The most recent Consumer Reports review of the iPhone 4 antenna issue has fueled the war of words in many online sites, with one camp calling Apple to recall the iPhone 4 and another camp saying the iPhone 4 has better reception than the previous iPhones and there is no antenna problems. Based on what reports have shown, I believe there is a design issue with the iPhone 4 antenna system. However, I do not think this justifies a recall because there is no health or safety concerns associated with the issue. Also, fixing the problem with hardware changes is not as simple as what some online experts think. Any change in the antenna design requires the iPhone 4 to go through new FCC regulatory approval on top of the logistics and costs associated with retrofitting the iPhone. Apple has offered iPhone 4 owners to return the iPhone for full refund - the only correct thing Apple had done in this saga.
Apple has handled this issue very badly by deflecting the issue by first claiming there is no issue and then said it is a software problem where the signal strength is displayed incorrectly. If Apple had offered a free bumper with the iPhone 4 (Yes, it is a band-aid type solution but it shows goodwill from Apple), the problem may not turn out to be such a PR nightmare. I think we can expect the next generation iPhone will have a new antenna design.
What will Steve do to diffuse this issue?
Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Apple iPhone software fixes hardware or network problem?
Today Apple issued a letter on their web site explaining the iPhone 4 reception issue. I am afraid Apple's explanation is not convincing at all. Apple said "Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong." I am a wireless engineer by training. That explanation from Apple is just bizzare. Not to bore everyone with the technical details I will explain in a note at the end of this blog for those who are interested.
Apple said "To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area." Translation - Now we 'fix' the software to 'accurately' show you how bad the signal really is. It means the phone will show fewer bars with the new software. So, we now blame the AT&T network coverage instead of the iPhone 4 reception or antenna problem?
Now it begs the question whether Apple's iPhone design team knew this antenna problem all along. Apple had never sold any decorative accessories for the iPhone. It leaves the accessories to after-market vendors. Why is Apple selling a plastic bumper for the iPhone 4 and it costs $30! Turning a crisis into an opportunity?
Note:
The phone software can fudge the number of bars displayed to anything. Let's consider a hypothetical example. Let's assume in Phone#1 a signal level of -100dBm shows 1 bar and every 2dBm shows another bar. The signal indicator on Phone#1 will show the following, -100dBm = 1 bar, -98dBm = 2 bars, -96dBm = 3 bars, -94dBm = 4 bars and anything higher than -92dBm = 5 bars. Now, let's change two variables so that on Phone#2 the bar starts showing at -95dBm and every 5dBm shows another bar. The signal indicator on Phone#2 will show -95dBm = 1 bar, -90dBm = 2 bars, -85dBm = 3 bars, -80dBm = 4 bars and anything higher than -75dBm = 5 bars. Now a user starts at a location receiving -90dBm and move to a area where the signal drops to -100dBm. Phone#1 shows 5 bars at the first location and then drops to 1 bar at the second location. Phone#2 displays 2 bars and then drops to no bars. Same phone, same signal, different software show different number of bars. That doesn't solve any coverage or reception problem but just faking the number of signal bars. The real proof is to look at the RxLev in absolute numeric value in dBm in a field test mode, not some artifically fudged signal bars displayed on the phone.
Apple said "To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area." Translation - Now we 'fix' the software to 'accurately' show you how bad the signal really is. It means the phone will show fewer bars with the new software. So, we now blame the AT&T network coverage instead of the iPhone 4 reception or antenna problem?
Now it begs the question whether Apple's iPhone design team knew this antenna problem all along. Apple had never sold any decorative accessories for the iPhone. It leaves the accessories to after-market vendors. Why is Apple selling a plastic bumper for the iPhone 4 and it costs $30! Turning a crisis into an opportunity?
Note:
The phone software can fudge the number of bars displayed to anything. Let's consider a hypothetical example. Let's assume in Phone#1 a signal level of -100dBm shows 1 bar and every 2dBm shows another bar. The signal indicator on Phone#1 will show the following, -100dBm = 1 bar, -98dBm = 2 bars, -96dBm = 3 bars, -94dBm = 4 bars and anything higher than -92dBm = 5 bars. Now, let's change two variables so that on Phone#2 the bar starts showing at -95dBm and every 5dBm shows another bar. The signal indicator on Phone#2 will show -95dBm = 1 bar, -90dBm = 2 bars, -85dBm = 3 bars, -80dBm = 4 bars and anything higher than -75dBm = 5 bars. Now a user starts at a location receiving -90dBm and move to a area where the signal drops to -100dBm. Phone#1 shows 5 bars at the first location and then drops to 1 bar at the second location. Phone#2 displays 2 bars and then drops to no bars. Same phone, same signal, different software show different number of bars. That doesn't solve any coverage or reception problem but just faking the number of signal bars. The real proof is to look at the RxLev in absolute numeric value in dBm in a field test mode, not some artifically fudged signal bars displayed on the phone.
Monday, June 28, 2010
iPhone 4 is out
The new iPhone 4 was out on Thursday last week. The Apple Store in San Francisco has a line outside that wrapped around the block and I wasn't going to wait in line. It's amazing that people will line up to buy a phone. Well, today I finally walk into an Apple Store (no wait anymore) to check out the iPhone 4. The screen is absolutely beautiful but other than that, there is nothing really appeals to me to make me upgrade from my iPhone 3GS. I know many people will disagree with my verdict but to me it is more a cosmetic upgrade of the iPhone 3GS. It is true that there are new features like multitasking, Facetime video call, 5M pixel camera, but still these are not new in cell phones. I think Nokia has all those over a year ago.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Apple vs. Nokia
Since Apple introduced the iPhone, Nokia continue to lose share of the smartphone market. So, how are they different in making and marketing cell phones?
