Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple, AT&T Sued Over iPhone 4 Antennas

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the had-to-happen-eventually dept.

Cellphones 435

bannable writes "Apple has been accused of violation of the Federal Communications Act, three counts of products liability related to negligence, defect in design and breach of implied warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, unfair business practices and more. 'The iPhone 4 manifests design and manufacturing defects that were known to Defendants before it was released which were not disclosed to consumers, namely, a connection problem caused by the iPhone 4's antenna configuration that makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a connection to AT&T's network,' the California complaint reads."

cancel ×

435 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not surprisingly (4, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756832)

This will have no affect on Apple's sales.

Re:Not surprisingly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32756876)

Or on spelling skills.

Re:Not surprisingly (0, Flamebait)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756920)

I believe you meant grammar skills since "affect" is spelled correctly. :p

Re:Not surprisingly (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32756964)

No, asshole, you misspelled "effect".

Re:Not surprisingly (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757062)

"Affect" is a word, so it is not misspelled. The correct word in that position is "effect," thus causing a grammatical error instead of a spelling error.

Re:Not surprisingly (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757162)

This will not affect Apple's sales, nor will it have any effect on Apple's sales.

Re:Not surprisingly (0, Offtopic)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757206)

Exactly. In my own defense, I very rarely get this wrong so I can only claim temporary lingual insanity.

Re:Not surprisingly (3, Funny)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757352)

Blaming the lack of a physical keyboard would've made +5 Informative a certainty.

Re:Not surprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757232)

It all depends on the intention of the poster....

Re:Not surprisingly (3, Informative)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757486)

Yeah, it might be this guy [xckd.com] .

Re:Not surprisingly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757360)

Touché

(the AC post timer finally expired) :)

Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756840)

A lot of times (I suspect most of the time) these sorts of class-action lawsuits are instigated by not just the usual suspects (greedy lawyers), but also with the support of the companies themselves. The lawyers get a big payday. The company gets shielded from any further individual lawsuits. And the consumers get stripped of their right to sue individually, for the "settlement" of a "5% off your next purchase" coupon.

In other words, when you hear "class-action lawsuit," don't think "Yeah, we're sticking it to the big guys!" Think "No, they're sticking it to *YOU*."

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (5, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756894)

"Just don't file the lawsuit that way." -Steve Jobs, paraphrased

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (-1, Redundant)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756918)

Ok that's it. Starting now, anyone else who posts a "Just don't ... that way" gets modded redundant. Seriously. It's over. And not just in this thread. Forever. Obviously, since I've already posted, someone else will have to do my dirty work this time...

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32756966)

Just don't take these posts that way.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757148)

These sorts of demands never seem to work. Unless you're trying to get people to post it more... :p

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757222)

...or if he's trying to get the mod he's attributing to everyone else.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757322)

That too.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757256)

Congrats on earning yourself a redundant mod! Golfclap! Now back to planning my next "just don't...that way" joke.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757446)

Just don't moderate that way.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757552)

Ok that's it. Starting now, anyone else who posts a "Just don't ... that way" gets modded redundant. Seriously. It's over. And not just in this thread. Forever. Obviously, since I've already posted, someone else will have to do my dirty work this time...

All your "Just don't"'s belong to us!

Make your time!

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757046)

You do know there's an easy way not to be stripped of your right to file an individual lawsuit, right?

Apple will only be shielded from further suits in which the plaintif failed to opt out of the class action.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (3, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757186)

In a better world, that should be "Apple will not be shielded from further suits in which the plaintif failed to opt in to the class action."

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757268)

Yes, so all the plaintiffs who happen to read the "You can opt-out" notice on page 32C of the New York Times classified section, then send a letter and file notarized copies of forms 339-A and 22-4D to the court--yes, all 3 of those people will still have a right to sue.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

ICLKennyG (899257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757444)

People don't even uncheck a box when it says "It's OK to contact me periodically(6 times a day)" Less than 10% change default states whether they are opt-in or opt-out.

The only exception is the Do-Not-Call registry

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757194)

They're only shielded from further lawsuits by the members of the class, aren't they?

