iPhone case I made

[kregan]

Hi guys,

Thought I would share an aluminum case I made myself the other day. It is milled from the same material I use to make the bag tags.

[iacas]

Wow. That's pretty nifty. If you could change up the way the pins need to lock to hold the phone in, and if Apple kept the same dimensions for more than a year or two, I'd commission you to build one of those for me.

Pretty nifty, man!

[kregan]

Thank you Erik,

I have the development docs for the iPhone5.  I just need time to draw them up.

[nevets88]

Very nice. Looks like it makes your iPhone pretty much indestructible from drops.

[Clambake]

It's a nice piece of machining, but I wouldn't want to put all that RF shielding around the case.   The iPhone's already have some antenna design issues, and the presence of all the aluminum around it will only hurt the antenna patterns.

[iacas]

  Clambake said:

Originally Posted by Clambake

It's a nice piece of machining, but I wouldn't want to put all that RF shielding around the case.   The iPhone's already have some antenna design issues, and the presence of all the aluminum around it will only hurt the antenna patterns.

That's not really true. Not any more than any other phone...

But anyway... maybe Kelly can tell us how his signal strength is affected. :)

[Clambake]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

That's not really true. Not any more than any other phone...

But anyway... maybe Kelly can tell us how his signal strength is affected. :)

Actually, I disagree and have some insight into this - I managed an antenna company that provided embedded antennas to cell phone manufacturers, and we did extensive testing of the many different manufacturer models including the iPhone 3 and 4 models (haven't seen test results yet from the 5, but I understand it uses the same basic configuration as the 4).    Using anechoic chamber testing we saw the interaction in antenna performance by a hand or other perturbation near the antenna, and the changes on the pattern of the iPhone was pretty drastic especially after Apple changed from the embedded models used in the 3 and 3s and went to the wrap antenna in the 4.     I'm an iPhone fan, but I use one despite the antenna sub-performance.

[iacas]

  Clambake said:

Originally Posted by Clambake

Actually, I disagree and have some insight into this - I managed an antenna company that provided embedded antennas to cell phone manufacturers, and we did extensive testing of the many different manufacturer models including the iPhone 3 and 4 models (haven't seen test results yet from the 5, but I understand it uses the same basic configuration as the 4).    Using anechoic chamber testing we saw the interaction in antenna performance by a hand or other perturbation near the antenna, and the changes on the pattern of the iPhone was pretty drastic especially after Apple changed from the embedded models used in the 3 and 3s and went to the wrap antenna in the 4.     I'm an iPhone fan, but I use one despite the antenna sub-performance.

The problem was remedied in the iPhone 4S (and continues remedied in the 5), and every other cell phone has a weak point whereby grabbing the phone in a certain fashion results in signal attentuation. Apple did a presentation on this, and when alerted to this, other media outlets confirmed that Blackberries, Android devices, etc. all suffered from the same problems. Apple simply made the news because they were the clear leader in the field. Apple partly "fixed" the issue in the 4 itself by fibbing somewhat about the signal strength, which other companies had been doing for awhile, and physically improved the issue (you can't ever "fix" the issue of signal attenuation when someone holds the phone). "Antennagate" was overblown.

[hanalei]

  iacas said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clambake

Actually, I disagree and have some insight into this - I managed an antenna company that provided embedded antennas to cell phone manufacturers, and we did extensive testing of the many different manufacturer models including the iPhone 3 and 4 models (haven't seen test results yet from the 5, but I understand it uses the same basic configuration as the 4).    Using anechoic chamber testing we saw the interaction in antenna performance by a hand or other perturbation near the antenna, and the changes on the pattern of the iPhone was pretty drastic especially after Apple changed from the embedded models used in the 3 and 3s and went to the wrap antenna in the 4.     I'm an iPhone fan, but I use one despite the antenna sub-performance.

The problem was remedied in the iPhone 4S (and continues remedied in the 5), and every other cell phone has a weak point whereby grabbing the phone in a certain fashion results in signal attentuation. Apple did a presentation on this, and when alerted to this, other media outlets confirmed that Blackberries, Android devices, etc. all suffered from the same problems. Apple simply made the news because they were the clear leader in the field. Apple partly "fixed" the issue in the 4 itself by fibbing somewhat about the signal strength, which other companies had been doing for awhile, and physically improved the issue (you can't ever "fix" the issue of signal attenuation when someone holds the phone). "Antennagate" was overblown.

