AT&T has been a popular whipping-boy since the iPhone was introduced. The greater reality is that they have been the victim of the popularity of the iPhone. Those who knock AT&T often portray a much rosier situation if Verizon were the carrier. They are ignoring the statistics of the Web traffic involving the iPhone, where that device is by far the most dominant mobile accessor of Web services. The reality is that if Verizon had to carry the iPhone's data traffic, they would be as stressed and criticized as AT&T is being.
I've been using an iPhone since July of 2008, and in use in eastern Massachusetts can testify to fine service from AT&T, with voice quality that sound like the best land line (not the cruddy "digital" sound that makes so many cell phone conversations painful). I fully appreciate that there are spots where AT&T signal is weak at best — but that kind of thing is true with all carriers. To its credit, AT&T is persistently upgrading its coverage, and initiated a program for anyone to inform them of locations which need improvement. Always keep in mind that it is extremely expensive to provide broad cellular coverage, and it can be time-consuming to do so in complying with all governmental regulations and approval processes. Also keep in mind that technology does not stand still: it is not long after such an infrastructure investment is made that the technology upon which it is based starts to become obsolete, and needs upgrading. Carriers are now pursuing a very costly upgrade to 4G technology.
The reality is that Apple's mobile device operating system, being based upon OS X, always had multitasking capability; and Apple's own apps could use it (such as Mail, periodically polling the server for new mail). Apple could have introduced multitasking early in the life of the product, but wanted to do it right, so waited, to see the realities of what would run on the iPhone, and base its methodology upon realistic goals. The reason: battery capacity. There is no single aspect of a phone that will cause a manufacturer to get more criticism than disappointing battery power; and letting applications run unbridled in the background is well known to dramatically reduce battery time, fully demonstrated on phones which have allowed this. (It should be kept in mind that this kind of handheld device is not simply a facility for running apps: it is a voice communication device, which may well be needed for making important calls, including emergencies: if frivolous background tasks are allowed to deplete the battery, that is a very bad thing.)
Over time, Apple studied the various classes of apps that were developed for the iPhone to see what their background needs actually were relative to user needs. On that basis, a controlled form of multitasking was devised. Apps which had need to run in the background (e.g., games) would be rendered dormant when put into the background. Apps which made sense running in the background (music, download completion) would be allowe to run in the background. In this manner, multitasking would be achieved in a reasonable manner, and battery power preserved: a happy medium.
Android is not a brand or a unique item, but a "flavor", being a point of departure for a collection of handset makers and carriers to create a phone product which is distinctly theirs. This collective called "Android", with a growing diversity and number of phones and interfaces, is being viewed as a whole in competing with Apple as a single company, which offers one version of one phone. Android's sales figures and activation numbers tend to be compared to Apple's, and can be used to claim that Android is pulling ahead of Apple. But how much do the Android numbers actually mean? My sense is that activation numbers are meaningful for iPhone but not very for Android. With the high churn rate for Android phones (a shiny new plastic toy phone introduced at least monthly), plus all the carrier "two for one" sales, I have to believe that large numbers of Android phones have been abandoned in kitchen drawers, or have gone to landfills. A true sense of Android numbers would have to come from active-units statistics, as from Web server records. All this is to say that Android's sales numbers are likely very illusory as a measure of the prominence of that platform. Android is the puppy mill of smartphones.
Obviously, the fewer facilities you use on your device, the longer your battery
will last — both in terms of current charge level and overall lifetime.
For details, see
Apple's iPhone battery page.
In the need to devote development resources to the iPad, the iPhone 3GS was a
relatively modest, evolutionary improvement over the iPhone 3G.
iPhone 4 was the substantial leap that everyone had been waiting for.
It's basically a reinvention of the iPhone, from shape to functionality.
Being an iPhone 4 owner, I can certainly say that the new Retina Display is
deserving of all the claims made of it: the display is stunning, and sets a new
standard.
The phone is significantly faster, thanks to the A4 embedded processor (same
type as in the very responsive iPad).
The iPhone 4 is not a 4G phone in cellular technology terms, but it does add
advanced technology within the 3G area, such as greatly improved HSUPA upload
speeds.
