As you’re probably aware, not every app is original. In fact, most of the apps in existence are anything but unique. Scroll through your app store for five minutes and see if you can argue otherwise.

Anyway, this glut of apps – especially copycat apps – has gotten so ridiculous that it’s got several high-profile tech bloggers essentially begging to make it stop. Here’s an excerpt from Can We Stop The Copycat Apps from Rip Empson of TechCrunch:

While I encourage developers to continue making great apps, I do question the need for both making and for approving the parade of — for lack of a better word — “rip-off” apps. What am I talking about? Example: Over the last week, I’ve watched another fairly blatant copy of Angry Birds hover inside the “Top Free iPhone Apps” list on the App Store, even grabbing the second spot at one point.

I’m not naming the app explicitly, because I don’t want to give the game free publicity. That’s what they want, and it’s probably a good idea to avoid promoting the production and downloading of spammy (cr)apps. But needless to say, the scenario is familiar: The game’s icon is practically identical to that of Angry Birds, it has “Angry” in the title, the design and gameplay — while not exactly identical — have enough similarities to make for some serious eye-rolling. Not to mention, the game is awful. One-star reviews abound.

And here’s fellow TC blogger Alexia Tsotsis, just a few day prior:

Stop making apps, or gimmicks, things that don’t solve problems. Don’t build something silly and ill-thought out just because you have a celebrity co-founder and/or lots of investor money that will help you scale initially no matter what.

The truth is that the hardest part is hanging onto that first spike of users, and there is no number of TechCrunch posts about your every-single-decimal point update that will get you there, you actually need to solve a problem – even if that problem is “How the hell do I entertain myself for the next fifteen minutes?”

Focus on building a service not just an app; a service may have an app component — like Spotify, for example — but that app component must only exist to make life easier for the user of your service, exist to add value not just to be cool.

Of course, we couldn’t agree more with these statements, especially the bolded excerpts. The great thing about all of the application marketplaces is that reputation and quality reign supreme. So by all means, go ahead and launch that copycat Angry Birds application if that’s your thing, but don’t expect many 5-star reviews (or users).

For the rest of you trying to create a functional, secure and unique user experience, start here.

1. Company X dreams up a new app (or a new version)
2. Product management specs the requirements; engineering builds it, and QA tests it
3. As soon as it launches,  Twitter and Facebook blow up with user complaints about how the app doesn’t work; is confusing to use; is slow; or some other flaw
4. Everyone blames engineering and QA for launching something that sucks

So what went wrong?  We need better test automation… we need to outsource testing… we need to partner our testers with our engineers… we need better product documentation… we need to move from SCRUM to Kanban.  We invest thousand of hours and millions of dollars trying to create apps that work as designed — not just inside our firewall, but in the hands of users.

Problem is, we focus all of these good intentions on stuff that occurs inside the lab (whether it’s our in-house QA lab, our test automation, or a vendor’s test lab 12 timezones away).  And users don’t consume our app under the sterile conditions of a lab environment. So how do companies ensure that their apps work as well under real-world conditions as they do under lab conditions? There are two ways:

1. Running a beta program
2. Push a portion of their testing out into a distributed community

And as MG points out over at TechCrunch in a recent post about Apple’s launch of Siri, the use of the “beta” label no longer lets companies off the hook with regards to app quality:

God forbid that a service explicitly labeled as “beta” behave like a service still in beta. I understand that this is a bit of a tough concept to understand since companies like Google leave software in beta for the better part of a decade, thus castrating the term. But look no further than how rarely Apple actually labels something as “beta”. They basically never do it. They only do it when they expect a service to be less than spectacular 100 percent of the time.

That’s why we recently launched InTheWildTesting.com — not as some commercial movement, but as an educational vehicle for dev and QA management.

The fundamental premise is this:  if your users are going to be spread around the country or world, using different hardware & software configurations, and using your app under less-than-ideal conditions, so should (a portion of) your testing.  Said differently, your testing should mimic your user base.  The feedback has been amazingly positive, and resulted in a lot of “of course!” head slapping from top-notch tech execs.

In truth, tech execs spend a lot of time and money thinking about how to improve app quality. And it’s time for them to move beyond thinking of testing solely in terms of automated vs. manual, or in-house vs. outsourced.  It’s time to also consider how much testing should be done in the lab vs. in the wild.  So let me ask you:  what are some apps or industries that should be testing more under real-world, in-the-wild conditions?  Drop us a note in the comments.

We decided to launch it at TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco because the very concept of in-the-wild software testing (versus traditional methodologies) is, well…disruptive. 

