Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by GreenBeans, Nov 28, 2011.
Because there is so much wrong info on the web. Frankly, I can never be sure.
actually it was on all iphone 4 ... each ip4, when held "incorrectly" aka..naturally by any "normal" human, the signal would drop 1 or 1.5 bars.
so if your signal was more than 3 bars, then it would still retain a signal with 1 bar left. but if you are on the fringe of service, .... boom you dropped a call. there are many many many reviewers and vids that prove this. from non-biased demos.
1. you should hold it differently.. dont hold it like in a natural way.. do it the JOBS way!
2. here is a rubberband to cover the great metal material that we put in to show off design and beauty.. that should fix the "non-issue"
No, not exactly. There were TWO separate issues going on here, but it's easy to see why some got confused. The iPhone 4 would display the signal bars incorrectly. It was a software issue that Apple addressed in a update. You can read more about it here. They found, and I quote "Reception issues observed by new iPhone 4 owners, derided as the "Death Grip" by bloggers, appears to actually be a software issue that an iOS update is expected to resolve early next week." The other issue was that when held naturally the antenna would get shorted out and reduce the signal, HOWEVER, this SAME issue happens with most phones, including, but not limited to the Nexus One. I don't see anyone here whining about those phones poor reception. Guess what, that's a double standard. When it happens to a non-Android product lets jump up and down and whine about it, but when the same exact thing happens to a Android phone - let's sweep it under the rug. The fact is that it's a part of phone antenna design. Below is an example of it happening to a Nokia.
Antenna experts studied the issue and found, and I quote "My conclusion is that all the hype has been just hype," Webb says. "It's not any more sensitive to hand position that was the first-generation iPhone--and probably many other phones on the market." The current model iPhone 4S does NOT have this issue. The iPhone 4S has two antennas and the phone is smart enough to automatically switch to the antenna that gets the best reception. If Apple is smart then they will get a patent on this two antenna design
you have been brain washed... ok.. i done.. next.
Cleanliness is next to Godliness
You are completely wrong.
LG Prada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada, is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006. Images of the device appeared on websites such as Engadget Mobile on December 15, 2006. "
Furthermore, the iPhone didn't start selling until June of 2007, but the Prada was starting in January.
Furthermore, the Prada design itself was originally presented in September 2006.
"LG Electronics has claimed the iPhone's design was copied from the LG Prada. Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, said at a press conference, “We consider that Apple copied the Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006.”
LG later claimed that Apple stole both the ideas and concept of the Prada phone. A lawsuit by LG had been rumored prior to this announcement;  however, LG has remained silent on whether or not they will file a lawsuit.
The KE850 actually got an 2007 iF product design award, where entries had to be shipped by September 2006."
Engadget page December 15, 2006. Yup that page is still up.
The LG KE850: touchable chocolate -- Engadget
Also I find it funny that you claimed that the iPhone was copied from the iPod Touch. The first iPod Touch wasn't sold until September of 2007, three months after the iPhone.
Way before the Prada?
I bought the first iPod Touch when it first came to the market. September of 2007.
"The first generation iPod Touch was launched on September 5, 2007, at an event called The Beat Goes On. First iPod with Wi-Fi and a Multi-Touch interface. Features Safari web browser and wireless access to the iTunes Store and YouTube. 32 GB and 16 GB versions later added (32 GB in Feb 2008). iPhone OS 2.0 and App Store access require an upgrade fee. iOS 4.0 and later updates of iOS 4.x are no longer supported due to the outdated hardware."
The antenna issue was a big issue. If I remember correctly, not even consumer report would recommend the iphone 4 and Apple copy just like everyone else.Do I care ?no , I buy the device that best fit my needs.
But was it a legitimate issue and so widespread that it made the iPhone a bad deal? I am not convinced it was. I am convinced that the same stories were published repeatedly and that led to more stories. Apple haters reported things that were likely born of hatred rather than serious testing.
When some idiot reads about a bad antenna, suddenly, his problems must be due to the antenna.
I am not convinced the antenna issue was as bad as reported. It was widely reported and regurgitated.
Consumer Reports once wrote about the Leitz Minolta CL as being a cheap camera and not very good when it was in fact, a GD fine camera. They wrote how much sharper a Fujichrome was compared to Kodak's Kodachrome. BS, not true, BS.
I do not trust Consumer Reports because it has been laughably wrong in the past.
So how about posting a little RMA data showing exactly how many iPhones Apple has replaced. and compare that number to how many Android devices have been replaced. We'll talk when a few facts arrive.
Perhaps a few sources for these testimonies from insurance companies and iphone users? Do they break, yes. Are there clumsy iPhone users, yes. Are they prone to damage, not at all, unless you are a klutz.
Glass is fragile, sure. But is the glass apple uses and its implementation mean the phone is easily damaged? Until you know how many iPhones have been repaired because of the use of materials, you do not know much. Your only experience with glass is most likely those you drop on the floor; not all glass is made the same.
Using top quality materials does suggest a few things. The iPhone would never be made pot metal and cheap glass because if anything Apple is all about quality. Top quality materials combined with amazing build quality, that's your iPhone.
Not everyone is clumsy, either.
This says nothing about the increased pressure inside the glass. Wikipedia does.
But it is besides the point really because Apple does not use Gorilla Glass.
A little further on the page you took your quote from it says this:
I'm not going to quote the post, but AngelArs is missing the point on my previous post.
I suggest people take a look at Patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and read up on the concept of patents. Now, a DESIGN patent MAY be different but an excerpt from that page says this:
There's a little more to it, including links within that text that go into what they mean by certain terms. What I take from it is that something can't be patented if the item or design being patented is determined to be an obvious solution to a problem. Rounding corners of a glass part (or any other part for that matter) to eliminate a stress point to improve durability should qualify.