Apple create public anticipation and excitment on their product launch because they keep their product secret very well (until the iPhone 4 shows up in a bar in the Bay area). That creates public interest and people do line up to get an iPhone because it is cool. Nokia on the other hand announced the N8 in April and said it would be available in the third quarter of 2010. The N8 is supposed to be Nokia's answer to the iPhone but what good is it if you cannot buy it and let Apple take the market with the iPhone 4?
Cell phone has become a commodity where hardware becomes less of a differentiating factor. Apple understand this and created the App Store. With the App Store, there is a platform on which third party developers can create applications and let the marketplace decide which applications are good. Consumers can 'customize' their phones however they like by loading different applications. Apple shift the software application development cost to others while taking a cut in every application sold at the AppStore, like collecting tax!
While Apple have basically one phone model, Nokia segment the market by selling different models, the N-series high end multimedia phone, the E-series business optimized phones, other series for music focused and other low end phones - and they don't run the same operating system. Apple again have the advantage here because they can focus on one platform development and the application developers can make one application that runs on the iPhone (and iPod Touch too). On the other hand, Nokia have to spend multiple R&D budgets on developing and marketing many more phone platforms. In addition, software developers have to port their applications to different platforms.
I think the N8 has better hardware than the iPhone but the software and user interface may let them down. However, I am still interested to see how the N8 performs in the smartphone market, especially outside North America where people are generally more savvy with cell phones selection.
Apple create public anticipation and excitment on their product launch because they keep their product secret very well (until the iPhone 4 shows up in a bar in the Bay area). That creates public interest and people do line up to get an iPhone because it is cool. Nokia on the other hand announced the N8 in April and said it would be available in the third quarter of 2010. The N8 is supposed to be Nokia's answer to the iPhone but what good is it if you cannot buy it and let Apple take the market with the iPhone 4?
Cell phone has become a commodity where hardware becomes less of a differentiating factor. Apple understand this and created the App Store. With the App Store, there is a platform on which third party developers can create applications and let the marketplace decide which applications are good. Consumers can 'customize' their phones however they like by loading different applications. Apple shift the software application development cost to others while taking a cut in every application sold at the AppStore, like collecting tax!
While Apple have basically one phone model, Nokia segment the market by selling different models, the N-series high end multimedia phone, the E-series business optimized phones, other series for music focused and other low end phones - and they don't run the same operating system. Apple again have the advantage here because they can focus on one platform development and the application developers can make one application that runs on the iPhone (and iPod Touch too). On the other hand, Nokia have to spend multiple R&D budgets on developing and marketing many more phone platforms. In addition, software developers have to port their applications to different platforms.
I think the N8 has better hardware than the iPhone but the software and user interface may let them down. However, I am still interested to see how the N8 performs in the smartphone market, especially outside North America where people are generally more savvy with cell phones selection.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
iPhone 4
I have just finished watching Steve Job's keynote speech where he introduced the iPhone 4. Even though we have seen the iPhone 4 because of the Gizmodo leak, it is still interesting because of Jobs charisma and how he presented the most important features of the new iPhone. Comparing the technical specifications of the new iPhone 4 with the latest smartphones on the market, it is roughly on par with the likes of HTC's Android and even Nokia phones. However, Apple still make it relevant because they focus on the 'why' you need this but not that, instead of focusing on 'what' is in the phone. I am not going to do a full review here as you can find many of them by Googling. Let's look at two features to illustrate my point.
Camera
- 5M pixel with LED flash. This is nothing exciting because the new Android phones come with 8M pixel camera and the upcoming Nokia N8 comes with a 12M pixel camera. 5M pixel on a small sensor is plenty in a phone form factor. If you are just viewing your photos on your phone or your computer, both of them have resolution far less than 5M pixel anyway. The front camera is not a new idea either but using it for FaceTime video calling, that's a good use of a front camera.
Display
- 'Retina display'. What a cool name! Basically Apple says that's all the resolution you will need because your eyes won't be tell the difference even if the resolution is higher. Another sensible decision with a good explanation rather than just cramming more pixels and dots per inch on the specifications.
Overall, I would say the iPhone 4 is a attractive incremental upgrade. Apple just do things a little better than everyone else and now others have to play catch up again.
Camera
- 5M pixel with LED flash. This is nothing exciting because the new Android phones come with 8M pixel camera and the upcoming Nokia N8 comes with a 12M pixel camera. 5M pixel on a small sensor is plenty in a phone form factor. If you are just viewing your photos on your phone or your computer, both of them have resolution far less than 5M pixel anyway. The front camera is not a new idea either but using it for FaceTime video calling, that's a good use of a front camera.
Display
- 'Retina display'. What a cool name! Basically Apple says that's all the resolution you will need because your eyes won't be tell the difference even if the resolution is higher. Another sensible decision with a good explanation rather than just cramming more pixels and dots per inch on the specifications.
Overall, I would say the iPhone 4 is a attractive incremental upgrade. Apple just do things a little better than everyone else and now others have to play catch up again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)