(4G is still immature, and available in few places — and thus far is
notorious in draining the battery, as evidenced in the problematic Sprint Evo 4G.)
The new camera is phenomenally good and, coupled with HD video capability,
make it unnecessary to carry a pure camera except for special shooting.
(Apple has not gone overboard with the dpi of the camera, realizing that large
photos consume considerable storage space and can be ponderous to transfer.)
Note that the HD video is true 720p at 30 frames per second: beware phones which
claim HD video capability, but try to hide that it is at an artificially reduced
frame rate.
The camera is designed to capture more light than competing phone
cameras: more dpi does not necessarily mean better pictures.
I haven't had occasion to try FaceTime video calling yet.
As verified by others, it is nearly effortless — in contrast with other
phones having front-facing cameras, but not the software infrastructure to make
them as useful.
As independent tests have proved, iPhone 4 contains markedly better circuitry
for cellular communication, allowing its use in areas where phones could not
conduct calls before.
However, there are serious issues with the antenna placement: see exploration below.
The software improvements with the accompanying iOS 4 (formerly, iPhone OS),
greatly add to the experience.
Having iBooks on the iPhone is a great addition: in addition to books, per se,
it allows conveniently having PDFs along with you, as well, which is important
for those of us supporting our businesses where manuals are in PDF form.
And the PDF handling is sophisticated, not just page-by-page presentation.
The new form factor of iPhone 4 takes some getting used to.
The previous two generations were sculpted to fit the hand well; but that added
volume which could be annoying.
The new design is less ergonomic, but more compact.
The tough glass design of the phone is impressive.
(See the iPhone 4 video showing the glass being bent in a strength of materials
test — that floored me, as to how much materials have evolved.
Can't glass break?
If mishandled enough, yes: and I think that's a major point in this...
Broken glass in the phone would be testimony, obvious to both the customer and
Apple representatives, that the phone had undergone trauma.
In the past, a customer might try to return a phone which no longer worked, due
to abuse, where the company would have to try to discern if the phone had been
mistreated in considering whether to allow the claim.
My sense is that iPhone 4 is a kind of public experiment on Apple's part,
particularly with the externalized antenna.
I think iPhone 5 will be different.
Overall, I am quite pleased with iPhone 4.
Organic Light Emitting Diode is a light generating technology, unlike
pervasive liquid crystal displays in use today, which are light shuttering devices
employing a uniform back light.
OLED is not made of a uniform material: its red, green, and blue light producers
are individual, and have different characteristics.
Displays need to have lifetimes of 100,000 hours or more in order to be
commercially realistic. Liquid crystal displays (LCDs) easily meet that goal.
In an OLED, however, the red and green materials can make 100,000 hours, but the
blue material's lifetime has been about 1/10th that.
The overall effective lifetime is further reduced in that the OLED materials
deteriorate over time, resulting in pronounced color shift: white can turn
yellowish in just a few thousand hours.
A further issue is that the light from each element is not uniform across the
element, where the edges tend to be darker than the center, particularly for red
and blue.
The problems with the individual light generating elements have caused
manufacturers to "cheat" in the production of panels, in an attempt to
compensate for the issues with the underlying technology, and reduce cost.
In normal color displays, found in both CRTs and color LCD, each pixel is formed
from red, green, and blue "subpixels" of uniform size, which makes for excellent
linearity in image production.
In producing its OLEDs, Samsung employed what it calls a PenTile Matrix.
Rather than uniform-size subpixels, PenTile has a large, square red subpixel,
a skinny green subpixel, and a large, square blue subpixel in an attempt to
balance power versus lifetime issues. (The human eye is most sensitive to
green, allowing that subpixel to be smaller.)
The Nexus One employed this PenTile technology, claiming an 800x480 resolution.
Buyers who expected a phenomenal display found text to be fuzzy and "dotty", and
color spectra to be irregular, including gray looking pinkish.
This is the result of "cheating".
The effective screen resolution of the Nexus One is more like
392x653.
A good sense of the display issues can be seen
here.
A further analysis can be found here.
You can readily find a large number of web pages which explore the problems
with this kind of display.
This is the kind of deception that has become rather common with Android phones,
claiming great technology specifications but delivering less.