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (2, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757262)

Yes, but everybody is part of the class -unless- they opt out. That means that if they just happen to never even hear about the class action for them to opt out.. guess what? tough luck.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757294)

You can opt out of a class action lawsuit and retain your right to sue them as an individual so there's not a huge benefit to these companies to pay lawyers millions unless the defect is very serious.

I could see a car company doing it, but not Apple.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757516)

A lot of times (I suspect most of the time) these sorts of class-action lawsuits are instigated by not just the usual suspects (greedy lawyers), but also with the support of the companies themselves. The lawyers get a big payday. The company gets shielded from any further individual lawsuits. And the consumers get stripped of their right to sue individually, for the "settlement" of a "5% off your next purchase" coupon.

In other words, when you hear "class-action lawsuit," don't think "Yeah, we're sticking it to the big guys!" Think "No, they're sticking it to *YOU*."

Just because there is a class action lawsuit does not mean you have to join it, you are free to sue them yourself and try to get what you think you are entitled to.

Re:Before everyone cheers (or jeers) (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757540)

Exactly. If you're the only person in the filing, you might get something. If there are thousands or millions, enjoy your 35cents.

LoL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32756844)

hee hee I really wanted to see this.

Good riddance (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32756864)

Sorry, Steve, "You're holding it wrong" just doesn't cut it.

If your user's can't actually hold your phone, it's your problem, not theirs.

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32756970)

I have no hands. Where is my phone?

Re:Good riddance (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757364)

so WHO WAS PHONE?

Re:Good riddance (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757026)

Please. You ARE obviously holding it wrong.
It's easy enough to hold it correctly, as Master Yoda [bordom.net] can teach you:

Re:Good riddance (3, Interesting)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757028)

For what it's worth, the Nexus One [google.com] had similar problems... where's the lawsuit?

Re:Good riddance (3, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757210)

Google lets us have porn on our handsets, so we look the other way. Because Google is cool like that unlike that prude Steve Jobs that suggests that we shouldn't be watching hardcore pornography on the bus.

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757474)

WTF????

Re:Good riddance (1)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757536)

Hmm, I still think that Apple just does good old business: Pay money, get product. Google is more like give your land and blood, get shiny digital glass beads, no money needed. I know what I can deal better with. In this case I can deal with it by just not buying an iPhone or giving it back if I already had one.

Once you have all your data in the Google cloud though, it's very hard to get it back should you suddenly realize that Google isn't that cool and you don't like to have your digital life tracked and interconnected and saved in the Brave New World databases.

Re:Good riddance (1)

ICLKennyG (899257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757542)

To be fair, Apple lets you have porn on the iPhone too. They just want to protect you from paying for porn. News flash, there is a lot of free porn on the internet. There is even more 'free' porn if you know where to get it and don't care about copyright infringement.

/Ret con.

Re:Good riddance (2, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757272)

You know I see this type of response here all the time and you know what? It's not a legit response. Just because there was no lawsuit for a completely different product does not mean this one is baseless or unfair. Anytime an apple product is shat upon someone has to come out of the woodwork and point out another inferior product, like that makes it all okay. Well, no, it doesn't.

Re:Good riddance (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757478)

Did you just imply that the Nexus One is an inferior product? How exactly?

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757538)

Did you just imply that the Nexus One is an inferior product? How exactly?

Obviously its missing a lawsuit. Duh!

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757280)

The Nexus did not cost 700 times the materials cost.

Re:Good riddance (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757374)

Huh? Explain yourself troll.

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757414)

They settled with the five people who bought the phone and were left handed. The other twenty people are okay with it.

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757326)

Work hard to get the business of normals, get burnt by their anger at disillusionment.

They may have a case (2, Insightful)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756892)

If Apple is stupid to only do testing:

A. In their Cupertino facility, which has it's own AT&T tower
B. In the field, but covered with their 30$ bumpers

Then this case may have some potential even though it will drag on for years and only the lawyers will gain millions of dollars, with the end result being a small settlement not beneficial to the consumer. Just like all IT lawsuits.

