting what Consumers Reports stated. The facts are different. I own an iPhone 4 and use it without a case and get far better reception than I got with my previous iPhone 3Gs. CU merely beamed signals of specific strength at the phones and noted when the bars dropped. . . testing the flawed algorithm that Apple already announced. They did not and could not test, with their equipment, dropped calls.

AT&T reports that the iPhone 4 drops only 1 in 100 more calls than the previous generation iPhone 3Gs which reportedly was better than average on dropped calls on the AT&T network. That may be attributable to an increase in sheer numbers added to an already overloaded network with the addition of 5 million new iPads and iPhone 4s in just three months, especially since reports seem to indicate that the iPhone 3Gs with iOS 4 also has the same drop rate as the new iPhone 4.

Apple states that the return rate of the 4 is only 1.7%, compared to 6% for the 3Gs, at the same point in it's distribution history. AT&T confirms this rate. If the iPhone 4 is such a poorly performing phone, where are the long lines of dissatisfied customers returning their "defective" iPhones and demanding refunds? It ain't happening, Conservative. The only people making a stink about this are not owners of the phone, like you.