Nokia and Blackberry Respond to Apple’s Antenna Claims

Posted by redrobot on Jul 17th, 2010 and filed under Science and Tech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry from your site

Nokia and Blackberry have responded to Apple’s claim that all phones have the same antenna problem that the iPhone 4 has.

Nokia’s statement:

Antenna design is a complex subject and has been a core competence at Nokia for decades, across hundreds of phone models. Nokia was the pioneer in internal antennas; the Nokia 8810, launched in 1998, was the first commercial phone with this feature.

Nokia has invested thousands of man hours in studying human behavior, including how people hold their phones for calls, music playing, web browsing and so on. As you would expect from a company focused on connecting people, we prioritize antenna performance over physical design if they are ever in conflict.

In general, antenna performance of a mobile device/phone may be affected with a tight grip, depending on how the device is held. That’s why Nokia designs our phones to ensure acceptable performance in all real life cases, for example when the phone is held in either hand. Nokia has invested thousands of man hours in studying how people hold their phones and allows for this in designs, for example by having antennas both at the top and bottom of the phone and by careful selection of materials and their use in the mechanical design.

Nokia didn’t call Apple out by name but I believe they took a stab at them by insinuating that they “prioritize antenna design over physical design,” as apposed to Apple. (?)

Blackberry’s statement:

Apple’s attempt to draw RIM into Apple’s self-made debacle is unacceptable. Apple’s claims about RIM products appear to be deliberate attempts to distort the public’s understanding of an antenna design issue and to deflect attention from Apple’s difficult situation. RIM is a global leader in antenna design and has been successfully designing industry-leading wireless data products with efficient and effective radio performance for over 20 years. During that time, RIM has avoided designs like the one Apple used in the iPhone 4 and instead has used innovative designs which reduce the risk for dropped calls, especially in areas of lower coverage. One thing is for certain, RIM’s customers don’t need to use a case for their BlackBerry smartphone to maintain proper connectivity. Apple clearly made certain design decisions and it should take responsibility for these decisions rather than trying to draw RIM and others into a situation that relates specifically to Apple.

That sounds like Blackberry is declaring war. Shame on Apple for trying to drag other people into their mess.

Either way, Apple has come up with a “solution” for the “not-really-problem.” FREE BUMPERS!

5 Responses for “Nokia and Blackberry Respond to Apple’s Antenna Claims”

  1. Thraxxus says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, may I introduce our new Columnist : RedRobot – he will bring lots to the table – mostly a fresh look, tech edge, and youthful exuberance that we other geezers here at BB lack, damn.

    Great article man, glad to have you on board!

  2. Caravaggio says:

    Good post.

    I’d mentioned this in another thread:
    “Apple pushed the boundary of functionality in favor of aesthetics. Proper QA should have caught the antenna confound. This is ANOTHER case of corporate arrogance and greed”

    Apple’s behavior is interpreted as emotive. No one seems to be calculating the economic cost of the “hey, are deficiencies are no different than anyone else’s” policy.

    Caravaggio’s Arrogance/Ignorance Paradox Theory: It’s the immune response that creates painful symptoms in the unknowing thought virus host. The better the pathogen plays with that hard-coded crisis response, the more harm it can do to the host itself. Extrapolated across a temporal measure… eventual death to the host if the symptoms are not diagnosed within the proper context.

  3. Caravaggio says:

    “hey, are deficiencies are no different than anyone else’s” policy.

    please interpret as: “hey, our deficiencies are no different….

  4. redrobot says:

    Why thank you sir.

Leave a Reply