Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (109737)	2/26/2011 9:50:16 AM
From: Sr K	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213185

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.

To: FJB who wrote (109737)	2/26/2011 1:17:11 PM
From: Jeff Hayden	Respond to of 213185

That's actually pretty funny. Funny like all the many poser companies that worked out extremely successful mobile devices using a lowly embedded processor like the ARM. All those other companies were right on top of cranking out entire operating systems to make their mobile devices useful. Their ecosystems are also very impressive. I wonder how Apple with such simplistic engineering and interface design was able to succeed against them at all?

To: FJB who wrote (109737)	2/26/2011 2:11:19 PM
From: Doren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213185

> Somebody on the board likes to point out how design is much more important than engineering at Apple. This iPhone 4 antenna debacle is a prime example of that philosophy. Just the opposite. Form FOLLOWS function, or it SHOULD. The fact that it doesn't is a mistake in the design process. And it is a process. I absolutely hate the reverse. Prime example: the on off button on my iMac is on the back and too smooth to feel. Drives me nuts. I blame Jobs on this. He's TOO fussy about how things look and not fussy enough on how things work. Apple has been better than most companies on these issues but they still could do a lot better. It amazes me how many companies go under not because of coding but because of lousy interfaces etc. Macromedia comes immediately to mind.