Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/n...ical-design-i/

Nokia hits back after Apple suggests all other phone manufacturers have the same issue. Not sure why Apple couldn't just admit they have an issue.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Because Apple cares alot about their public image.

Nokia should prioritize customer service and communication too.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

I wonder if people were this angry with the Nokia e71 when it exhibited the same behavior...

Oh well. They prioritize antenna performance. How about OS and customer support being at least in the top 5 too?

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

does Apple really care? The sell rate of the IPhone 4 speaks for itself, and I'm quite sure that Nokia has never sold with this speed.
I honestly am a bit worried with Nokias "turn around" rate regarding cool phones. N900 is a clumpsy brick compared to any IPhone - I'm happy with my N900 - but let's be fair, Nokia hardware design is not good enough ATM.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Does Apple really care? Does any company really care?

No. Or else we'd have better products that falter less in our hands.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

So they prioritize antenna over physical design? Big frickin whoop!

Here's a thought, how about prioritizing your frickin OS. How about prioritizing making a useable device that in 2010 can actually sync properly with my PC.

Better yet, how about prioritizing not screwing over your customers by end of lifing their (new) OS and then telling them that your (newer) OS won't be supported on their device.

Goddammit Nokia. If you open your stupid mouth one more time, i'm gonna pwn you even harder next time.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

why do they put the antenna in the bottom where you're guaranteed to block at least some of the signal when talking on the phone then?

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Well. How about that. I'm glad to see where Nokia has its priorities. Despite everything else, they clearly can design one mean antennae.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Because that's farthest away from your head, and minimizes radiation absorbed in your head (SAR); yay for regulations.

Besides, it's not like you can put it somewhere else inside the phone and not be guaranteed to block the signal -- again, the whole head thing. The design goals of a mobile phone are seriously contradictory -- good radio performance at 850-2100MHz (wavelengths 14-6 inches) in the smallest possible package, and "normal" conditions involve being held directly against a loud-mouthed waterbag which must be protected from excessive radio absorption. The design is always a compromise, and it's honestly pretty incredible that most mobiles work as well as they do, especially considering all the additional obstacles (camera, battery, etc.) further restricting the available antenna space in a modern smartphone.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Ahem.

http://cimota.com/blog/2010/07/06/wh...ice-drops-off/

Very, VERY appropriate article... and he mentions the 770/N800/N810/N900 line, too.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Am I the only one that think Nokia has been taking one to many cheap shots at Apple these days?
The gizmodo thing, the phone grip thing and now this. Seems a tad low IMHO. How about focusing on supporting the n900 more

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Like the article I pointed out says, "Nokia needs to shut up and get some class."

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

I would hope all the money they spent at least goes to something. =P

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

please nokia makes fantastic robust devices. criticise them on their high end devices but no one can say nokia is taking cheap un deserving shots at apple.

its like a nerd at school finally saying 'hah hah' to the jock who fails a maths test.

apple has a long history of mocking and shamelesly ridiculing competitors. IBM, Microsoft and now everyone by saying all phones suffer the antenna problem.
the e71 was a real problem but that was it. nokia invest more time and money in making great phones than anyone else. all these sheep companies like htc, samsung, motorolloa - who once helped move the industry forward have adopted the quick profit theology of apple. producing a new device every month with no sense of longevity and customer experience. i guess the consumer is to blame for demanding an apple type OS with pretty colours and lots of things to touch.

call me outdated but i preferred the old sony ericcson and htc - i feel the phone market is becoming so superficial that nokia feels it needs to replicate poor competitor behaviour. it should stick with it does best but it has every right to boast of all its achievements. if it wasnt for nokia we would have had a noticeably different mobile market today.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

We just did.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Did any one bother to check the comments on that you tube video, the poster of the clip, say's that the problem turned out to be the AT&T micro cell.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Actually the iPhone 4 has the best antenna DESIGN available. By using the stainless steel band, you give the phone a professional and appealing aesthetics AND give the antenna more direct access to radio signals.