Re:They may have a case (1)

BenphemeR (1301865) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756946)

They did real world testing, remember the whole "Oh shit I left my iPhone 4 prototype on a bar stool!" thing??

Re:They may have a case (1)

Flamora (877499) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757066)

Ah ah, that one was in a case, remember?

Re:They may have a case (1)

BenphemeR (1301865) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757208)

Oooh ya! I wish they would sell those cases. I like the look of the 3G more than the iPhone 4.

Re:They may have a case (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757510)

Umm.... if you recall from the iPhone4 prototype fiasco, at least one was enclosed in a iPhone3g enclosure which obviously wouldn't have had this problem as it had a different antenna design.

Impossible to connect to AT&T's network anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32756902)

a connection problem ... that makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a connection to AT&T's network

So.... The phone exists??

Re:Impossible to connect to AT&T's network any (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757018)

Did your brain shut down after the first line of his comment?

Slap a bumper on it, call it done. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32756930)

I'm not sure if this suit has any merit. At beat, Apple just is going to hand out rubber bumpers and be done with it. Then with the next year's iPhone, will do a slight redesign with some shellac over the exposed wires, and a bit of engineering so that capacitance isn't an issue.

Re:Slap a bumper on it, call it done. (2, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757054)

That's exactly what the class action lawyers want to happen, in settlement. And they'll get a take of the value of the bumpers. That's how it always pans out. The consumer gets some bobble of junk, or a coupon, and the class action firm gets cash for their trouble.

That said, I do think class action firms are among the only ones capable of putting a bit of fear in evil corporations (Think Merck/vioxx).

Re:Slap a bumper on it, call it done. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757282)

Yeah, that's how it went for TD Ameritrade with their suit. All we got out of it was free trade vouchers. Free trade vouchers, really? You leak our private info to spammers and cyber criminals and then you expect us to be around to use those vouchers?

There are exceptions, but that's typically how it works.

Re:Slap a bumper on it, call it done. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757452)

I got ~$35 for buying 2 sticks of RAM in the recent DRAM suit (something like 10% of the price IIRC), so not all class action settlements are lame.

Re:Slap a bumper on it, call it done. (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757448)

If they do this along with offering an extended return period (90 days vs. 30 days) I would be okay with it. The product is obviously flawed. 90 days and a rubber band lets people decide if they can live with the flawed product or not. Honestly, what should happen is that every single iPhone 4 purchaser should return their phones all at once and let Apple deal with taking the financial hit of fixing them or selling them as refurbs with a known design defect. Unfortunately, people are too fanatical about their iPhones to see the forest through the trees. If this was any other company with any other phone, there would be an automatic recall forced by the carrier.

Just Return It (5, Insightful)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756960)

FFS, if I bought a phone and it didn't work I'd just take the thing back to the shop and get a refund. That way I get my money back so I can buy a different phone as a replacement. With a class-action lawsuit they'll get $5 worth of iTunes vouchers and still have a phone that doesn't work. What planet are these people on?

Re:Just Return It (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757034)

The idea behind the lawsuit is to remind Apple that marketing poorly designed or tested products is not acceptable. I think.

Re:Just Return It (4, Insightful)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757074)

The idea behind the lawsuit is to remind Apple that marketing poorly designed or tested products is not acceptable. I think.

A higher-than-normal return rate, with the antenna issue being the stated reason, should achieve similar results. In theory.

Re:Just Return It (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757570)

Yes, but the people behind this lawsuit are more interested in making the point publicly. Or more likely, they're weenies who can't live without the latest and greatest iPhone, so a boycott won't happen. So they do the next "best" thing: complain to "Mommy" (the courts) that mean old Apple sold them a less than perfect phone, twisting the language of FCC regs to make a poor product into a non-compliant product so they can demand a free fix.

Re:Just Return It (1)

ThoughtMonster (1602047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757076)

The idea behind returning faulty equipment is the same, I think.

Re:Just Return It (3, Interesting)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757060)

You're absolutely right.

And the best thing is...this phone's only been out a week. 1 whole week.

And there's already hysterical screaming from the rooftops and people running to lawyers because they see Apple as a potential cash cow, rather than returning a defective product and being done with it. No, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Not to mention the largest of these suits only names 11 plaintiffs. 11.