Sure enough, TechCrunch Disrupt turned out to be the perfect event!  There were more than 2,600 innovative, entrepreneurial-minded techies, investors and exhibitors (35% more attendees than expected) filling the halls of the Design Concourse Center from Monday to Wednesday.  In its usual fashion, the conference itself attracted top industry-leaders such as Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn, Marissa Mayer of Google, Vinod Khosla, and even Ashton Kutcher.

uTest hosted a ton of terrific activities over the course of the event:

On Sunday, we spent the day at the Disrupt Hackathon, selecting a winner for uTest’s “Most Likely to Succeed in the Wild” award, which came with a prize worth $3,000 of uTest’s services.  Wow- what a day!  More than 700 participants worked overnight and coded a record number (130!) of hacks. We watched as each of the teams mustered the energy to climb on-stage and pitch their project in the allotted 60 seconds.  The sheer breadth of creativity was impressive.  Yet, we had to make a decision, so we chose the masterminds behind AirCart, which enables grocery store self-checkout through your phone, rather than the standard dedicated checkout stand. (See pic to the right)

On Monday and Tuesday evenings, we had a special surprise for Disrupt.  In order to promote in-the-wild testing, we sponsored the urban Serengeti-themed “In the Wild Oasis” RVIP, a mobile karaoke lounge created in a renovated Winnebago.  Sounds crazy and fun?  It was!  (The RVIP is the brainchild of Kestrin Pantera, who by the way, sounds dead-on like Susan Sarandon’s ‘Janet’ when she karaokes Rocky Horror.)

During Happy Hour, we were parked outside the front of the Concourse Center, where people climbed aboard, checked it out, had a drink, and started relaxing from the day.  From there, the RV– blanketed in lights and glowing like Chevy Chase’s house in Christmas Vacation– took to the ‘wilds’ of SF, providing shuttle service for folks to their hotels. But mostly getting a whole lot of smiles and laughter from people on the streets.

By 9:30 both nights, we’d arrived at the official TechCrunch after parties at 1015 Folsom (sponsored by Bridgewater) and Roe (sponsored by MailChimp).  Parked there, we partied through the night…usually until 2:00am.  Throughout the two nights, hundreds of Disrupters had climbed aboard, to have a drink, chat and network in the RV’s lounge.  Some groups had stuffed themselves into the photo booth for pics. 

And almost everyone karaoked.  How could they not?  When the entire RV is rocking from the dancing, and the whole crowd is singing Wild Thing, Hotel California or Rock Lobster…it’s impossible to resist!  Even TechCrunch reporter Jason Kincaid hung out and belted some tunes (btw: He has a great voice…who knew?).

As we’ve been known to say at uTest, “We take our jobs seriously.  But not ourselves.”  Disrupt was a great example.  People learned about in-the-wild testing and our business ideas, and we learned about theirs.  We connected with customers, old friends and partners, and made new ones.  And we all had a blazing good time.

Until next year…!

For many more photos, visit the TC Disrupt page on www.inthewildtesting.com or uTest’s Flickr page.

Here’s a peek at the RCR interview with our CMO, Matt Johnston:

Of course we weren’t the only ones launching new products and services from sunny Orlando, FL.

Let’s start with new smartphones (yes, even waterproof smartphones!). Much like CES and Mobile World Congress, CTIA was fertile ground for the release of cool 3D phones such as the LG Thrill 4G and the HTC Evo 3D, and T-Mobile’s G2X which was also named CNET’s Best Phone.

And we can’t forget the new tablets. Samsung released the “world’s thinnest tablets”! The Samsung Galaxy 8.9 and 10.1 tablets are 8.6 millimeters thick, thinner than the iPad 2 (8.8 millimeters), earning them CNET’s Best Tablet. Check out the other 8 tablets revealed at CTIA and reviewed by PC World here.

If you weren’t able to make it this year, here are some pics from the show floor. I was personally moved by NTT Docomo Japan’s empty 40×40 space this year. As FierceWireless put it, “a bare floor decorated with a simple vase of the white, cherry blossom flowers with a call for funds to support the victims, was a pitch-perfect show of support and good taste.” (Pics after the bump.)

Like Magic vs. Bird; like Tupac vs. Biggie; and like the Brooklyn Dodgers vs. the LA Dodgers before them.  TechCrunch contributor and leading academic, Vivek Wadhwa, and Boston Globe journalist, Scott Kirsner, squared off in a classic east/west battle that rippled across the Twittersphere and bloggerverse.

A bit of personal background before I share my thoughts:

1. I was not in attendance at last week’s MIT event, so my take is based upon their subsequent posts and tweets
2. I’m an avid reader of both Kirsner and Wadhwa, and have heard both present in person numerous times
3. I spent eight years in NYC’s startup scene; lived in Boston for the past four years; and I’ve spent about 1/4 of my time in the Valley for the last five years (I also grew up in the tech hot spot of Kalkaska, Michigan if that helps)

But after several days of watching this debate bubble up and boil over, here’s my take from the front lines:

Meh.