Cost is a major factor against OLED, which are inherently much more expensive to
produce than liquid crystal displays.
Yields are problematic, making it difficult to produce a defect-free unit
acceptable for incorporation into a product.
Companies which produce OLEDs cannot make them in quantities sufficient for a
popular run of devices such as the iPhone.
Increase the size of the display and its cost grows exponentially.
Apple pays about $90 for the liquid crystal display in its iPad: an OLED panel
for it would be absurdly more expensive, even if such an OLED panel could be
produced in sufficient quantities.
OLED is likely to be an interesting side-light in display technology, but never viable.
This is why Apple made the informed decision to go with advanced LED-backlit LCD technology,
with Samsung's in-plane switching (IPS), for excellent overall performance and
realistic cost.
The problems with OLED are manifest with HTC, in mid 2010, moving away from OLED
to LCD, given inadequate OLED yields, where OLED was little more than a
wowie-zowie new-technology term for product promotion, with no real advantages.
References:
Engadget: HTC running low on AMOLED stock, will add SLCD to the mix for some models and
HTC Droid Incredible nearing switch from AMOLED to SLCD?.
This reinforces that Apple made the right choice with advanced LCD technology.
Soon after the iPhone 4 reached the hands of buyers, reports started appearing
of signal loss and dropped calls in areas with strong cellular signals.
This was subsequently narrowed down to the result of holding the phone in the
left hand such that the palm cups around the bottom left corner of the phone.
This results in a bridging of the two antennas comprising the iPhone 4 antenna system.
In its design, a stainless steel band forms the edge of the phone.
In the band you will notice black plastic interruptions in that banding,
in the lower left, lower right, and top, next to the headphone jack.
The cellular antenna comprises the majority of the antenna band, forming a "J"
shape, from the break next to the headphone jack all the way down the right
side, across the bottom, the the break at the bottom left side.
(The black plastic interruptor at the bottom right corner of the phone is not an
actual discontinuity in the metal, but rather just a visual design element to be
symmetrical with the one on the left side.)
The band at the upper left is for the remaining radio frequency signals:
bluetooth, GPS, Wi-Fi.
Here is a picture.
Apple's official statement on the problem, made on June 24th:
In typical adolescent, melodramatic form, bloggers referred to this overall
phenomenon as the "death grip", and lesser media types picked up on that.
The reality is, the reception problems are the result of holding the phone in the
left hand, not imposing any undue force in doing so.
So, just what is the effect?
It varies: some report little effect, some are wholly unable to make calls.
Reports are universal, however, as to losing displayed bars of signal;
but where minimal signal is present, calls can still be made, albeit at reduced
quality. Why the variation in results?
I think a large factor is variability in human characteristics.
As Spencer Webb explains, it is a capacitance effect at the high frequencies
involved in cellular signals — which is why putting tape or a coating over
the banding will not help.
Humans vary considerably in the characteristics of their skin: density, moisture
content, and electrical activity.
I graphically came to realize this when I visited an aquarium where, at the
electric eels exhibit, there were two metal pads and a meter where visitors
could test their own electrical generation.
When I touched the two pads, the needle went way over.
Curious, I stood by as others gave it a try.
Only one other person had the same effect that I did: all others moved the
needle only about 20%.
No matter whether I'm in a populous area with numerous cell towers or out in a
bucolic area, I always lose signal when holding the iPhone 4 in my left hand.
Holding it just strong enough to assure not dropping it (a normal, prudent grip,
not extreme), the bars start at 4 or 5, then progressively drop, about one every
4 seconds, until "Searching..." appears and, ultimately, "No Signal".
It is impossible then to conduct a phone call.
What's Apple going to do to address this?
As of July 8th, there's no indication of a fix forthcoming.
For that matter, Apple is not even acknowledging that the effect is as dire as
being unable to conduct a call.
Apple's stance remains that holding your hand over any cell phone will somewhat
attenuate the signal.
Yes, that is well known — but that's evading the issue of complete loss of
signal.
On July 2nd, Apple posted open letter
"Letter from Apple Regarding iPhone 4"
on its website, referring to "reports of reception problems".