I've got an iPhone 4 myself, as do two of my friends and none of us are able to reproduce this reception issue.

I know the plural of anecdote isn't data but we're already nearly a quarter the way to the number of plaintiffs in this suit.

Re:Just Return It (5, Informative)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757370)

Anandtech just popped out a fantastic writeup on this issue in their iPhone 4 review. Check it out, its very informative for those who don't have basic antenna design knowledge from EE in college. To paraphrase, it reduces signal by up to 27 dbm, which is almost 50% of normal signal range. (50 to 113 dbm). This will not effect you or show on your bars if you get a better signal than ~75 dbm on a normal basis.

Pretty much anyone who has had an introductory course in EE should have forseen this after the keynote...including their employees. It is a case of gross engineering negligence. Yes, interference does happen with all phones, but the effect is much more pronounced with the iPhone 4 due to an exposed antenna and lack of spending to fix / spot the issue.

In short, your anecdote doesn't address the problem because you are in a good coverage area, and the signal degredation doesn't ruin your reception.

Re:Just Return It (3, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757534)

Anandtech just popped out a fantastic writeup on this issue in their iPhone 4 review. Check it out, its very informative for those who don't have basic antenna design knowledge from EE in college. To paraphrase, it reduces signal by up to 27 dbm, which is almost 50% of normal signal range. (50 to 113 dbm). This will not effect you or show on your bars if you get a better signal than ~75 dbm on a normal basis.

Pretty much anyone who has had an introductory course in EE should have forseen this after the keynote...including their employees. It is a case of gross engineering negligence. Yes, interference does happen with all phones, but the effect is much more pronounced with the iPhone 4 due to an exposed antenna and lack of spending to fix / spot the issue.

In short, your anecdote doesn't address the problem because you are in a good coverage area, and the signal degredation doesn't ruin your reception.

Showing again why Anand runs the best tech site on the internet. Mod the parent up and everyone go read http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2 [anandtech.com] before posting saying that the antenna problem makes the phone unusable or posting that is has no effect.

Re:Just Return It (5, Insightful)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757090)

It's not exactly about the phone. Yes, you CAN return the phone, but it's too late at that point - now you're in a 2-year AT&T contract, that you then have to pay $375 to get out of. All thanks to your phone, sold to you by Apple, not working as advertised.

So then you have a choice, do you eat the $199 or $299, and the cost to get a different phone, to hold up your contractual obligation? Or do you start lighting a fire under Apple's ass to fix the phone so you can get the phone and service you paid for? AT&T blames Apple, Apple blames the consumer, so the consumer is going to have to sue to get things righted.

Re:Just Return It (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757160)

you've got 15 days to return a phone per their contract agreement for buyers remorse.

Re:Just Return It (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757180)

In most states a lemon law/buyers remorse period will protect you from being stuck in the contract and most carriers give you 15 days or more to return any hardware and get out of your contract. You can even port your number back over to a more reliable carrier.

Re:Just Return It (1)

danmart1 (1839394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757102)

"What are these people on?" Apples, laced with powderized iPhones.

Re:Just Return It (1)

Piata (927858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757184)

I don't know if AT&T works like this but for Bell Canada if you buy a new phone and talk on it for more than 30 minutes, you can't return it.

Re:Just Return It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32757254)

It's a good point (it's been hardly any time since it was released), but can you also back out of the phone service contract and get a refund on the remaining commitment?

Class Action Lawsuit (4, Interesting)

Little Brother (122447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32756976)

I'm already seeing all the BS going on about how a class-action lawsuit only helps the lawyers at the expense of the plaintiffs. I do not know if this is usually the case or not, but the only Class-Action lawsuit I have ever been a part of, (interestingly against apple) resulted in a solution that I found quite suitable for the offense.

I didn't get a dime, but I didn't want one. I wanted the system I paid for to work. I got a box in the mail with express shipping paid for me to ship my laptop back to Apple. Apple replaced my defective motherboard, and shipped my computer back. All at no charge to me. I did not even pay shipping either direction.

