Consumer Reports has often taken flack for their coverage of the Macintosh, and that trend may be continuing into the iPhone world. On his blog, electromagnetic engineer Bob Egan claims that the RF testing that Consumer Reports did with regard to the iPhone 4 antenna issue was seriously flawed.
follow link
Thoughtful, detailed coverage of the Mac, iPhone, and iPad, plus the best-selling Take Control ebooks.
Find Graphics in TextEdit .rtfd Files
Want to find the graphics in a TextEdit document in the .rtfd format? The document is actually a package - a special kind of folder that looks like a file. To see and extract just the graphics, Control-click the document and choose Show Package Contents. A new window opens showing you just the embedded images, along with a TXT.RTF file that contains the text of the file.
Written by
Adam C. Engst
Engineer Dismisses Consumer Reports iPhone Tests
He doesn't say it's seriously flawed, he says the number CR came up isn't precise: "I have not seen CR’s claim directly that the finger effect reduces the iPhones sensitivity by 20db as reported elsewhere, but unless CR connected to a functional point inside the iPhone that number is fantasy."
So he doesn't dismiss the report, he says that the number isn't precise. There is no doubt at this point that touching the iPhone antenna at the edge of the phone worsens the signal. The question is by how much.
So he doesn't dismiss the report, he says that the number isn't precise. There is no doubt at this point that touching the iPhone antenna at the edge of the phone worsens the signal. The question is by how much.
He says it's flawed in the title of his post, and uses terms like "uncontrolled" and "unscientific." He's not saying, and neither am I, that there isn't a problem, just that this test that purports to show there is a problem is flawed.
For what it's worth, I can't reproduce any sort of problem with my iPhone 4 either.
For what it's worth, I can't reproduce any sort of problem with my iPhone 4 either.