Yeah, that’s it. I’ve listened to these arguments from Wadhwa before and I find them mildly interesting and, at times, true. I see Kirsner taking on the mantle of defending the Boston startup scene and a small part of me cheers his call for meaningful proof points.

Conversely, when I hear Boston-area entrepreneurs being defended as equal to their NYC or Valley counterparts, I’m mortified to discover that some believed I needed to be defended in the first place. But more than anything else, I think the debate misses for 5 reasons:

1. These arguments are anecdotal – Wadhwa asserts what is largely opinion – some of it consistent with my experiences, but all of it observations. Kirsner disagrees vehemently, and for equally subjective reasons, and then demands supporting data. Wadhwa offers up some semblance of data, but nothing that would change anyone’s mind (in either direction).
2. These arguments are about the aggregate – I might care more about this debate if I were a politician or even a VC in one of those markets. But as an entrepreneur, I simply don’t give a shit what someone else thinks about where my company was started. I care much more about what we’re building now and next. These aggregate “facts” don’t affect me or uTest (or any other individual or startup)
3. These arguments are outdated - What year is it? Companies are no longer “based” in any one area like they were in the past. uTest is a young company, yet we have offices in Boston and in Sunnyvale (and we’re hiring in NYC if you know anyone). And we spend countless weeks in all three markets (as well as LA and Seattle, for that matter).
   
4. These arguments aren’t predictive of success – I love listening to both sides of this argument sing the praises of zip codes. Last time I checked, the best predictors of startup success are things such as: market size, access to capital, outsized passion, insane work ethic, willingness to learn, acceptance of risk, and desire to change the world. In this day & age, none of those things shares a causal relationship with where an individual company is “from”.
5. These arguments are unproductive – Even if none of the above were true, I simply don’t see the value of this debate, other than to drive page views for media sites – which it undoubtedly did. It’s provocative and fun to engage in us vs. them banter. Then again, so are Lakers vs. Celtics debates or Yankees vs. Red Sox vitriol. Those debates also evoke passion and burn calories – but they don’t create value or makes startups better at what we do.

Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe I should care more. Perhaps I lack the requisite inferiority complex. Or maybe we’re just too busy shaking up the $59,000,000,000,000 industry for testing web and mobile apps. Either way, I don’t subscribe to the generalized boxes that these debates try to put me in. And for what it’s worth, neither do the other startup junkies I know in San Fran, NYC, Austin, Chicago, London, and other markets.

What say you — does location matter to an individual startup as much as this debate seems to imply?

Written by Evernote CEO Phil Libin, Four Lessons From Evernote’s First Week On The Mac App Store offers some keen insight into the evolving world of app stores, including the impact it’s having on development efforts, user preferences and more. It’s well worth a read, but here are a few excerpts to get you started (key takeaways in bold, emphasis mine).

Over the past year, about 70% of Evernote’s new users came from mobile app stores, mostly iOS and Android. This led us to the understandable conclusion that mobile was the crucial thing that made a platform attractive to independent developers. Last week made us realize that the reality is a little bit more nuanced. It isn’t mobile that’s overwhelmingly important, it’s the app store. Until a week ago, all the good app stores just happened to be on mobile devices, but someone with a shiny new Macbook is just as eager to get the best apps as someone with a shiny new iPhone.

It’s obvious in hindsight, but the presence of a well-formed app store is the single most important factor for the viability of a platform for third party developers. If you want to take this a step further and say that a robust third-party software market is the most important factor for the success of the platform overall, well…

The immediate popularity of the Mac App Store, and the iPhone App Store before it, reinforces my belief that in a world of infinite software choice, people gravitate towards the products with the best overall user experience. It’s very hard for something developed in a cross-platform, lowest-common-denominator technology to provide as nice an experience as a similar native app.

Does this mean that web apps are doomed? Not at all, but the most successful web apps will be the ones that emphasize unique benefits—sharing, communications, integrations—that are better implemented on the web than in native code. This is the main design goal for the next version of the Evernote web client, by the way.

Lost among all the gloomy economic news of the past few years is the fact that there’s never been a better time to be in software. Sure, the emergence and inevitable dominance of app stores will permanently disrupt existing industry practices—I’m glad we’re not in the business of preventing people from making copies of bits, shipping shrink-wrapped boxes or charging people for periodic upgrades.

So if your development team is fretting over the progress of their mobile application (or lack thereof),  remember it’s the quality that counts, not the medium.

Is this the first company you’ve started, and what led you to launch your own startup?

DR: My co-founder and I really came from two different spaces. He came from more of a testing and QA background, while I came from more of a business and engineering background. But we both felt the same pain: We would spend so much time and money on improving the quality of software with the standard processes and tools, yet there would still be lots issues found by the customer. Eventually, we asked ourselves, “What if we could find a way to test software under live conditions, on-demand?” That’s really how uTest came about. And yes, uTest is the first company I started.

