Posted on 02/25/2011 3:53:47 PM PST by Swordmaker
The Verizon iPhone 4 has a problem that could cause the phone to drop calls, or be unable to place calls, in weak signal conditions, Consumer Reports engineers have found in lab tests.
The problem is similar to the one we confirmed in July with the AT&T version of Apple's newest smart phone. It can occur when you hold either version of the phone in a specific but quite natural way in which a gap in the phone's external casing is covered. The phone performs superbly in most other respects, and using the iPhone 4 with a case can alleviate the problem.
Here's a rundown of what we did and what we found in our tests: We subjected the Verizon iPhone 4 to a full complement of regular tests in order to add it to our smart-phone Ratings, available to subscribers. We also put it through the special tests we carried out last year on the AT&T iPhone 4 after a rash of consumer complaints about signal reception with that model. There has been no such outpouring of complaints about the Verizon version of the phone.
In addition, to provide a comparison to some alternative models available from Verizon, we also tested five other Verizon smart phones that we rate highly: the Samsung Fascinate; Motorola Droid 2 Global; HTC Droid Incredible; LG Ally; and Motorola Droid X.
The special tests were all carried out in the controlled environment of CU's radio-frequency isolation chamber at our National Research and Testing Center in Yonkers, NY. In this room, which blocks interference from outside signals, our test engineers mounted each phone on a stand and established a continuous signal connection to our base-station emulator, a device that simulates the signals phones receive in the field. We then placed a finger to each phone in a range of locations around its edge, and monitored any changes to the phone's performance at each position.
The only phones in which the finger contact caused any meaningful decline in performance was the iPhone 4, the sides of which comprise a metal band broken by several thin gaps. As with our tests of the AT&T iPhone 4, putting a finger across one particular gap—the one on the lower left side—caused performance to decline. Bridging this gap is easy to do inadvertently, especially when the phone is in your palm, which might readily and continuously cover the gap during a call.
We also carried out tests in which we used the phones with "live" network signals. We captured these via antennas mounted atop our Testing Center and piped them into the chamber, where we used test equipment to vary their strength.
We made voice calls from each phone to a corded phone in the test chamber, in a series of declining signal strengths. At each level, if the call went through, we made contact with the phone with our hands and noted any changes in performance. With all phones except the iPhone, we gripped the phone's sides to further verify that contact would not result in a dropped call. In all such cases, no calls were dropped.
With the iPhone 4, we placed a finger in contact with the lower-left-side gap. Reception typically dropped notably within 15 seconds or so of the gap being bridged. The iPhone eventually dropped calls when touched at very low signal strength—that is, at levels of around one bar in the phone's signal-strength meter.
At each level at which calls were dropped, we subsequently tried to place calls from the iPhone with our finger covering the gap. In all such cases, we couldn't initiate a call.
We also carried out a number of supplementary tests using "live" network signals of low strength, in both the lab and the field. Holding the iPhone normally in our hand, and allowing the gap to be covered, we placed and received calls. These tests, too, yielded dropped calls and an inability to place calls.
When we placed the Verizon iPhone 4 into the Apple iPhone 4 Bumper, a $29 frame-like cover sold by the company, the problem was essentially eliminated, as it was in our original tests of the AT&T iPhone, when it was placed into a Bumper. Based on past tests of the AT&T iPhone with cases of other designs, we also expect other cases sold for the Verizon iPhone 4 will alleviate the problem.
Our regular tests confirmed, among other findings, that the new Verizon phone performs differently from the AT&T one in voice quality. With the Verizon version, calls placed to other phones sounded better than they did from the AT&T phone. For calls received, however, the AT&T phone had an edge in quality.
Our tests also confirmed a widely-noted ease-of-use drawback to the Verizon phone: Unlike the AT&T version, you cannot place a voice call and surf the Web at the same time. That limitation stems from the CDMA technology used by Verizon's network, however, rather than from some feature of the iPhone 4.
Bottom line: The Verizon iPhone 4 closely resembles the original AT&T iPhone 4 in many positive respects, including offering great multimedia functionality, a sharp screen, and the best MP3 player we've seen on a phone. Unfortunately, it also shares with its sibling the possibility of compromised performance in low-signal conditions when used without a bumper or case.
As noted earlier, there have not been widespread reports of reception difficulties with the Verizon iPhone 4, and Verizon's network, unlike AT&T's, has received above-average scores from our readers for the reliability of its voice service in the past. (Those scores reflect data gathered before the launch of the Verizon iPhone 4.) But given our findings, we believe the possibility exists for individual users to experience the problem since low signal conditions are unavoidable when using any cell-phone network.
For that reason, we are not including the Verizon iPhone 4 in our list of recommended smart phones, despite its high ranking in our Ratings. Although Apple no longer offers a free case to buyers of the iPhone 4, as it did for a time after the problem was first discovered on the AT&T version, the company has said in the past that it will consider requests for a free case from customers who buy the phone and subsequently experience reception problems.
—Paul Reynolds, with reporting by Mike Gikas
Consumer Reports’ PR person is sleeping with someone from AT&T.
>>>Consumer Reports’ PR person is sleeping with someone from AT&T.
Or an AT&T PR person is shacked up with someone at CR...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Just professional, non profit, non advertising supported consumer advocates.
