Apple's iPhone 4: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Brian Klug & Anand Lal Shimpi on June 30, 2010 4:06 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- iPhone 4
- Gadgets
- Mobile
The Display in the Sun
As we mentioned earlier, the new glass is more reflective than the 3GS' screen. In direct sunlight the 4 is somewhere in between the usability of the iPhone 3GS and an AMOLED Android phone. The photos below should help convey that.
All of the screens were set to max brightness with automatic adjustments turned off. The EVO 4G came in as the worst of the bunch, while the iPhone 3GS was the most legible.
The iPhone 4 in direct sunlight
The iPhone 3GS in direct sunlight
The Google Nexus One in direct sunlight
The EVO 4G in direct sunlight
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
270 Comments
View All Comments
Belard - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
On the back of all iPhones... whats with the ugly logos on the back of the phones?I don't know another phone that has such things and you'd think on a style-brand such as Apple, they really would work to NOT put such things on.
Look at the HTC-EVO review. Other than HTC & Sprint logos, its all nice and clean looking.
My SONY phones... only say Sony. Even the bottom of my Logitech mouse only has a CE logo and product text "DUAL LASER".
mikelward - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
The Nexus One photos looked much better to me. The iPhone 4 was too yellow and the Evo was too noisy.Out of interest, is this something that could be fixed in a firmware update, and what version of Android was the N1 running?
Thank you very much for the review, especially the antenna section.
QuantumForce - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
Did you average dBs as if they were linear numbers? Really? They are a log transform of a ratio between measured and standard linear intensity or pressure. 20 dB * 2 is not equal to 40 dB. Just how did you deal with the math here in your sample analysis of six readings?
metalev - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
I re-charted the signal strength quoted in this article to make the huge signal strength range given to 5 bars much more obvious:http://www.metalev.org/2010/07/apple-caught-red-ha...
KOTULCN - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
You said you restored your iPhone 4 to a back-up of a jail broken 3.1.3? Alittle bit more explanation is due!MrBrownSound - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
Very detailed review. In the end with Froyo coming I'd have to choose Evo no matter the extended wait because of integration with sense UI. Although I will have to compromise battery life, stunning display and sheer expensive look and feel compared to the iphone. To make up for it I will be able to make calls, have a bigger screen, and also have the all open android OS. trade-offs trade-offs. I'll take it over being locked to at&t for two years with three hundred something termination fee.Again very thorough review. This is why i read Anandtech
spiritu - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
I note that some subtle but significant changes have been made to your article since it was first published.In particular, the following line:
It originally said:
"Apple should add an insulative coating to the stainless steel band (which implies a recall), or subsidize bumper cases." (which implies apple should pay for the cost of the bumper)
Now it says:
"The most sensitive region of the antenna should have an insulative coating (next time round?), or everyone should use a case. (which implies the user should buy a bumper).
I can only presume that you made these changes under duress.
orangpelupa - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
great review. very in-depth. Nice knowing what the reason behind iPhone 4 "signal problem".btw
seeing this
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/3794/iPhone4-3422...
i got struck by nostalgic feeling :D
it really looks like my 4 years old cellphone. (now its dead lol)
Sony Ericsson M600i.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9964/030720101018...
the "sides" design really remind me of my old phone :)
drwho9437 - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
"The Antenna is Improved" is a subheading. The content is more or less fine, but it shouldn't be called the Antenna is improved. If the software is correctly reporting the number of dBm and it just works at lower levels because of a lower noise floor in the RF amplifier, then you should say "reception is Improved" or something.The improvement in the signal is down to the mixer, amp or filters not the antenna gain as you note from your dBm level measures.
Axelband - Saturday, July 3, 2010 - link
This is simply the best and most thorough product review I have ever read. It had just enough technical information to satisfy an engineer like me but not too much to bore a layman. Bookmarking your site now.