What Apple did wrong was put a cheap/inferior receiver/module compared to the norm:
since the design should've allowed for better signals, it would have to be a bad software stack (i highly doubt) or antenna that is weaker ... to bring the reception quality down (even when you aren't touching the bridge)

(actually you can, continue reading)

And another thing Apple did do wrong was put the bridge in the wrong spot. If they expect people to use this without sticking duct tape or having to put a case on.
I am right handed so I probably wont cover that bridge while on a call. But if I have to multitask (jot a note etc) I will change hands and now cover the bridge.
If they put the bridge on the top or bottom, there would be an issue of dropped reception when holding the phone in landscape (horizontally). For instance, streaming media while playing games or watching videos (multitasking) or even streaming videos ... I will still be bridging the two bands.
So where to place it?
On the left or right side on the the top (near corner).
1) I won't be touching it while holding the device in landscape (TICK).
2) I won't be touching it while holding the device in portrait (small tick) ... while people can shift the phone down from the usual grip position to accidentally bridge with the inside of the index finger medial phalanges. But the incidence would be much lower and users wouldn't need to but could easily adapt to avoid the issue.

Win, Win?

No!

As mentioned earlier, this places the antenna much closer to your central cortex (brain) so there is increased radiation danger.
It is all about compromises.

1) Go with the inferior but proven design (Nokia, Samsung, HTC etc)
Design= Mediocre reception, Mediocre radiation, Mediocre aesthetics
2) Go with the iPhone 4 design and lose reception
Design= Low reception, Mediocre radiation, High aesthetics
3) Go with the iPhone 4 design and destroy the design by placing a duct tape or use a phone cover over the bridge.
Design= Mediocre reception, Mediocre radiation, Low aesthetics
4) Go with the iPhone 4 design but have a large plastic/non-conductive material placed where the bridge rests by the OEM
Design= Mediocre performance, Mediocre radiation, Mediocre aesthetics
5) Go with the iPhone 4 design but place the bridge on the top left (or right for left handers) corner
Design= High performance, High radiation, High aesthetics

Ofcourse, these are some possibilities, the OEM may choose to tweek the actual antenna and design to make it more appealing, or less radiation to people, or better reception than what is inferred.

If I was designing a slate phone (like the iPhone) as a user:
My first choice would go to numb 5 if the radiation level was acceptable.
Then numb 1, I want a universal design, not areas where the aesthetics looks poor
Then numb4, it may not be the best but it is acceptable and gives a universal design
Then numb 3, poor aesthetics but good reception is better than no reception
Then numb 2, ppfffh!

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Hear, hear about the focusing on N900 more. The cheapshots about what they do and do not concentrate on still doesn't deliver a damn thing new/better to the table. It's just talk... and talk is indeed cheap.

I would love to have seen a secondary N900 that would have worked on AT&T's frequencies in the US. It's not like they don't make those type of radios. Seriously, just pop that out, on the same network as the iPhone and give people true freedom.

Why didn't that happen?

But also... support it better. Bring the next OS to it. Officially.

Instead of talk about antennas. I had to hold my N810 a certain way to get a rapid GPS lock. If my left hand went too high on the back side, I'd lose wi-fi. I've seen the E71 lose signal by gripping it a "certain way". I've also witnessed the iPhone 4 losing signal too. Same for the iPhone 3GS - just hold it upside down in your right hand - it'll drop one bar usually.

So yeah. Cheapshot all day - either way. But damn Nokia. You've had 8 months where you could have brought the N900 to AT&T - head to head challenge. You could have stated that "We'll officially bring MeeGo and not forget our early adopters..." and see how that would have worked in your favor.

You could have said more than "our antennas are better than yours" when honestly most people don't even know what you still sell outside of the cheap *** 6102i and other candy bar phones that are freebies now on contract in the US.

And Apple... I hated almost all that was said today. It just smacks of not saying the truth... y'all goofed.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Sadly gerbick (as you've said) nobody really cares about us consumers. They're all out to appease their stockholders even though by pleasing consumers they make a better long term profit.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

And I'm not arguing with you; but doesn't that just... well, show how short-sighted some companies are?

Keep pissing off your customers, and in this day and age, they'll go to your official forums, to affiliate forums like this, to Amazon.com, to other very visual places and complain like no other.

And then they'll stop buying your stuff. They'll spread their vitriol. And even the most deep-rooted fan will grow cold to your products. I'm waiting on that to start happening to Apple - they've become the Microsoft as of late. Nokia has become cold, it seems.

And yeah, I'm really starting to get a bit bummed out because as much as I like gadgets, I hate the companies because they've become very transparent as to how much they see us as only a dollar and the shareholders want to find that way to squeeze out that next buck from us.