I beg to differ, Apple's marketing is the clear leader in this field. Apple blaming other companies of having the same problem was false, most phones don't have the metal frame which causes the phone to lose reception when grounded by the hand. I hare to hate, but I despise Apple. Their proprietary ways will be their undoing, mark my words. All of their products (with the exception of the first iPhone) have been repackaged and remarketed so that untech-savvy Apple following zombies hailed there products as the next comming of Christ. The tablet computer has been out for almost 20yrs!! Apple repackaged it and called it a iPad.. All the latest iPhone releases have been 2yrs behind current android specs. U can't even change your battery! Don't get me started on the stupid "macs don't get viruses" rumor. I just don't understand all the hoopla over Apple, they make good commercials, that's it...

[iacas]

  hanalei said:

Originally Posted by hanalei

I beg to differ, Apple's marketing is the clear leader in this field. Apple blaming other companies of having the same problem was false, most phones don't have the metal frame which causes the phone to lose reception when grounded by the hand.

That's beside the point. If you gripped a Blackberry in a way that your hand covered the antenna (which was inside, yes, but your hand could still cover it), the signal was attenuated. That's not "false" and was proven not only by Apple but by several others. It's an inescapable fact that antenna signals are all weakened when you put your hand over it or put it against your face.

  hanalei said:

Originally Posted by hanalei

I hare to hate, but I despise Apple. Their proprietary ways will be their undoing, mark my words.

No need to mark them. You've written them down here, and I counter with this: Apple's proprietary way of doing things is a primary reason they're so successful. But I know a haterboy when I see one, so carry on. I know I will not be able to speak logically to you or convince you of things.

  hanalei said:

Originally Posted by hanalei

All of their products (with the exception of the first iPhone) have been repackaged and remarketed so that untech-savvy Apple following zombies hailed there products as the next comming of Christ.

At least these untech-savvy (what is that? Is that like being savvy about using rudimentary tools? Are sea otters and some monkeys untech-savvy?) can spell the word "coming." And gee, there sure a lot of these "untech-savvy zombies" out there... never mind that some of the industry's best and brightest are iPhone and Apple fans, and never mind that Samsung tried to copy virtually everything Apple did, and other companies are copying as well (albeit to a lesser, slightly more "legal" extent).

No, it's just easier for you to claim that you're somehow mentally or technologically superior. Sometimes what's popular isn't what's best. But sometimes it is.

  hanalei said:

Originally Posted by hanalei

The tablet computer has been out for almost 20yrs!! Apple repackaged it and called it a iPad.

If you think that all Apple did was "repackage" something and give it a name, you're an idiot. Not that we hadn't already established that...

  hanalei said:

Originally Posted by hanalei

U can't even change your battery!

Which, it turns out, doesn't ****ing matter. It matters about as much as "you can't change the insert on your putter! You have to buy a new putter!"

  hanalei said:

Originally Posted by hanalei

Don't get me started on the stupid "macs don't get viruses" rumor. I just don't understand all the hoopla over Apple, they make good commercials, that's it...

Like I said, you're a haterboy and immune to facts. Goodie!

P.S. I don't own an iPad. Have never had one. Got an iPhone and a MacBook Air (another thing people are copying, and Apple owns the laptop space too), so I don't have much need for an iPad. And because I can, and because you're so clearly a haterboy incapable of having an actual discussion, I've restricted you from this thread. Wheee! Abuse of power! :)

[Clambake]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

The problem was remedied in the iPhone 4S (and continues remedied in the 5), and every other cell phone has a weak point whereby grabbing the phone in a certain fashion results in signal attentuation. Apple did a presentation on this, and when alerted to this, other media outlets confirmed that Blackberries, Android devices, etc. all suffered from the same problems. Apple simply made the news because they were the clear leader in the field. Apple partly "fixed" the issue in the 4 itself by fibbing somewhat about the signal strength, which other companies had been doing for awhile, and physically improved the issue (you can't ever "fix" the issue of signal attenuation when someone holds the phone). "Antennagate" was overblown.

Erik, I know you're also a technical person, but I think you're responding more on Apple's marketing response than on the technical facts.    I concur that Apple did a much better job on the 4s by changing some of the antenna design, but it still isn't nearly as good as it can be.    And yes, all phones have an issue when they're held, but again all the manufacturers deal with this differently and some have done this better than others.

As I previously indicated, as an antenna provider to many handset, tablet, and laptop manufacturers including Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, LG, HTC, Ericsson, Compal, BenQ, HP, Dell, etc. we had a lot of theory and corresponding test data.      A typical handset has to deal with different RF frequencies for 5-6 cell bands, Bluetooth, WiFi, and GPS, all combined into a tight space, maximizing antenna efficiency and staying within regulated limits for SAR (bad radiation into your head).    It's a tough design problem, and there are different technology tricks and techniques that help.   Apple employs some of them, but can do more.

But I'm still an Apple fan....love my iPhone, Macs, iPads, and iPods!

[iacas]

  Clambake said:

Originally Posted by Clambake

Erik, I know you're also a technical person, but I think you're responding more on Apple's marketing response than on the technical facts.    I concur that Apple did a much better job on the 4s by changing some of the antenna design, but it still isn't nearly as good as it can be.

