New Smartphones Are Probably Not As Good As Phones From A Decade Ago

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
But…but…it runs Candy Crush…

The research, conducted in controlled lab conditions on a selection of popular smartphones and non-smart phones currently on the market, found that on a 2G network the cheaper handsets were much better at picking up weak signals. Some smartphones require a minimum signal 10 times stronger than the best non-smart phone before they can make or receive a call, according to Ofcom’s research.
 
Makes sense. Phones from then were designed to make calls. Now, that isn't high up on the priority list.
 
Makes sense. Phones from then were designed to make calls. Now, that isn't high up on the priority list.

Yeah, but they still need to connect to the cell network for data.

I wonder if they tested any Motorola devices. Motorola's antennae are fantastic.
 
uhm, i'm not an expert, but how is making an antenna a great engineering feat that makes motorola antennae stand out?

It's more than just a metal stick.

Point being, you spend a lot of time in the mobile device community and you start hearing fans of other manufacturers say, "I wish Motorola made our antennae. They don't have these reception issues."
 
Why I have two phones. One is just wifi and the other is an ancient samsung that works anywhere for calls and text.
 
Why I have two phones. One is just wifi and the other is an ancient samsung that works anywhere for calls and text.

And people doing this to start with was the cause of this. People didn't avoid the phones with shit signal (iPhone) instead they praised it being the best thing ever and then had two phones to actually be able to make calls and get text.
 
My brother finally got a smartphone and has complained nonstop about signal issues. He used a rugged Casio flip phone and never dropped/missed calls. It's an LG G2, not the best radio IMO, but he shouldn't be having as much issues as he is with it.
 
omfg it's about time someone mentioned this.
Finally switched to a smart phone this year, and it fucking blows how I have this expensive piece of shit phone that can't phone!

Wi-fi calling is no better, since usually gps signal is bad where cell service is bad.
And for *some reason* I have to have gps signal on when I make a wi-fi call. Bullshit.
 
Yep. I've definitely noticed worse cell reception, and voice quality, since moving from a dumb phone to a smart phone. First a cheap LG smartphone (verizon network), then even the Amazon Fire phone (AT&T network).
 
Yep. I've definitely noticed worse cell reception, and voice quality, since moving from a dumb phone to a smart phone. First a cheap LG smartphone (verizon network), then even the Amazon Fire phone (AT&T network).

Problem 1: Cheap LG phone
Problem 2: Amazon Fire Phone was garbage
 
My experience has been the opposite. My Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 were/are much better on the audio side than any "dumb phone" I've ever had.
 
I wish more REVIEWERS took emphasis on reception into account when reviewing handsets. Though it might be harder to conduct good, thorough testing without a proper laboratory environments and equipment.

Dumb as it sounds reception could easily be a strong selling point on a phone, along with battery life and dropability..... but instead we get shiny colors, stylish shape and the latest bloatware. :-(
 
Problem 1: Cheap LG phone
Problem 2: Amazon Fire Phone was garbage

They're not high end phones by any means, but the dumb phones I had previously were a very, very far cry from high end as well.
 
uhm, i'm not an expert, but how is making an antenna a great engineering feat that makes motorola antennae stand out?


Reminds me of this:


antennagate.jpg
 
whats also interesting is the old analog vs digital for cellphones and tvs, even radios i believe too. You had further range with analog. though quality got worse the further away you were..
 
I always enjoy telling this story but I had an analog Motorola long after they were "obsolete."

When I was going to the local community college, it was essentially a concrete bunker. The walls were foot thick concrete everywhere. I could stand in the middle of that beast and make a call like it wasn't even there.

No one on the then still pretty new digital networks could even get a signal.

I'd get funny looks since I could make a call from the inner rooms. Confused the hell out of everyone. Thought I had a CIA phone or something.

Digital signals are great, when you leverage their advantages. Problem is, the only interest was making calls cheaper and more efficient for the provider. Not actually "better" for the end user.

Remember when digital voice was supposed to be "The next great thing"? And we all discovered that audio quality sucked on digital phones? That's because before we ever got the benefits of high bandwidth voice, the providers discovered they could make several bad quality calls at once for the same bandwidth as one good quality call.

What do you think the decision was on voice quality after that?
 
This is why I went with an iPhone 6 Plus when my contract was up a year ago. Smartphones are great computing devices but lousy phones, so I figured I may as well get one with a big display.
 
Blame your carriers for having shitty coverage. I never had problems calling with any iphone type.
 
I always enjoy telling this story but I had an analog Motorola long after they were "obsolete."

When I was going to the local community college, it was essentially a concrete bunker. The walls were foot thick concrete everywhere. I could stand in the middle of that beast and make a call like it wasn't even there.

No one on the then still pretty new digital networks could even get a signal.

I'd get funny looks since I could make a call from the inner rooms. Confused the hell out of everyone. Thought I had a CIA phone or something.

