On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:36 PM, tjpa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 28, 2010, at 8:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Well, then let us sum this thing up. In your view, is there >> anything whatsoever that is problematic, in terms of the end user of >> these phones, about how Apple decided to use an antenna system that is >> highly exposed to direct contact with conductive material that is >> external to and not a part of the phone itself? > > Some people in marginal reception areas are reporting problems. Some people > who had reception problems with previous models are reporting the new model > does not have the problem. You need to tell me what proportion of the 1.7 > million iPhone 4s sold are having this problem and where they are > geographically. Then compare this to the numbers who claim improved > reception. Then we can figure out if there is any real problem.
A complete non-answer of the question as posed. >> Should Apple have insulated the antenna from contact with external >> conductive material, and made that insulation an integral component of >> the basic phone package as opposed to offering a separate accessory >> that performs this function that comes in at 15% of the cost of the >> phone itself? > > I would speculate that the purchase price of phone rubbers is not being > subsidized by ATT. Another complete non-answer of the question. Steve ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
