iPhone Q: does larger size mean better reception?

The physical size has no bearing on reception.

The physical size just gives you space for a bigger screen.

–B.G.–

To clarify — I've been told the larger screen and phone mean the phone acts as a larger antenna. True?

Certainly the frame is involved in picking up the signal… There was the issue with earlier iPhones that stated that the new design hurt the frame's performance as an antenna. Didn't want to debate that earlier discussion I've seen about iPhone flaws but hoping to focus on the phone acting as a receiver and whether the larger size helps this and how much? Hmmm. Thx.

The presence or absence of towers in the area determines reception. Period. A line of sight on a distant tower might be helped by more antenna, etc but it does nothing for you if there is zero signal.

nm

http://techchannel.radioshack.com/phone-make-difference-reception-2335.html

"Deep in the circuit boards of your cellular phone is a set of fractal antennas which, if the phone is engineered properly, are designed to be electromagnetically shielded from the other electronics of the phone, and positioned so that metal components within the case of the phone at the very least don't interfere with reception. In a few cases, some of the metal components inside the phone are carefully arranged to act as a reflector to redirect energy to the antenna itself. Digital signal processor chips tease out the most information possible on a weak signal. Sometimes, the antenna is placed in a less-than-optimal in the cell phone chassis, so that reception is affected by the way you hold the phone, or by conductivity changes from oil and sweat from your hand. The most well-publicized such case was that of the iPhone 4; Apple eventually responded to consumer complaints by issuing free nonconductive "bumper cases" for the device. This design flaw does — albeit rarely — crop up in lower profile devices."

So it's certainly true that the larger phone might have different reception (better OR worse), but it's not simply a function of size.

To be pedantic, the iPhone 4 did not use such a set of internal fractal antennas. The external metal frame pieces were the actual antennas. What is unknown is whether the 6 uses internal antennas or the external frame.

I'm pretty sure signal strength also diminishes with distance and that antenna size can help with this. An extreme example that comes to mind is an unamplified wifi link over a distance of 125 miles. (The team used an 8 foot satellite dish, and probably could have gone further but they essentially ran out of road.)

As to the OP's question, I really have no idea. I also don't think there's sufficient information available to provide a good answer. My suspicion is any difference is negligible.

Jeremy is getting right at the issue I'm trying to get at. Not sure why some posters seem absolutely positive of their view that size doesn't matter (npi). Creating a dish type structure to capture more signal sounds like it is possible (even on the small scale within iPhones). Still very curious if effect is really that negligible for these phones. Apple certainly knows that some buildings and malls get less than outstanding reception. Many people on this site sound pretty darned informed… wondering if we keep this topic near the top then someone else might have another interesting tidbit to add.

For full disclosure, I did not work professionally as an antenna designer. I took elective courses in antenna design as an undergraduate electrical engineering student and I worked for a PhD student modeling antennas for a year (mostly doing his computer work). I do have experience in transmission and in elimination of electronic interference. So, my knowledge may be limited compared to some. Certainly if you allow me to design two identical antennae with the exact same surroundings (the rest of the phone is the same) then the one that is larger will have a larger effective aperture and therefore a larger gain. There is however no guarantee that the Iphone designers were able to use the same antenna design for both phones. Even if they did, a larger gain on the antenna does not guarantee better reception as there could be more or less interference from the rest of the phone.

Designing antennas to go inside new electronics is a tricky business. There are always issues that you don't expect and tweeks that need to be made based on testing trial and error – lots of time spent in a semi anechoic chamber. Even if both phones started out with the same design it is highly unlikely that they ended up with the same design.

Bottom line….no way to say anything definitive based on the size of the phone.

Well that is a pretty great response. I think some previous responders have given very little appreciation to size being a factor. So the word on the street here is that it could help if they built reception properties into the design. It might be very slight or almost nil… But my reception sucks in many places in LA… Is it too much to hope that Apple considered reception? They haven't even tried to tout this (from what I've seen they haven't — I'll admit this)… But we know they are fighting hard for market share. They must have thought this through and tried for a reception edge? In malls and other places there is a great commercial edge to being known for reception advantage? These same properties hold true in the bush?

If there were any big advantage in the case size for cellular reception, don't you think that Apple would have been busy marketing that feature?

–B.G.–

I am SURE that they spent a lot of time working on reception on the new phones, especially given the disaster with the Iphone 4, but there is only so much that the laws of physics allow given what they are trying to cram in. Reception coverage is more a function of carriers. They have the capability of placing micro cells in malls or other frequented places and often do. If you have bad reception in your home, AT&T will place a micro cell in your home that routes your calls over your internet connection (don't know about the others). Coverage in the areas that you frequent most should be a factor in who you choose for your service.

There is no reason to think that Apple would have better capability to create a more competitive antenna design than Samsung, LG, or Motorola. In fact, the metal casing makes it harder versus the plastic of Samsung. They always have a challenge on how to create antenna breaks in the chassis while not making it look ugly. I have always thought it silly to design a metal case for looks when 99% of he users end up putting a protective case over it anyway, but apparently it is a selling point to the IFans.

Apple has never been known for designing hardware that was functionally superior. Their hardware is beautiful in form, and their software design does a great job of allowing the average user to do the 4-5 things they do the most with the least amount of stress. Android is so much better at this than it was 5 years ago, but it is hard to match Apple in this respect with their closed system. My problem is that I am not the average user and Apple makes doing some of the things I want to do extremely difficult.

What are some of the functions that you'd like to do that are not as easy to do with the iPhone? I really appreciate the sharp fellas and gals on this site… Curious to hear what you are doing that I might want to do as well. Thx!

Agree with Doug's assessment.

A few other considerations:
The 6 is thinner. So while the area is ~28% larger, the volume is only ~15% larger. And the case itself takes up volume, so the increase in volume inside the case may be even less than that. After factoring in the larger display and other adders for feature additions, it might even be that there is less space for antennas in the 6.

The display on the 6 extends closer to the edge of the phone. That means the small space along the edge of the screen is no longer available.

There are several antennas: cellular, wi-fi, NFC (for Apple pay, phone-to-phone transfers, etc.). They have to make sure they don't interfere with each other and that they don't get afflicted by RFI from all the other components.

So the picture is quite complicated.

Can you take something into the backcountry that aids in cell reception? I often could on cell for water info etc while hiking… Ideas on this please?

IMO the passive antenna boosters that stick onto the phone are useless. Antenna design is a very precise and tricky business and must be matched carefully to the rest of the phone. These devices are generic and are just as likely to mess up signal reception as help.

Active (powered) devices with their own antennas that recieve and repeat the signal can work, but these are very heavy and not suitable for lightweight backpacking. They are usually intended for cars and homes.

Regarding what the Iphone is missing for ME…. user removable battery, screen size (until the new 6+), and ease of use with the android apps that I use for work. Your mileage may vary. I still like the iphones and sort of made my wife buy one. She has an IPAD and it is nice to have the same look and feel.