By this reasoning, Apple should have NEVER been allowed to patent a "rectangular phone with rounded corners" as they're saying is the case by suing Samsung (and winning) for designing the same thing.
Disclaimer: I'm no patent attorney, I'm not even in the law field, this is just my interpretation.
The patent system worldwide is in such a mess nowadays that it's just about possible for anything to be an infringement if you pay enough lawyers enough money.
While I'm here, a word of advice.... please don't use this (and similar topics) as an excuse to hate on a particular device, manufacturer or personality. Somebody said earlier, "Its a Android forum, so of course some will whine about Apple". Fortunately however this is not mandatory, and I'd hope that this discussion can continue with civility and logic.
Design patents are completely different from patents - from criteria to enforceability.
See also -
Design patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i am confused.. with all the patent law and which came first.. the chicken or the egg.
all i know is... i dont like what apple is doing... it aint right
and apple trying to patent the face recognition unlock .. is just F-ed UP and totally sums up what i think their business is about!!!!!
You maybe right but just because some may not fall in line and follow the Apple faithfuls, does not mean they are hating. Apple doesn't beat the competition in every area. Many who are following the mobile computing know that Apple has had it's share of problems when a new iphone is release but some like to look away and give Apple a yellow card. Folks get tired of the look at me i'm the perfect and best phone, when many phones are just as good or better. Apple does not excel at every area in mobile cell phone and some can't stand to hear that.(apologize for going off topic)..
You might be true, but lots of companies patent or have patented things casual observers think is silly, since the beginning of the patent system. If they created this Face Unlock, it is their duty to patent it and protect it.
I suspect you are reading the web and falling line with the rest of those that can only react to the surface details and mentioning something that Apple might be perfectly within their rights to patent.
Is the patent system perfect? No, there are many things that require changing. Not a perfect system by any means.
From the above site, for those that think design patents are new:
"In 1842, George Bruce was awarded the first design patent, U.S. Patent D1. The design patent was for a new font."
With the tens of hundreds of thousands of billions of fonts out there, I can well imagine when it becomes popular to sue over font designs, the lawyers will be busy well into the end of the planet.
I am sure lawsuits over font designs already happen.
Apparently you've never dealt with product design of any sort. First of all there would be no iPhone if there was no iPod (introduced on November 10, 2001). Steve Jobs publicly said that he wanted a phone type of device which was a cross between Apples Newton MessagePad from the mid 90
IMO consumer reports is a joke! I can still remember when they were sued by Bose because they wrote a irresponsible report about the 901's. It was revealed that they (consumer reports) didn't even test the product properly. Instead the reviewer brought the speakers home and had his 10 year old daughter listen to the 901 speakers while he went out to dinner. When the reviewer came back he asked his 10 year old daughter what she thought about the 901 speakers and her opinion was what they based their magazines review about the speakers on. Consumer report has no credibility, and hasn't since 1970. So many good products that they said were bad, and vice versa. I don't trust a word they say about any product. I would never buy a product (or not buy a product) based on what CR said.
You are so full of bullshit.
The LG Prada was submitted in public to the MF design competition in September 2006. That means it is already shown publicly months before even the iPhone was announced.
Even before the iPhone was ever released, the Prada was already in a selling state month, which is indicative that its development started earlier.
You keep harping about the timeline, completely ignoring the facts that the Prada was already show in public in 2006.
In fact this is already established in court. Samsung used the Prada phone, and using the argument of prior art, nullified Apple's claims on this issue. This is in addition to another pioneering device touchscreen device, the Nokia 770.
Here is another thing. You keep saying that Jobs wanted a phone that looks like an iPod and an Apple Newton in 2003, which is very vague, can can look like just about anything. Do you know how an Apple Newton actually looked? It's much closer to a Palm and Palms have been around since 1996.
Nokia 770 Internet Tablet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This device was released in 2005.
I happen to own an Apple Newton, and this is how it looked like.
Guess who killed this device. Steve Jobs.
Apple Newton Features and Software - YouTube
How does that look like an iPhone?
Here is the first iPod.
Original iPod 1st Generation  Overview - YouTube
Very different from an iPhone.
How the hell can a cross between a Newton and an iPod look like an iPhone?
Just because you got a timeline of decisions doesn't mean its a timeline of the design.
There may have been a ton of design proposals that were submitted during that time, and in all this period, right up to the first month of 2007, you can be subject to a whole host of external inspirations and changes.
The fact that the iPhone was announced in January 2007 and it took six months before it got shipped means the device that eventually became the first iPhone was still in a prototype stage when it was announced. This in contrast that the Prada was nearly shipping by then.
iPhone 4S vs. Samsung Galaxy S II Drop Test - YouTube
So I guess it comes as a surprise to you that dropping a glass object causes the glass to break? How stupid do I feel. And here I thought that when you drop a glass object like an iPhone it farts kittens.
Guess what? Drop my Triumph and I am betting there is a chance it will break. At least they have proven glass shatters when dropped; I'm trading in my drinking glasses for Tupperware. Thank God I learned something today.
Give me a break.
Bob.. the point is .. all around glass phones are not a great engineering / design idea.
apple iphone 4 is not a design marvel...
now go take that break!
Congratulations on shooting yourself in the foot. Do you actually want people to believe that Jonathan Ive (actually Sir Jonathan Ive now that he was awarded knighthood by the Queen of England) and his team of designers spent years designing the iPod and the iPhone, and then suddenly scraped all of their hard work on a whim just to redesign the iPhone, including the products circuit boards, product testing, component lists, machine tooling to build the products, iOS development, literally everything involved in building the product - just a few short months before they released the product to the public You're also saying that Steve Jobs was willing to gamble with Apples impeccable reputation to build incredible products, all by rushing this fantasy