[ajg1977]

I'm 90% sure it's coincidence, but the fact that Apple decided to release their first iPhone bumper/case, and in iOS4 removed the field test mode that showed numeric signal strength, does make me wonder.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all turns out, but I'm disappointed in many of the news sites who are now badging it as an issue with displayed strength. I have an iPhone 4, live in an area with good signal strength, and "bridging the gap" with my finger absolutely does decrease voice quality and decimate data throughput.

[zweben]

I think the release of the bumper case is much more likely because the iPhone now has twice as many glass surfaces, and those glass surfaces are not guarded from direct impact by a metal bezel like on the previous iPhones. If Apple expected reception problems before release they could've just bumped back the release date.

[moe]

those glass surfaces are not guarded from direct impact by a metal bezel

Sure. Because the previous iPhones were built like tanks and... oh, wait. They weren't either.

To me those two "coincidences" look more like exercises in damage control as the RMA flood kicks in.

[jsz0]

My guess is there are (at least) two different issues. The antenna shorting issue which is (apparently) very real and a display issue which could be something as simple as a faster polling interval that shows normal RF fluctuations that don't actually impact service. The later issue is pretty common and nothing too serious -- easily fixable by a software update. I don't see how the first issue is fixable via software but it also seems like too big of a design flaw to slip through. Reports are an insulator over the gap solves the problem so I'm wondering if the original design called for some adhesive insulator to be applied to the gap and some number of units (lots or all) don't have it? I think you're right about the bumper cases though. Maybe they weren't for this specific issue but it seems to me that dents & dings on the antenna are going to be a lot more serious in the long run than just a cosmetic issue.

[philwelch]

<pedantic>So data throughput is still 90%? That's not too bad</pedantic>

[carbocation]

Explanation: "decimate" is to strike down one in ten. To decimate 100% signal strength would be to reduce it by 10%. Hence the lovely pedantic comment above. :-)

[Rexxar]

Your "explanation" is wrong, even if you have more upvotes than philwelch. Decimation was a form of military punishment in the roman army where one soldier on ten was killed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) )

[carbocation]

No, you should re-read my comment, since my "incorrect" statement says exactly the same thing that you said. Or do you feel that there is a substantive difference between what I said ("strike down 1 in 10" and "reduces it by 10%") and what you said ("one soldier on [sic] ten was killed").

My guess is that you misread my statement and thought I said that it reduces the signal to 10%. But I didn't say that, and in fact I gave the correct explanation in two ways to make sure I would be interpreted clearly.

[Rexxar]

I have indeed misread your comment. Sorry.

[carbocation]

No worries. Sorry I responded so adamantly.

[Charuru]

Just because he gave the definition as it is applicable rather than the historical etymology doesn't make it wrong...