I said they'd addressed it. I've also said some attenuation is inevitable.

  Clambake said:

Originally Posted by Clambake

Apple employs some of them, but can do more.

And I've not said their design is the best in the world.

As with all problems, they must balance their physical design with the characteristics they want the product to have. I feel they've done that to a satisfactory degree, and that even the antenna problem in the 4 was overstated.

[Beachcomber]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

As with all problems, they must balance their physical design with the characteristics they want the product to have. I feel they've done that to a satisfactory degree, and that even the antenna problem in the 4 was overstated.

To the original point... I agree with Clambake, adding an aluminum case to the iPhone 'X' or Cellphone XYZ will reduce signal integrity.  Regardless of which mobile phone or device you're talking about - simply wrapping the device in an aluminum surround will act as an RF shield.  Meaning your signal strength could negatively be effected.  Therefore, the case should be carefully designed and thoroughly tested and validated before being sold to the consumer.

[iacas]

  Beachcomber said:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

To the original point... I agree with Clambake, adding an aluminum case to the iPhone 'X' or Cellphone XYZ will reduce signal integrity.  Regardless of which mobile phone or device you're talking about - simply wrapping the device in an aluminum surround will act as an RF shield.  Meaning your signal strength could negatively be effected.  Therefore, the case should be carefully designed and thoroughly tested and validated before being sold to the consumer.

And... it was tested, quite thoroughly. In the end they decided that the design tradeoffs and the small attenuation merited releasing the phone as is, never mind that almost nobody used an iPhone without a case, which was critical to making this problem appear worse than it was. That's why they gave away a few million free bumpers. And evolutionally speaking (is that a word?), the 4 suffered only a little more signal attenuation than other phones (including those with internal antennas of course), and the 4S closed that small gap significantly, and the 5 has brought it up to the standards of other phones, even given the design constraints. The 4S and the 5 are well within the range of one standard deviation from other phone's attenuation patterns.

And I say "design constraints" but that's simply this: Apple could design an ugly phone that loses 3% signal strength when gripped the "worst" way or one that drops 5% when gripped the worst possible way but looks awesome, they're gonna choose the 5% one. Never mind the fact that an external antenna likely starts with a higher signal strength to begin with, so dropping 10% might still leave it at the same level as an internal antenna that drops only 2%.

The way my office is laid out with the cordless phones in my house, if I put the phone (it's a Uniden) against my left ear I get horrible static while against my right ear it's almost crystal clear.

I have friends that work on the antenna design and testing at Apple, and though they could be blowing smoke up my ass, they have no reason to do so and have been brutally honest about things in the past. The iPhone holds a signal well and it was blown out of proportion (that's my opinion) because Apple was the clear leader in that space.

And yes, Kelly's case probably impacts the signal strength a fair amount. :) But it still looks really cool. :D

[Beachcomber]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

And yes, Kelly's case probably impacts the signal strength a fair amount. :) But it still looks really cool. :D

That was my point.  Of course Apple spent many man hours (say thousands) testing their devices since antenna gate.  My point was the aluminum case surround highlighted in this thread.  While it looks cool, I'm not sure I would buy one given the concerns already addressed.

[iacas]

  Beachcomber said:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

That was my point.  Of course Apple spent many man hours (say thousands) testing their devices since antenna gate.  My point was the aluminum case surround highlighted in this thread.  While it looks cool, I'm not sure I would buy one given the concerns already addressed.

No no, I think Kelly didn't show you the tin foil hat you wear and attach to the phone to serve as an additional antenna. I think he's working out the kinks in the CNC milling process to allow for custom fit foil hats.

[Clambake]

  iacas said:

Originally Posted by iacas

No no, I think Kelly didn't show you the tin foil hat you wear and attach to the phone to serve as an additional antenna. I think he's working out the kinks in the CNC milling process to allow for custom fit foil hats.

No, no, no....that's just technically completely wrong.   The tin foil hat should only be used to help shield the upper part of the head from the alien mind control waves.     If you try and make it also work as an antenna the two signals from the phone and the alien mothership can interfere with each other and cause drastic results.       Never, never hook up your tin foil hat to any human-developed RF device.

[iacas]

  Clambake said:

Originally Posted by Clambake

No, no, no....that's just technically completely wrong.   The tin foil hat should only be used to help shield the upper part of the head from the alien mind control waves.     If you try and make it also work as an antenna the two signals from the phone and the alien mothership can interfere with each other and cause drastic results.       Never, never hook up your tin foil hat to any human-developed RF device.

Shhh. It's a secret plot by the government to enhance the alien capabilities for mind control. How do you think Obama won the election anyway? Shhhhhhhhhh.