(Having to post a letter like this about a product which has been on the market
only a few days says something in itself.)
The letter portrays the problem being a misleading presentation of signal
strength in how many bars are displayed, with a software change coming to reduce
the number of bars presented.
(I was in on the introduction of the iPhone 3G, and if I recall correctly, at
that time Apple addressed its reception complaints (which were due to 3G network
overloading) as there being too few bars being displayed, and I believe
that there was a software change then to goose the bars interpretation higher.)
In all this, it should be realized that there is no standard for what any number
of bars should represent: that's nothing more than an indicative presentation of
signal strength coming from the cell tower which is serving your phone at that
moment.
There have been reports by knowledgeable people who have returned their iPhone 4
for a replacement, but found that the replacement exhibits exactly the same
problem.
This is evidence to a design defect rather than a manufacturing issue affecting
only some production run.
How is that the general public, within an hour or so of iPhone 4 usage, can discern
this problem and Apple, in months of testing and abundant on-site technologists,
did not?
I believe that they did know about it, in varying degrees, but Jony Ive and his
design team were so enamored of their chosen design that they proceeded with
mass production of that design, anyway.
They probably saw signal attenuation as a result of holding the phone, but in
most cases conducted phone conversations just fine, due to the better cell
circuitry in the iPhone 4, so dismissed dropped calls as the result of being in
fringe areas.
I don't think they did enough testing with enough differing humans.
It is also likely that their RF engineer(s) were intimidated by the device
designers (inherently closer to the president) and did not call enough attention
to the perils of externalized antennas — or their input was dismissed.
One has to wonder about the co-release of the Bumper accessory, which covers the
exposed antenna, and only that.
(With its button extenders and hand isolation, the Bumper accessory happens to
provide the same function and effect as the 3GS-like concealment enclosure that
we saw in photos of the lost and found iPhone 4 prototype.)
When you make a cell phone, you have to be very, very serious about it.
A computer product is a more casual thing: if it doesn't work, you put it aside
and deal with it when you have time; no big deal.
A cell phone absolutely has to be functional because it will be used in
emergencies, where lives may depend upon it.
If form is allowed to come before function, and the ability to readily use the
phone product is jeopardized, that is very, very bad.
So what's the solution?
As of 2010/07/14 there is still no solution coming from Apple — not even
admission of the problem, for that matter.
(Their forthcoming bars display correction is only cosmetic, and will have no
effect upon antenna issues.)
The only solution right now is to put your phone into some kind of envelopment,
such as the Apple Bumper casing, such that your body is kept away from the
band around the edge of the phone.
One should have some kind of case, anyway, for a $700 phone — which only
partially actually belongs to you, until you near the end of the two-year
service contract and pay off the subsidy.
The kink in this, of course, is that because of this issue, Apple "bumper" cases
are sold out; and because the phone is new, there are few third party cases
available.
On July 12th, Consumer Reports
issued its conclusions
based upon lab testing which showed that multiple samples of the iPhone 4 all
exhibited the same drastic signal loss that causes communication degradation and
lost calls.
Their online write-up includes video (also on YouTube) which shows test
equipment measuring the signal, which dropping precipitously as the bottom left
corner of the phone is touched.
In a measured way, this is corroborating what buyers are experiencing.
Note, however, that the video portrayed a lab-bench type room staffed by
technicians and containing metal shelving, electrical conduit pipe on the walls,
etc., and not a "radio frequency isolation room" which might be expected
in antenna testing.
Such a video certainly involves a certain amount of staging, posing, camera
repositioning, and editing.
Also, if you look carefully at the video, what you see being tested on their
Rohdes & Schwarz CMU 200 Univeral Radio Communication Tester
is GSM 850 power — not reception characteristics, so it't not clear
exactly what they are doing.
Their online forum constitutes an excellent place to summarize the test
equipment used, and the testing method, and detailed results, as is common in
lab tests so as to document basis and allow for reproduction of results
elsewhere; but they failed to do so.
They also undermined their image of professionalism by pulling
out a huge roll of duct tape and sticking a crudely ripped wad of it onto the
lower left corner of the phone as a remedy for the antenna issue.