Nothing wrong with this phone at all.
Move along, move along...
Once you go Mac, you’ll never go back!!!
Consumer Reports was long the home of the Mac-free desktop and laptop computer review. They’ve never been particularly fond of anything from Apple. This is no different. Straining at gnats that are admittedly as much the problem of the carrier, but failing to recommend what they also admit is a fantastic phone. Par for the course for CR.
I'm disappointed that Apple didn't do anything different, but they, too, were in a spot -- they couldn't change anything without it being an implicit admission that something had been wrong.
So CR doesn't approve. Big deal, nothing changes...
It's the consumers who ultimately determine whether the iPhone4 lives or dies, not CR.
But the DO recommend the AT&T phone.
I responded to someone who accused: ‘....a CR employee of sleeping with someone from AT&T.’
Sorry you can't accuse CR of being anti iPhone when they recommend the iPhone as one of the best smart phones.
You applesauce dudes are just totally without reason.
But in the rest of the world, no one seems to have this problem... no one can duplicate Antenna gate. Apple dropped the free case program at the end of September when it became obvious it was NOT a problem beyond the artificial hype that had apparently been ginned up by Google to push Android phones in the US.
Attenuation happens on ALL cell phones when you cover up the location of the antenna on the phone with your hand. It's the nature of the beast. You lose signal when you shield the antenna... Apple and other technical sites documented it with much more sensitive equipment than CR used and showed an equal amount of signal attenuation on almost all smartphones when their antennas were covered by the user's hand in low signal areas. It was also shown by a couple of these non-Apple sites that the iPhone4 was capable of receiving a lower signal strength than many other smartphones and was the best in class in low signal strength areas. So this claim of CR's is so much BS...
No, Leo, they don't... or don't you recall the big noise they made in August when they gave the iPhone4 the highest rating ever, but did not recommend it because of the "antenna attenuation problem."
Well, if true it is a step up from my Motorola Droid. Drop or not you could never understand a word the other person was saying, so the Droid for me was only used for text messaging.
My bad.
I apologize.
I do still buy dishwashers and washing machines based upon their ratings.
I still trust them.
I still don't trust dentists.
I have a great dentist. I would never trust CR and I have never used their reports. I use to work in a Stereo Shop. Their stereo reviews sucked.
No, finding a reason to not recommend an Apple product is par for the course for a publication that has been known to completely omit Apple products from it’s purported “best” reviews in the past. Dredge up back issues and you’ll verify what I’m saying.
> But in the rest of the world, no one seems to have this problem... no one can duplicate Antenna gate. Apple dropped the free case program at the end of September when it became obvious it was NOT a problem beyond the artificial hype that had apparently been ginned up by Google to push Android phones in the US... Attenuation happens on ALL cell phones when you cover up the location of the antenna on the phone with your hand. It's the nature of the beast. You lose signal when you shield the antenna... Apple and other technical sites documented it with much more sensitive equipment than CR used and showed an equal amount of signal attenuation on almost all smartphones when their antennas were covered by the user's hand in low signal areas. It was also shown by a couple of these non-Apple sites that the iPhone4 was capable of receiving a lower signal strength than many other smartphones and was the best in class in low signal strength areas. So this claim of CR's is so much BS...
There are two factors at play here.
1. First is that Apple has a well-deserved reputation for excellence in design, and in improving their products when there is an opportunity.
In my opinion, the antenna design contributed to an attenuation problem common to all cell phones. Technically, Apple could have improved their iPhone4 design, perhaps by adding an inexpensive insulating clear-coat over the metal, in the Verizon and subsequent versions.
Then, instead of excusing the attenuation by saying "But everybody does it", they could have had a phone that performed better than the others. That's what Apple usually has done in the past. They push the state of the art forward, not make excuses.
They chose not to improve the antenna design, and I believe they made that choice for marketing, PR, and stubbornness reasons. That's what disappoints me.
2. Second is that Consumer Reports has, in my opinion, an insufficiently astute technical team to evaluate these sorts of issues. They decided to bash Apple over it initially, and they can't back down from that stance.
I consider that disreputable. As to whether they are in fact in the pay of Apple's competitors, or are merely incompetent, I have no opinion, having no solid information on which to base such an opinion.
But it's pretty clear they are not Apple fans, yet are thrilled to have a notorious connection that brings tech article mentions. CR is getting airplay, and I think that's what they were after, and are still after.
eYUP!
It is interesting to see they seem to have "upgraded" their test equipment... hehehe
CR is still using the iPhone's own five bar signal strength meter as their "highly accurate" test measure of how strong the received signal is...
I already have an iPod Touch, and the main draw of the iPhone is to combine those features with Verizon service; i.e. convenience in carrying.
If the iPhone gets as good reception as the LG phone, I'll be happy, because then I will not have given anything up to get the convenience of the iPhone.
If it gets better reception than the LG, I'll be thrilled, of course.
If it gets worse, I will have to turn it back in. I cannot justify a phone that costs that much and can't do as well as the $20 el cheapo.
BTW, I'll probably spring for a rubber bumper, if only for the mechanical protection it affords, so I don't expect to have the Antennagate issue myself. But you can bet I'll test it out of curiosity -- it's my nature to do so.
I've created a monster in Mrs. F.
In the past 2 years she's gotten:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.