DROID vs. iPhone

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

It shouldn't be too hard to give me the name of a magazine that does comparison tests of cellphone reception strength. I don't need the exact link.

People can say "Yes there is evidence" all they want, but just saying something doesn't make it so. I'd like actual data, along with an explanation of how the tests were conducted.

The equipment to test cellular strength accurately costs millions of dollars and requires people trained to run it properly. A 3rd party test house charges a minimum of ~$70,000 to do a minimal development run, you think a magazine is going to pay that for each phone they review? I'm not going to post proprietary information here and speed up the process of my layoff to satisfy your curiosity.

Good luck finding that all-knowing CNET article.

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Just checked CNET, they don't compare reception. All they say is: "Common sense. Common sense. Common sense. Personal opinion with no scientific method to back it. I'd be interested in hearing your opinions. "

Awesome find! No wonder you look to them for all the answers.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

Awesome find! No wonder you look to them for all the answers.

I only posted it to state that at least I tried. So far nobody else has.

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

So far nobody else has.

And your findings should tell you why.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

The equipment to test cellular strength accurately costs millions of dollars and requires people trained to run it properly. A 3rd party test house charges a minimum of ~$70,000 to do a minimal development run, you think a magazine is going to pay that for each phone they review? I'm not going to post proprietary information here and speed up the process of my layoff to satisfy your curiosity.

But since the testing equipment does exist, why aren't some manufacturers using the results in their advertising?

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

But since the testing equipment does exist, why aren't some manufacturers using the results in their advertising?

Because the results would be meaningless to consumers. Congratulations, your phone's TRP in 850GSM is 18.5dBm!*

*Averaged in 3 degree increments for 360 degrees for both phi and theta using a SAM right position (Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin).

You feel like you know your phone better now?

Also, manufacturers do not share data, so would you want to willingly put your data on the box and have the competition eek you out by 0.2dBm? The engineers know that difference would have 0 impact on customer performance, but what would it do to customer perception?

AT&T has minimum performance requirements in place for just this reason... any phone sold to operate on their network must meet acceptable performance requirements with their equipment. Unless there's a value proposition they simply can't pass up.

[Homeslice]

There has to be some way to do it. Even if it's not too scientifically rigorous. Why doesn't CNET just take a bunch of phones, hook them up to the same carrier, and take them all to one location outside of the metro area where service is known to start having issues, and see which phones drop calls and which don't?

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by defector

From what I understand, large metropolitan areas generally have good reception with ATT. Here it is fairly good from what I understand.

They sucked ass when I was living in the outer suburbs of San Diego. Even just drywall would block the signal.

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

There has to be some way to do it. Even if it's not too scientifically rigorous. Why doesn't CNET just take a bunch of phones, hook them up to the same carrier, and take them all to one location outside of the metro area where service is known to start having issues, and see which phones drop calls and which don't?

Because it would be a useless test because there are far too many variables that can't be ignored in favor of a non-scientific test for the masses. What if the call dropped because network issues or traffic? What if one continues a call but has no audio, is that better or worse?

CNET wisely chooses not to bash a cell phone manufacturer at the risk of slander based on an extremely small sample size and coverage area used for a test that's out of their range of expertise.

And, that's why AT&T has (extremely challenging) minimum performance requirements for handset vendors.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

And, that's why AT&T has (extremely challenging) minimum performance requirements for handset vendors.

But you said earlier the iPhone has difficulties. Are they on the low end of those standards, or did they miss the standard and ATT let them slide anyway?