Perhaps they thought that would be funny; or perhaps they didn't think at all.
When you're making a momentous public statement, don't then make yourselves look
like a bunch of clowns whose forte is testing vacuum cleaners.
A serious testing agency would, at a minimum, have tried the manufacturer's
co-marketed Bumpers accessory, not duct tape.
These are reasons why CR is looked down upon by professional testing companies.
Findings:
It's a very satisfying addition to the phone, being less slippery than the
materials of which the phone is made, allowing a more secure grip.
The material feels good in the hand, not annoying like silicone: it will
reasonably slide into your pocket.
And distancing your hand that much from the antenna bands pretty much eliminates
the attenuation problem.
Be sure to properly fit the bumper to your phone: it's all too easy for some of
the lip to not fully pop over the glass: use your fingernail to address areas
where the rubber is caught underneath.
Whereas the front and back surfaces of the phone are fully exposed, you need to
take additional precautions against scratching if you intend to carry the
bumpered phone in your pocket or bag.
Considerations:
The iPhone 4
A dramatically improved next generation
Why not an OLED display?
Why doesn't the iPhone have an OLED display? Isn't that the next big thing?
A new variety of a technology is not necessarily an overall improvement over the
varieties which came before it — and themselves continue to evolve.
At the end of 2007, Sony produced the XEL-1 OLED TV, as a technology
demonstrator, and eventually placed samples in large retail locations.
(You may have seen one at Best Buy.)
The screen size was all of 11 inches, with a prospective price of $2500.
You did not see any OLED televisions for sale then; and two years later, still none.
Indeed, Sony discontinued pursuing OLED technology in February of 2010 after
finding it to be unrealistic.
The antenna/reception controversy
When I watched the WWDC keynote presentation of the iPhone 4 and saw that the
antennas were externalized as part of the case design, I thought, "Oh-oh."
I'm not a radio frequency engineer, but you need only general experience with
antennas to know that touching one alters its reception characteristics and the
resulting signal. So, I thought to myself, "This could be trouble."
And, indeed, it has been.
"Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance,
with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the
antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone. If you ever
experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in
a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use
one of many available cases."
Antenna design expert Spencer Webb
provided perspective
on why antennas are located where they are in cell phones.
His adjoining explanations help better understand the problem.
Accessories and consequences
Apple iPhone 4 Bumper
Released at the same time as the iPhone 4, the bumper "case" is actually an edge
enveloper which covers the metal banding.
It is made of a rubbery material, with a glossy finish.
There's a lip at each edge which extends slightly over the front and back glass,
to both form a tight seal and constitute additional material such that the phone
is slightly raised above any flat surface it is placed upon, front or back.
The glass on the front and back of the phone remains fully exposed.
Incorporated into the bumper are extender buttons for the sleep/wake button and
the volume control buttons.
The ringer flip switch is accessible through a void cut into the bumper: that
makes it somewhat harder to flip that switch — which is usually a good thing.
This bumper accessory was made available free to iPhone 4 customers, following
the antenna controversy press conference.
At the bottom of the bumper accessory is a cut-out for access to the phone's
30-pin connector.
The cut-out allows use of the small-connector cable, which fits right in;
but earlier cables with larger connectors will not fit, preventing the connector
from traveling far enough to achieve electrical mating.
The iPhone 4 Dock has a recess which is exactly sized and shaped to allow a
"naked" iPhone 4 to fit nicely; but with the bumper in place, the dock can no
longer be used.
Your alternatives are to use just a cable with a small connector and forget
about using a dock, or buy an Apple Universal Dock and use that without
form-fitting inserts.
(And, no, an iPhone 4 with bumper won't fit onto an iPad dock, either.)
I tried two iPhone 3G sleeve type cases, to see if the bumpered iPhone 4 might
fit into either, for additional protection.
Nope; won't fit.
Comments on the iPhone
April 20, 2007:
Interviewed by USA TODAY's David Lieberman at the sixth USA TODAY CEO Forum, in
conjunction with the University of Washington Business School, before an
audience, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said:
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."
In December, 2010, Nielsen reported that the iPhone has passed Blackberry as
Number 1 in market share in the US smartphone market.
Back to the Things Apple page
