Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)
Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List
37signals Services
Syndicate
As Cellphones Become Cuter, Clarity Suffers
10 Mar 2003 by EK
Interesting article in the N.Y. Times today about cellphones. This may seem like common sense, but the article notes that, for the most part, the latest generation of phones with internalized antennas provides poorer reception than older phones with exposed, pull-out antennas. A research firm is cited as having found that “all other things being equal, the radio strength of today’s phones with internal antennas is 15 percent to 20 percent less powerful than that of phones with external antennas.”
So perhaps your crappy reception is not due to your provider, but your newfangled phone? Interestingly Verizon, which is the largest cellphone carrier in the U.S., refuses to sell phones with internalized antennas (so, if you’re a Verizon customer and have been waiting to get one of those cute, tiny Nokia or Sony Ericsson phones, don’t hold your breath).
You might think that this move to internal antennas was simply done for cosmetic purposes, but, at least according to the phone manufacturers, a big reason for the move was to address customer complaints.
At Nokia, a company spokesman, Charles Chopp, said that one reason the company had moved to internal antennas was that broken antennas were “one of the top 10 complaints about cellular phones.” Users prefer the “ease and carryability” of phones with internal antennas, he said.
This is an interesting example of manufacturers having to choose the lesser of two evils. Going the internal antenna route definitely seems to make the most sense for them since it eliminates breakage as an issue, which probably dramatically reduces the number of returns/exchanges they have to honor (poor reception is probably attributed by most people to their carrier vs. the phone manufacturer). But is that the better choice for the customer? Is lesser reception a worthwhile tradeoff for you in exchange for an unobtrusive, unbreakable antenna?
For me, as someone who lives in a city where reception generally isn’t a problem, this is a worthwhile tradeoff — I would prefer a smaller phone with one less breakable part, but how about you? And, if you worked at one of the manufacturers, would you have advocated for this move or fought against it? Just curious to hear people’s thoughts on this.
27 comments so far (Post a Comment)
10 Mar 2003 | Joshua Kaufman said...
I use Verizon and attribute my current poorer reception to my phone because I had a different phone last year, and my reception was always great. Both of my phones have had pull out antennas that have yet to break. That said, I don't mind the pull out antenna, so I'll stick with my less cute phone that gets better reception.
If I worked at one of the manufactures, I would listen to my customers, like Nokia did. If the majority of customers want a feature given it's drawbacks, it isn't cost prohibitive and it doesn't inhibit the usability too much, why not?
10 Mar 2003 | jupiter said...
why not use a flexible antenna (like they have it in model-airplanes) - then you could integrate it in a wrist-strap.
10 Mar 2003 | barry said...
why not make a phone with an optional external antenna? The phone would still work without it, but people that wanted or needed extended coverage could have it.
10 Mar 2003 | said...
Has the cute aesthetic: clean look, ultra (unusably) small size, replaced funtional design considerations?
10 Mar 2003 | pb said...
My friends with the small Nokia with internal antenna seem to get as good or better reception than my Samsung with external antenna (and better battery life).
10 Mar 2003 | David Wertheimer said...
Usability includes both reception and design. I carry my phone in my front pocket, next to my wallet, and have been fine with my reception over the years without an external antenna. Would I make the trade-off? I'd have to experiment first.
Then again, I always thought Motorola's pull-out antennas were a placebo.
10 Mar 2003 | Nerdy Mc-Writes-A-Lot said...
David,
I don't know about Motorola's phones, but I have a Verizon LG, and the reception definitely is better when the antenna's out.
-j
10 Mar 2003 | scottmt said...
I like the little screw in nub antenna (1.5 or so inches) on my motorolla. Seem like a good middle of the road.
Of course I love the look and feel of the new fangled models .. maybe not enough to buy one tho.
10 Mar 2003 | brian said...
i have always thought that there is little or no difference between pulling out the antenna/leaving it in vs having an internalized antenna.
i have had several nokias, and then a startac and a motorola, and have to say my best phones have been nokias. what we really need to work on is better coverage, or have companies consolidate on one frequency, and share towers. Thus the cost of adding towers would be split across the carriers, and we'd have better coverage everywhere.
in europe almost noone has external antennas on their phones, and the reception on my nokia in europe is CRYSTAL clear, i don't know if that's because the GSM standard over there, or just denser populations result in more complete cellular coverage...
10 Mar 2003 | Hopper said...
It should also be noted that, in addition to the lack of extenable antennas in favor of the stubs or internal antennas, the peak power output of new cell phones is on the decline as well. The maximum power output for a cellular device is 3 watts -- but that's for those bigass bag phones. The small handhelds have a maximum power output of .6 watts. The theory being that irradiating your svelty soft brain with electromagnetic radiation might not be the best thing.
Anyway, so few new phones operate at that power. It's to conserve battery life I suppose. But also the more power they output the more heat that's generated and its hard to dissapate heat from a puny little device. I've got this Samsung T-300. Hell of a good phone. If you can find one, get it. Fantastic reception. But in analog mode, which is still pretty common here in South Dakota, that bastard gets amazingly hot.
Most new phones have a peak output of something like .2-.3 watts.
It's not just that internal antennas have worse reception, it's that people often don't use the antenna even when supplied. The larger the city I travel to, the less I see people using the antenna. Maybe they don't need to, but I highly doubt it.
Regardless, I use the antenna always. I figure that getting the radiation even a bit farther away from my head is better than nothing at all.
10 Mar 2003 | Fredy said...
Perhaps when technology challenges us, we should go "ol skool" ::: www.ai.mit.edu/~rahimi/coolmf/
10 Mar 2003 | ek said...
Man, that just rocks!
10 Mar 2003 | CK said...
I concur. Looks like the handset would double as a decent club, too.
11 Mar 2003 | Si said...
This is a few years ago now, but before I got my Nokia (with internal aerial) I had to get the aerial on my Ericsson replaced twice in about 18 months.
11 Mar 2003 | Toby said...
Jupiter, that's a really clever solution. I'm going to assign one of you to run with it...hmmm...ek, make it happen.
11 Mar 2003 | Toby said...
Meanwhile, I've found where you can get a Prime Minister Koizumi
phone strap.
Now your lives are complete.
11 Mar 2003 | brian said...
anyone ever notice how the companies who's networks use a CDMA standard (sprint, verizon), use external antennas, and those with GSM[or tdma] use internal (att, t-mobile)? or is this a flawed guess?
11 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...
"What? ... you there? ... Hello?"
20 Nov 2003 | auto online insurance said...
reception is my first priority
07 Jan 2004 | klingeltoene handylogos said...
Very useful comments - good to read
08 Jan 2004 | logos said...
Many knowledges I have found here I would come back
08 Jan 2004 | mortgages said...
I am surprised - interesting comments
09 Jan 2004 | gambling said...
You know, being yourself needs strong person.
10 Jan 2004 | diet pills said...
Hi, I wrote to many themes, but this is realy interresting.
12 Jan 2004 | handylogos said...
Honour on your head for this work
12 Jan 2004 | loans said...
Veni vidi vici that is your way
12 Jan 2004 | spiele said...
Nice blog I am glad to see