Digital signals are great, when you leverage their advantages. Problem is, the only interest was making calls cheaper and more efficient for the provider. Not actually "better" for the end user.

Remember when digital voice was supposed to be "The next great thing"? And we all discovered that audio quality sucked on digital phones? That's because before we ever got the benefits of high bandwidth voice, the providers discovered they could make several bad quality calls at once for the same bandwidth as one good quality call.

What do you think the decision was on voice quality after that?

Carriers down here install repeaters to public areas like that which would not otherwise have reception. Probably nowadays also your college has repeaters from several carriers -> perfect reception.
 
I'm sticking with a dumb phone, I much better phone signal and much better battery life - I can & do use my nokia for 5 hours a day and still get 4 days on a single charge. Wifey's iphone 6 needs charging every day.

They are also smaller and more robust
 
Makes sense. Phones from then were designed to make calls. Now, that isn't high up on the priority list.

WTF does 2g networks have to do with reality? Last I checked, they are turning that shit off around here while building out LTE. Seriously, AT&T is supposed to have their completely shut off by the end of 2016, sprint is supposed to be done already, verzion is 2021, and only t-mobile hasn't declared a sunset date. VZ is also ditching 3g by that date as well.

Stupid headline is beyond fucking stupid.
 
Probably written by someone who still rides a horse drawn wagon and expounding the virtues of not running out of gas. The only time you might get weak cell signal is indoors but you have landline or WIFI for VOIP available. I use Google Voice # with Hangouts that works on any internet connection so cellular, home or public WIFI and is carrier independent.
 
I think the biggest issue is speakers that don't get loud enough.
 
I remember using my Dad's old V3 RAZR about 10 years back when the first smart phones hit the market. Amazed at the reception and voice quality on it compared to the POSs that follow. Call quality is crap compared to what it used to be. You didn't have to keep asking the other person on the line to repeat themselves when the radio quality was good.
 
I remember using my Dad's old V3 RAZR about 10 years back when the first smart phones hit the market. Amazed at the reception and voice quality on it compared to the POSs that follow. Call quality is crap compared to what it used to be. You didn't have to keep asking the other person on the line to repeat themselves when the radio quality was good.

I never have that problem, at least not with any of the phones that followed my V3m (Q9c, Droid, Droid 3, Droid RAZR HD MAXX, Moto X 2014, Nexus 6).

Maybe the problem is that people buy shitty phones. Those existed back then, too. It's like when people complain that there's no good music today and it's not like back in the day. There was shitty music then, too. We just don't remember it.
 
I am really shocked how many people on this forum seem to even care about making a phone call on a smart phone. Last thing i want to do on my smart phone is talk to someone. Its more so for emergencies like "do we need milk and eggs on my way home from work"
 
I am really shocked how many people on this forum seem to even care about making a phone call on a smart phone. Last thing i want to do on my smart phone is talk to someone. Its more so for emergencies like "do we need milk and eggs on my way home from work"

agreed, my phone is used for actual phone calls maybe 5% of the time. The other 95% its used to help me out on my day to day, spread sheets and word documents are always with me so I don't need to lug my laptop around 24/7. Need to look up something for work? Done in 2 minutes with my phone.

With the plethora of different ways to communicate on them the only time I need to make a phone call instead of a text or IM on some app is when it's time sensitive and I need to know now.
 
I am really shocked how many people on this forum seem to even care about making a phone call on a smart phone. Last thing i want to do on my smart phone is talk to someone. Its more so for emergencies like "do we need milk and eggs on my way home from work"

Because it's a phone. If I need to do other tasks I have better devices for those tasks. Smart phones are productivity in a pinch, not a replacement for anything that does it better. I'm sick and tired of shitty battery life and terrible voice quality.
 
But…but…it runs Candy Crush…

The research, conducted in controlled lab conditions on a selection of popular smartphones and non-smart phones currently on the market, found that on a 2G network the cheaper handsets were much better at picking up weak signals. Some smartphones require a minimum signal 10 times stronger than the best non-smart phone before they can make or receive a call, according to Ofcom’s research.

Wow, basic radio theory at work.

Higher frequencies are needed to increase bandwidth, but higher frequencies don't travel as far as lower frequencies. You can only pass so much data over a lower frequency but you can increase cell tower density to improve connections as you ramp up the frequency and increasing bandwidth.

Now I'll take a moment and look at the article.
 
I am really shocked how many people on this forum seem to even care about making a phone call on a smart phone. Last thing i want to do on my smart phone is talk to someone. Its more so for emergencies like "do we need milk and eggs on my way home from work"

Wow, there are times to talk and times to text. If you haven't caught onto this then I am thinking you have too much time free to waste trying to have a conversation via text, which is a terrible experience to have to suffer through.
 
Ahh, it's a British article, explains some things. BTW, 2G is going away in the US if it isn't gone already. The carriers are dropping those 2G networks and the old 2G phones won't work in the US soon.
 
Back
Top