My comment reflected wonder about the focus or the diffusing of the signal.
Apple must have chosen that antenna design for a reason, not just to think different.
If part of the reason(s) includes reducing radiation risk to a user, they wouldn't talk about that because no one in the industry talks about it. But they also wouldn't talk about it if it's a competitive advantage.
But designers address it, not only to meet FCC low-radiation requirements and requirements in other countries and regions.
From a marketing POV you can't say "our phone causes less radiation toward the head than all the other ones out there." And even if that were true, and even if the iPhone had 1/200th of the backward radiation of competitors, you can't market around that. In the most extreme, Apple's iPhones would be safe and all competitors products would be dangerous, and despite patents, Apple would be forced to license all competitors to use its safe design.
If that were true, Apple would not just have a safer design, with recyclable materials (who cares), but a distinctive appearance which would be nearly as powerful as a trademark, whether on an iPhone or licensed for Android phones and W7 phones.
For all the brouhaha about the antenna, we will know very soon how strong a feature it actually is, because the discussion was (1) would Apple change the antenna design for the CDMA phones; they didn't, and (2) will the iPhone 5 have a different antenna design, and (3) will the iPhone 6 LTE phone have a different antenna design.
The "delay" in introducing iPhone 5 means we may not have the answer in June. But it will be soon enough.
One more thing.
Could it be about efficient transmitting? The critiques of the antenna are about how it receives (or doesn't receive) signals. But that's only half the job it's designed to do. |