I bought a product that didn't work as it should. I signed up on the Class-Action, I got a product that worked as it should.

BUT LAWYERS ARE TEH EVILZ! CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ARE ABOUT LINING TEH LAWYERZ POCKETS NOT GETTING ANYTHING TO THE PLAINTIFF!

Re:Class Action Lawsuit (-1, Offtopic)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757122)

BUT LAWYERS ARE TEH EVILZ! CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ARE ABOUT LINING TEH LAWYERZ POCKETS NOT GETTING ANYTHING TO THE PLAINTIFF!

I dated a lawyer once, she was hot. But crazy, evil, I don't know. Maybe a bit detached because of her daily environment. But she worked hard, weeks would pass and she'd totally zone out those weeks focussed on her work until late in the night to defend her clients. (for me totally acceptable that such sacrifice is compensated accordingly).

Honestly, to me it was too much. Her coming home "my client just got jailed, I told him to send this form and such before that date. He neglected it, so it's his own faulth." and shrugged it off going about her business while it stuck on me.

For me it seemed to be much more of a deal for someone to "lose his liberties" (disregarding what they've done) and it made me very uncomfortable with the idea.

But it's a whole different aspect of law, in your example, it's doing what it's supposed to do. Same as the time I got convicted for speeding; I was at faulth, I accepted the sentence.

Re:Class Action Lawsuit (3, Insightful)

eagee (1308589) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757214)

Ummm so the result of the class-action lawsuit is that Apple had to do a standard warranty repair? I mean, wait a minute - are you a lawyer?

Re:Class Action Lawsuit (2, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757218)

Don't be silly. If people have to think beyond empty platitudes like "all lawyers are evil", who the hell knows what will happen. Perhaps they'll start wondering if the phrase "all politicians lie" is a bit of a simplification; and maybe it isn't such a good thing to throw that out to avoid actually thinking about the issues.

Re:Class Action Lawsuit (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757300)

And in this case, it seems that Apple could resolve the issues by posting out a 2" strip of electrical tape.

Re:Class Action Lawsuit (1)

Flamora (877499) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757464)

The problem is that they do not perceive it as an issue. Even their internal paperwork to employees at their retail stores emphasizes the whole "this is not a problem, do not admit that it is a problem, do not offer warranty repairs for this, do not offer anything free" mindset that they're pushing. For a company as seemingly devoted to the "user experience" as Apple is, this is a laughably embarrassing position to take.

Re:Class Action Lawsuit (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757382)

That's the exception not the rule. For every class action that you know you were in, there are probably 100 others that you were in that you didn't even know about. You didn't get jack from any of those other 100. And if your product from one of those ever stops working/explodes/catches on fire/etc. and you try to get it fixed, the company can tell you "Sorry, you missed out, we don't have to fix it now--and you can't sue us now either."

Obligatory Apple Product Cycle post (5, Funny)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757104)

I believe this put's us right about here:

A minor, rarely occurring flaw in the device begins to be discussed in the Apple support forums. Whiny, artistic types post lengthy diatribes about how this terrible design flaw has made the device unusable and scarred them emotionally. Electronic petitions are created demanding that Apple replace the devices for free, plus pay for counseling to help traumatized users overcome their emotional distress.

In the Apple Product Cycle [misterbg.org]

Re:Obligatory Apple Product Cycle post (2, Insightful)

bannable (1605677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757216)

You can hardly call a flaw present in every iPhone 4 they've sold to be rare.

Re:Obligatory Apple Product Cycle post (3, Informative)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757306)

I didn't call it anything. That's from a page made about 8 years ago that applies strikingly well, to this day, to just about every Apple product launch.

Re:Obligatory Apple Product Cycle post (1)

bannable (1605677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757350)

My mistake. Funny how little the New Boss has changed in 8 years...

RF energy (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757106)

if just holding the phone in your hand causes the iphone to lose reception and transmission, guess where all that RF energy is going, right in to your hand, the idiots should have put an external antenna stub on the top of it plus a plug on the back or side so you can connect a magnetic antenna from the roof of your autombile & a hands free setup kit, but i guess steve jobs was so wrapped up in form and fashion he did not even consider functionality.