I... just ****ing hate it. And worse... hate it when the people that still believe in that brand just ramp up against the people that are skeptical for rather valid reasons.

Nokia, Apple... I'm not just a profit margin. And soon, I'll use neither of your products. I can remember a day when I didn't need/use a cellphone. I can return to that rather quickly.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

I'm stuck with Maemo and the N900. It's the only product out there that fits my needs. Of course my needs change depending on my situation. When I'm no longer doing my studies I doubt I'll need equipment like what the N900 provides. But at the same time I'm still limited by what hardware companies put out. I have no love for Nokia, in fact I've been irritated at them ever since their "silence is golden" tactic when it came to the N900's launch at the end of last year. Remember that delay headache? And I still haven't gotten that $50 rebate from them. Though I do like what Maemo and Meego provide and I happy support Maemo and Meego, just not the company Nokia behind it. It astounds me how a company like Nokia came up with Maemo. And Nokia wasted the opportunity by continuing giving love to their other child Symbian.

The only reason why I get annoyed at all the complaining on here is I still see this as InternetTabletTalk. A site for enthusiasts of the Maemo platform and Internet Tablets. I'm all for complaining about Nokia, but I just don't think this is the right medium for it. The only thing I've found it do is make noise that clogs up the website.

My only hope is that other companies jump onto the Meego platform and show Nokia how to do things right. If not then I won't be buying any more Maemo/Meego devices in the future if Nokia is the only company making them. Though I have a feeling that if they are, it won't last very long versus Android.

I guess returning to "dumbphones" is an option but I've grown to like having access to the Internet everywhere. (my how things change).

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

the only way aple is ever going to listen is if hardly no one buys the iphones but we all know thats never gonna happen because all the apple fanboys kiss apples *** regardless of flaws

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

You could replace "Apple" and "iPhone" with most any other manufacturer and product, you know that right?

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

i have all nseries flagships released in last 3 1/2 years not one of them i can get to lose bars no matter how i hold it
gerbick and danramos are in every apple thread defending them and turning tide on nokia
you can find them pounce with negatives in any nokia thread too its best to just put them on ignore if you can't put up with there trollish behaviour anymore like i just did

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Erm. I sorta went at both Apple and Nokia.

Here... lemme do it again. I don't like either one of them right now.

Apple is full of crap. Nokia is too.

And that whole N-series line... N97 Mini had an antenna problem - here's one thread of many complaints. I can only testify how the N810 had problems.

Regardless, you dislike it when I talk about both Apple and Nokia, only care to see my disdain towards Nokia and not Apple... you'll be just ok. At least I can see both sides of the problem and not choose just one side to pay attention to and/or have experience to talk about.

And feel free to place me on ignore. It doesn't bother me one bit.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Umm... no. I wasn't talking about putting the "bridge" somewhere, I was talking about putting the antenna somewhere -- note that I was replying to a post about typical mobiles with the antenna on the bottom end of the phone, not about the iPhone's distinctive (and apparently rather misunderstood) antenna system. Of course, the iPhone's antenna is practically the whole size of the phone, so there's really not much "put[ting] it somewhere else" you can do; basically just rotating the two antennas around the periphery of the phone.


Yes, but as long as you hold it at your head, your head is blocking the signal to a varying extent through most of a hemisphere. This holds true to any antenna design; ones lower on the phone will suffer less head-blockage (and more hand-blockage), but it's still an effect for all phones held at one's head, regardless of where you place the antennas or where any "bridges" may be.
I'm not sure you're as fully aware of the iPhone 4's antenna system as you might think; note that the metal band in the housing is two antennas of dissimilar lengths (shorter for 2.4GHz, longer for 2.1-0.85), and there's already a gap in the top (which it seems nobody shorts in practice, even though you cited this location as a liability in landscape) as well as the one on the side causing all the trouble.

The fact that you keep talking about the "bridge" is also wierd -- the iPhone doesn't use a slot antenna, if that's what you're thinking of; AUI it's just two monopoles, each relying on the rest of the phone (including the other antenna, since they're not on the same frequency) as a ground plane or counterpoise. So the "bridge" is only relevant in itself if it's actually being shorted (or bridged); it's not a meaningful feature in normal use. The entire side and bottom of the phone (or, more nearly, the entire phone, functioning as a poor dipole) radiates the signal.

