Palm Pre, HTC Incredible, Google (HTC) Nexus One, RIM BlackBerry 9650, Apple iPhone 3GS, HTC Droid Eris, and RIM BlackBerry 9700.
Curious.
Consumer Reports’s web page for this list is “behind a paywall that their coverage of the iPhone 4 antenna is not,” Gruber reports. “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.”
Full article – definitely on our “Recommended” list – here.
MacDailyNews Take: Obviously, at Consumer Reports, Apple’s iPhone 4 is held to a double standard.
Let’s see: why might this not apply….
I’d have to say that it’s because there are actual laws of physics that are dictating the signal attenuation. As opposed to crappy software that can readily be rewritten from scratch.
By objective grading standards, versions of Windows prior to XP failed as an operating system, because they simply didn’t manage resources responsibly. Note that I don’t say “optimally”. The Windows operating system didn’t consistently perform basic housekeeping operations (e.g., it would release devices while they’re still being written to, etc.) until quite recently. This was true (and may still be for some device classes) through NT 4 and beyond.
So – to return to your flawed analogy – the computer crashes. It does so because the software that runs the computer is poorly written. It does not crash because there are laws of physics that say it must do so. Compare to antenna signal attenuation. While it could be caused by poorly written software, it could (and more likely is) caused by absorption of the signal by human flesh.
‘ “My PC crashes a few times a day, but it’s ok, because all computers crash, even Macs!”
Anything wrong with that statement? Now apply it to iPhone 4 attenuation, fanboys.’
Wow there is so much wrong with that statement.
Antenna attenuation is a very small but significant part of the laws of physics in operation that can only at this state of knowledge be minimalised to a degree. The argument is whether Apple has done so better, worse or equal to others efforts.
Pc’s crashing is in no significant way part of the laws of physics, it is nearly all about bad design or a lack of ability to know how not to design badly some avoidable others less so.
Either way I see no problem in saying that my pc, mac, hairdryer crashes no more than another brand when that particular product is arguably (and in this case undoubtedly) being criticised in a totally unbalanced and unfair manner for a range of reasons I won’t go into now. It is up to ALL manufacturers to improve performance be it a computer or a phone, not for any one to be attacked without rightful respect for objectivity in the matter. If a consumer organisation wants to be taken seriously it should openly (or at equal cost) do so for all competing products it reviews. When a publication claims there is no problem then changes its mind but hey come to us to read why, and pay to read similar stats on the opposition it is difficult to take its objectivity seriously.
Consumer Reports is bias and always have been. They do not represent the consumer, they represent the companies that pay them off.
Enough of this manic chitchat! Anyone who uses the iPhone – whatever model – is wise to use a case/bumper to protect this slippery little gem from accidental drops or skidding off your desk. Vanity is most likely the key reason for not doing so.
And voila! end of the attenuation tango.
Consumer Reports obviously has an axe to grind, and morons shouldn’t play with sharp implements. I have no argument with their expertise in evaluating cars and washing machines; but they know nothing about computers, digital cameras and many other categories of electronic equipment.
Hey CR, Eat me.
So now since Lord Jobs utters the words, everyone is on the ‘laws of physics’ bandwagon. Ridiculous.
Yes. Attenuation exists on all phones because of the laws of physics. I concede that fact. That does not mean Apple could not or should not have designed their product better to reduce this impact, or at the very least have it perform equal to or better than the 3GS. My analogy makes perfect sense, laws of physics has nothing to do with it. Every single product that exists on this earth mist follow the laws of physics, or thermodynamics, or any fundamental science. That does not excuse poor design or diminished performance.
“Why does Consumers Reports’ list of “Recommended” smartphones include all of the smartphones suffering from ‘holding it wrong’ attenuation?”
Consumer Reports, besides being only capable of analyzing gadgets as simple as toasters, jumped on the simple-minded bandwagon of ‘Oh look, X marks the spot’, the obviousness of the antenna junction point where the ‘Death Grip’ phenomenon is able to happen in some low reception areas. This of course does NOT represent fair testing of the iPhone 4. It only represents how easy it is to sway Consumer Reports with FUD. This is of course very unprofessional.