WiFi sensitivity question for Jeff Liebermann & anyone well versed in antennas

So, without a google play account, and without a static advertising ID, what are you saying Google latches on to then?

Reply to
Aardvarks
Loading thread data ...

you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time make a difference? you aren't interested in answers.

do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people around, hasn't thought of that scenario?

Reply to
nospam

In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I'm tired of your senseless riddles. You only know Apple marketing glossy literature.

I'll ask the group that actually knows Android, to find the answer to the question:

formatting link

I only care about facts. You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature.

Apple marketing plays your fears like a fiddle. I'm just looking for real facts.

We're quite different that way.

- You live by fear.

- I live by facts.

But, if there is the tiniest shred of truth, hidden deeply in your self-serving nebulous riddles, I'll ask the group that actually knows:

formatting link
To that end, I opened a separate thread in the android newsgroup to ask the question of how Google can possibly mine "my" data, given that I have the phone set up using basic privacy recommendations.

Here is the specific question. The goal is for someone to simply answer the question.

Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well set up Android phone?

formatting link

Reply to
Aardvarks

insults just prove my point even more.

no you don't. you only care about trolling.

that's why you're avoiding answering what is a simple question and spewing the usual apple bashing nonsense.

you ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then snip and change the topic, which makes it *impossible* to have any type of discussion with you.

you have no idea what they track so you *can't* block it all, and even if you did know, you still can't.

you leak data, and it's trivial to tie it all together.

Reply to
nospam

We've already established you live in an environment of fear which you try to ameliorate by purchasing exactly what Apple Marketing tells you to purchase.

Me?

I don't live in the fear-filled environment you live in, yet, I am as privacy conscious as anyone, so I simply ameliorate the risk by judicious understanding of fact.

If you have a single fact to your argument - you'll place it in the aforementioned thread - but - of course - you have no facts.

Once the Google Play ID is removed (which also removed the Advertising ID at the same time, at least from the Android Settings menus), and once apps are globally denied certain information (such as location), my hypothesis is that the Android device is just as insecure from privacy breaches as the iOS device.

We're different you and I.

  1. You *only* see fear.
  2. I only see *solutions*.

  1. You only spout what Apple Marketing tells you to spout. It makes you feel better about your fear.

  2. I simply report facts and I simply ask for facts. I'm not afraid of facts.

If the answer to the question were as simple as you say, then you wouldn't need copious cryptic self-serving riddles just to save face.

I'm not in the least bit worried about my decision in iOS products and Android products looking good.

You bought on fear. I bought in price:performance.

We're different that way.

I could repeat the question a thousand times, and you'd still *never* answer it, simply because you're a fear monger and I'm simply looking for facts.

To you, it makes you feel better if you spew marketing-motivated fact less FUD.

To me, it makes me feel better to simply know iron cold hard facts.

We're different that way.

Again, as always, you spew forth the garbage that Apple Marketing tells you to spew forth - sans a shred of fact behind your fear-inspired thought process.

I'm not *afraid* like you are. I'm simply sensible.

Which is why I ask for facts. Not your Apple-marketing-inspired FUD.

Remember, you buy *only* on fear. I buy *only* on facts.

We're different that way.

Again, as always, you spew forth the garbage that Apple Marketing tells you to spew forth - sans a shred of fact behind your fear-inspired thought process.

If you had a single fact, you'd have stated it by now.

So, in this case, we're more similar in knowledge, but different in purpose:

  1. You don't know the answer but you *still* spout Apple Marketing mantra!
  2. I don't know the answer, so I simply ask the question of all.

You're afraid of the factual answer. I'm not.

We're different that way.

Reply to
Aardvarks

nonsense. i purchase whatever best does what i want to do, which includes android devices (3 of them), apple devices and windows pcs (which i'm waiting on win10 anniversary update). in other words, you're full of shit.

the fact that you're starting off with bashing proves you're doing nothing but trolling.

as i said initially, you've been told many times how info leaks and how google can track people (most of which is obvious), but you flat out refuse to listen. you are not interested in any of it. you think you know everything and refuse to learn.

Reply to
nospam

:)

Reply to
Aardvarks

In an open-field scenario (as Aardvark claims to have) that should not be a problem - while the main antenna orientation might still have an influence. Especially if by chance the main antenna direction is covered by the holding hand...

Agreed.

Not only yours... ;-)

I was not referring to interfering traffic from the multiple devices, but actually about RF interference which might (or might not) influence the signal strength as received by the chips inside the phone. Basically increasing 'background noise'. And this factor does not have to be symmetric, as it will depend on antenna design, circuit board design, case design (and materials), ...

Proximity (of the several devices used for measurements) might be a problem. How can you rule that out?

Agreed.

Yes, they are. And that's not at all a horrible thought (unless you're thinking like Aardvarks).

It's not a problem of bandwidth. But a matter of RF interference, and that might change any second, e.g. depending on the current usage of the other networks. I can control the usage of mine, but not the usage of the other ones. And as the frequency band is crowded on any channel, I don't stand a chance of finding an unused set of channels (for 2.4GHz I'd need three neighboring channels to be sufficiently safe, for 5GHz I'd have to look that figure up).

And that's already where I would fail.

In general that's true, however how good is any result if you can't rule out at least major influencing factors (beyond the ones to be tested)?

I did not spend more than one second on any reasons why I won't execute the test, as the answer is simple: It's Aardvarks' claim, and the past 'discussions' with him here have given ample proof that he won't even accept the best founded test results. If they're not supporting his view, that is.

So I resort to 'his claim - his proof'. And as he always claims that he proves everything he says (something already found to be not true time after time), I won't even start going down this path.

There are some more reasons I could bring up, but I'll leave it for now.

Best regards,

Michael

Reply to
Michael Eyd

o

se

,

That has not been my experience at all. At our summer house, where the near est WiFi is more than 100 yards away, my wife's iPhone gets it routinely, m y Android and Samsung tablet acknowledge that it is there, but cannot get e nough signal to connect.

At home, within a very few yards of the WiFi, both are just fine. Now, what is interesting is that if we have many devices connected - as in when the kids and grandkids are in the house and all using the same WiFi, the iPhone s will sometimes be knocked off and the android/Samsung tablets survive. Go figure.

I don't think this has much to do with antennas nor with any other specific ally physical manifestation. I think it has more to do with signal sensitiv ity and internal signal handling. At 900 MHz, there will be *some* orientat ion issues, of course, so the phone position will have *some* effect on rec eption. We found that when we oriented the antenna at our repeater (we have a large footprint house) to a specifically vertical position and matched t hat to the main transmitter, things did get better.

The bottom line is that our reception is situational. The Apple products do much better with a really weak signal - if demand is uncrowded. They do no t do so well when there is a great deal of demand on a single source even i f the signal is "stronger".

Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Reply to
pfjw

A primitive approach for Apple. Cost of a circuit adding Q with rising traffic is ? prohibitive.

try sized metal plates in the hallways for physically dircting traffic rf ?

is that available at the frequency level ?

Reply to
avagadro7

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.