Flipping the entire antenna design vertically would get the side gap where you want it, but the other one would now be on the bottom, where it's IMO more likely to be shorted by an errant finger. And of course, you'll also change the radiation pattern somewhat, although I'm not sure it would be enough to matter, or even whether it would be a beneficial or detrimental change.


Don't get me wrong, I do think the iPhone 4 antenna is better than most other antennas in phones that size, when used in free space (or, possibly, next to the head, with no hands nearby, since they probably optimized it for that); the ability to effectively short it with a misplaced finger is the only issue, but it happens that's a pretty big one, and hard to get rid of without growing the phone or shrinking the antenna to get a little more spacing

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

We need to go back to the days of manually extending the external antenna. One of the many things lost in the cosmetic revolution..

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Anyway, Nokia poking fun at Apple is pretty silly anyway.

Nokia needs to sell like 150 million phones just to make like 1 billion in revenue. Apple sells like 20 mil and makes like 2 billion.

Nokia has about 12 billion cash reserves, Apple has what like 50 billion.

Steve Jobs by himself could BUY Nokia.

So Nokia needs to stfu and "prioritize" some better strategy for staying a viable company. You can only survive on the vapors from the fanboy farts for so long...

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

:D

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Vy2Puo54Ko...s400/irony.jpg

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Anyway, haven't there always been ways I'm not supposed to hold the N900 because the GPS or something is there? I've been trying to avoid holding it wrong since I got it, before this controversy even started.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Good mov e by Nokia. If apple took their time to call out all these companies then Nokia, RIM, Samsung, HTC has the right to respond.

All this ranting Nokia needs to focus on OS?! what is that about? Which OS? Symbian or Meego? both of which are in transition aka getting more prority

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

I used my e71 for an year and found out about that afterwards. I quess I didn't cup my phone as default when holding it.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

well, what did Apple do with their problem?

took a cheap shot to nokias reception and didn't even demo it (other manufacturers models were demoed though)

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

you are acting like n900 wasn't only for early adopters and nothing more. this thread is only a strong reminder why I took a pause from here, stupid ranting etc.

you all ranters made bad call. live with it.

and **** you all!

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

There's a bunch of Whine Farmers in this thread.

Nokia defend themselves against Apple ******** about stickers on phones when none of my Nokias have antennae warning stickers. Stick to the topic at hand and don't use the thread as a reason to mouth off about whatever other issues you have with Nokia.

For the record, I have both an N900 and an iPhone3G and I use both for different purposes. No single device is 100% perfect (yet).

Sent from my Macbook Pro

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Anger much?

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Blame nokia (& their subsidiary and their marketing partners) for inviting the wrong people to the party.

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

amen

nokia defend themselves from apple FUD intended to keep them in the clear after making a really bad design choice.

I find the guy saying the antenna design is good really funny. There is a reason why no-one ever puts an antenna exposed where hands can get at it. Basically a hand holding it greatly alters it's electrical performance, not always badly but always leading to a change that the system has to accomodate. The way apple seem to have got round this is by making them very big - compared to most other mobiles. So it is the exposed antenna that leads to them being so close you can short them. An interesting design maybe, but one that means other compromises need to be made - but putting some coating on it would have worked better

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

It's just marketing.

It's probably true that every manufacturer probably has more or less the same reception problems, but as the current king of the hill (at least in US), Apple has been taking hit in the media. And apparently it seems, that they still aren't used to being the cover girl of the month. They did everything they could in the press event, blaming others, giving free bumper cases and money-back-quarantee. Does it help? Probably not, as the problem is still there. And the press is greedy.

And Nokia? Well... who is willing to test all the models in the market? Globally? It's true that Nokia has way too many model numbers, but in this case it's actually an advantage. It's pretty safe IMHO for them to publish a statement like they did today.

Other manufacturers will follow, RIM in the first place. It's going to be interesting! :)

Re: Nokia : We prioritize antenna performance over physical design
 

Of course no one did. That whole article was pure rubbish anyways...

Some people seems to be so dumb that they does not understand what's a different between putting some part of your skin (skin contact) to a iphone 4's antenna (a light touch) to get a signal drop OR cover your phone with 2 inches of meat and squeeze it so hard that phonecovers crunch. All this at poor reception with cell tower broken.