Why don't phone reviews and specifications deal with how a phone works as a PHONE?

[CWinkler]

I live in a rural area with relatively weak cell signal and only 2 carriers available to choose from to get any sort of signal. My first 2 smartphones were both Motorolas (Electrify, then original Moto X) because they're known to have better antennas capable of picking up weaker signals. When it finally became time to upgrade because the battery was getting tired, I wasn't too crazy about the Moto G4 Play that US Cellular offered (thought my Moto X was better), so I took a chance and tried a Samsung S7. I've had issues with the phone (several phones, actually) and am still not sure if it's as good as the older Motorola or not at getting service.

While I appreciate the evaluations of all the different phone / Android features, and love having the latest and greatest software, I still rely on my phone to be a PHONE. And if I'm missing calls or searching for service or without service, then it's not serving that purpose. It would be very helpful when new phones come out if those doing the first looks would check out and comment on how they work as phones, in areas with both good and not so good coverage. And if phone manufacturers would put a bit more effort into improving antennas.

Thanks for letting me rant!!

 

[Fayzul Omar]

If signal is your main issue and you don't care much about apps and such, you should try BlackBerry's phone with their Paratek antenna. BlackBerry Passport or Z30 if you don't mind using BB10 OS, or BlackBerry Priv if you want android.

I'm not sure whether the two DTEK or KEYone use Paratek technology...

 

[PAC757]

I live in a rural area with relatively weak cell signal and only 2 carriers available to choose from to get any sort of signal. My first 2 smartphones were both Motorolas (Electrify, then original Moto X) because they're known to have better antennas capable of picking up weaker signals. When it finally became time to upgrade because the battery was getting tired, I wasn't too crazy about the Moto G4 Play that US Cellular offered (thought my Moto X was better), so I took a chance and tried a Samsung S7. I've had issues with the phone (several phones, actually) and am still not sure if it's as good as the older Motorola or not at getting service.

While I appreciate the evaluations of all the different phone / Android features, and love having the latest and greatest software, I still rely on my phone to be a PHONE. And if I'm missing calls or searching for service or without service, then it's not serving that purpose. It would be very helpful when new phones come out if those doing the first looks would check out and comment on how they work as phones, in areas with both good and not so good coverage. And if phone manufacturers would put a bit more effort into improving antennas.

Thanks for letting me rant!!

This ^ has always annoyed me, the lack of information reviewing, and testing a phone for how it works as a PHONE! Most reviewers don't even mention cell signal strength, phone call quality, how well does the phone grab a cell signal. My opinion is a phone can do everything great, have a great screen, software, and battery life, but it is all useless if the d*** thing doesn't work as a phone when I need it to. Someone mentioned Blackberry's Paratek antenna system they use to install in their own phones, and they were pretty good, I had a Z10 and a Z30 that had cell service just about everywhere.

 

[CWinkler]

If signal is your main issue and you don't care much about apps and such, you should try BlackBerry's phone with their Paratek antenna. BlackBerry Passport or Z30 if you don't mind using BB10 OS, or BlackBerry Priv if you want android.

I'm not sure whether the two DTEK or KEYone use Paratek technology...

I do have a number of Android apps that I rely on, so BlackBerry wouldn't fit the bill too well. But thanks for suggesting it anyway. Really know nothing about BlackBerry. The S7 is only my 3rd smartphone since 2011. All Android.

 

[Laura Knotek]

What you're saying makes a lot of sense.

I think the reason more reviewers don't mention that is because they tend to live or work in big cities, not rural areas, so they'd have no way to check that anyway.

 

[Kayza]

I do have a number of Android apps that I rely on, so BlackBerry wouldn't fit the bill too well. But thanks for suggesting it anyway. Really know nothing about BlackBerry. The S7 is only my 3rd smartphone since 2011. All Android.

The Priv is an Android phone, though, so you might want to check it out.

 

[anon(10221500)]

I've been asking this question for years - all you ever here is about is the damn camera.

 

[Fayzul Omar]

I've been asking this question for years - all you ever here is about is the damn camera.

Right! I'm sure phone makers have done market study and it must be overwhelmingly for the best camera in phone that people wants.

For me, when I buys phone, camera is one of the criteria but not even top 10 My main criteria are price, value for money, reception signal (what's the point of having a smartphone that cannot get signal?) durability and responsiveness (smoothness of opening apps and animation)