Re:RF energy (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757166)

But but... an antenna stub would have De-Applefied its prettiness and we all know all Apple lovers WOULD NEVER buy something "ugly"... even if it meant the product not working right.

Re:RF energy (1)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757274)

Steve designed a nice little turtleneck sweater which is an optional accessory that takes care of the problem.

Re:RF energy (1)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757372)

It's not that there is RF energy going somewhere else, it's the antenna getting detuned if you bridge the gap between the 3G antenna and the WiFi antenna by pressing a nicely wetted and salty hand over it.

I certainly think that this antenna design has its flaws. It also has it good points (very good reception when you don't bridge that gap, nicely integrated frame, sleek profile) though.

Re:RF energy (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757528)

what a load of crap! as an avid radio enthusiast for over 20 years, i know damn well touching an antenna with a conductive object (in this case your hand) that RF energy will go in to it,

Re:RF energy (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757578)

[Insert regulator] guidelines mandate that the antenna be at the base of the handset, as far away from the brain as possible. Putting the antenna in the top is not possible.

Like I said before. Why didn't Steve say "What? You make calls holding it to your ear? How 1990s! Plug in those trendy white earphones we gave you as a free gift for buying our wonderful new iPhone and make calls with your hands free to use your iPad!"

DOS 4.0 (1)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757154)

Nooo, it's DOS 4.0 all over again. DOS 3.3 was a great release and then they brought out DOS 4.0 which was so bad I had to wait till DOS 5.0 before I could upgrade. Stick with 3.x releases, they're always the best :D

"Difficult or impossible" is a lie (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757190)

I can see where perhaps there would be a case over this design flaw, but to claim it's "difficult or impossible" to maintain a call is simply a lie. In everyday use, not being careful how I hold the phone at all, I have had no issues with calls with the new phone.

If you make the claims too absurd the case will not have a good chance of success.

Re:"Difficult or impossible" is a lie (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757490)

Are you perhaps in an area where reception is already reliable? There has been suggestion of not only the obvious trait of it only exhibiting when signals are weak, but also exhibiting when conflicting information about different towers is used to decide which to communicate with. It could well be that only quarter or less of AT&Ts asserted "coverage area" is susceptible to this problem and users not in that area "cannot reproduce it at all", but that's still way way way too much. There are more than enough identical reports out there for it to be a case of delusion or overt pickyness.

Overblown but still an issue (2, Informative)

acomj (20611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757296)

Ars has some good analysis. Seeing the games companies play with signal bars apples are oddly accurate... and logarithmic...

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/putting-hard-numbers-to-the-iphone-4-antenna-issue.ars [arstechnica.com]

I don't know what % of iphone users use cases, but I'd imagine its a fairly high %.

Re:Overblown but still an issue (1)

bannable (1605677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757460)

It's too bad Ars doesn't have any images showing what situations may actually bridge the antennas, but doesn't make it any less of an interesting read.

The only way... (2, Insightful)

ap0 (587424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757314)

The only way I can reproduce the problem is to hold the phone in a way I will never, ever hold it (holding this way obscures a large portion of the screen to hold it in a way that affects my signal). I suppose it could be a design defect if it actually negatively impacted me. What impacts me more is the awful AT&T reception I get at my office -- it's almost unusable there.

My guess on the outcome? Bumpers for everyone! I'm sure spending a dollar per phone (which is about what I'm guessing bumpers for the iPhone 4 cost to manufacture) is a bargain compared to having to repair or replace a few million phones.

ATT's return policy (4, Informative)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757318)

ATT has a return policy where you can exchange a phone for another one within 30 days:

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/legal/return-policy.jsp [att.com]

Re:ATT's return policy (1)

bannable (1605677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757366)

So what are you going to do? Exchange your iPhone 4 for another iPhone 4... which has the exact same flaw?

Re:ATT's return policy (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757424)

ATT has other phones. Exchange it for a 3GS if you are stuck on the iPhone.

So... (1)

Mr_Miagi (1648543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32757472)

Who's pre-ordering the iPhone 4 S?

Antenna-ing
Done the right way.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?