What was the a-ha moment that triggered the idea behind uTest?

DR: My co-founder and I had both experienced the pain, cost and frustration of trying to test software via traditional means. We were doing everything right – in-house, outsourcing, automation, documentation – but unexpected bugs and defects still emerged when we put it in the hands of users.  Every single time.

So we started thinking about moving testing outside the lab and into the wild.  And the only way to do that was through a crowdsourced model. That really got everything started.

What have been three major obstacles that you had to overcome as an entrepreneur?

DR: I would say the number one challenge – because I don’t consider them to be obstacles – was to sell the original idea to potential investors. At the time we started looking for our first round of funding, all I had was a PowerPoint presentation and a smile. For that first round, we didn’t really have any prototypes – and we certainly didn’t have any revenue – so it was very much a challenge to talk with some of these potential VCs about the theory of crowdsourcing and how it fit the software testing space.

I would say the second biggest challenge has been recruitment, which is of course an ongoing challenge. At the end of the day, it’s really the people that make the difference – not the product or the technology or the marketing – so we made it a priority to recruit and retain high-level talent and to develop a company “culture.” These things are a lot more difficult than they sound, especially when you are expanding internationally.

The third major challenge we had to overcome was managing revenue and customers with a maturing platform. We made it a goal to get the platform to market quickly, and so we already had a few beta customers by the time we launched. We didn’t really have time to refine a lot if it before our customers got to use it. We were getting tremendous amount of feedback almost instantly, but this puts a lot of pressure on you to improve the product at a pace you can’t really keep up with at first.

Once you starting add customers and revenue to the equation – especially for a technology startup – it completely changes the dynamic.

Looking back, what would you have done differently, knowing what you know now?

DR: I would have spent more time refining and maturing our product before we launched. There were a lot of features and functionality that would have been nice to have from the beginning, but as a startup, time isn’t always on your side.

My advice: If you’re able to take some time and really battle test your product with pilot customers before you launch, take it! As I said before, adding customers and revenue to the mix changes everything.

What advice would you give first-time entrepreneurs who are trying to raise funding for their startup?

DR: My advice would be to first go after a very small amount as part of your angel round. But before you do any of that, you need to be able to provide investors with a solid proof of concept. Investors want validation, so run some unpaid pilots, refine your first-gen business model, identify your sweet spot markets, and develop a sensible price structure.

Only then should you start to work on your first institutional round of funding.

Why did you choose Scale Venture Partners as your lead investor in your Series C?

DR: Scale Ventures had many of the dynamics that we were looking for in an investor. For one, they had experience investing in our own type of company lifespan. What I mean by that is they have experience investing in companies that need to grow very quickly. That’s where the name “Scale” Ventures comes from; they help companies scale their business.

They also had a great understanding of SaaS dynamics and we were especially blown away by their knowledge of crowdsourcing. They had clearly done a lot of research around the crowdsourcing business model, which is a subject that a lot of investors have yet to wrap their heads around, so that was a huge plus.

And while we were impressed with a lot of the VCs that we met, Scale stood out from the rest. We were extremely impressed with their culture and how up front they were throughout the process. Plus, they were based on the west coast and had access to other sweet spots markets, which will help directly with our expansion plans. In the end though, it was the relationships we developed and the relevant experience they demonstrated that led us to go with Scale Ventures.

What do you considering the most exciting areas of growth for uTest?

DR: Overall, we’re excited about bringing our testing solutions to every corner of the software universe. More specifically:

• Mobile is insanely hot… growing sharply every month and every quarter
• We’re expanding our newly launched usability and load testing services
• And we’re also going to be venturing into spaces that I won’t discuss until we’re ready to make our move

Beyond that, we’re seeing steep growth in verticals that don’t consider themselves “software companies” like retail, media and social, and I don’t expect that to slow down any time soon.

When we launched in the summer of 2008, we focused a lot of our energy on signing startup companies as customers, which was a great decision for us at the time. But now we’re extending our services to any company that’s concerned about the quality and usability of their software.

What professional accomplishments are you the most proud of?

DR: I would say signing and nurturing our first seven-figure customer in just our 2nd year of operation. To me, that was a phenomenal accomplishment. I’m also very proud of our adoption rate within enterprise customers, in general. It happened much sooner than I had expected. Usually, enterprise takes a longer time to adopt new technology and business practices, but we were able to demonstrate our value very quickly, and that really helped speed up the process. The same goes for different verticals. We had companies in retail, sports and media adopting us much sooner than expected.

More recently, I’m also very proud of the fact that we are the only solution for companies who are looking for “in-the-wild” testing for their mobile apps. This is an area that we didn’t move into until the first half of 2009, and our capabilities have matured incredibly quickly… it’s gone from a new offering to a core strength of what we do.

Establishing an A+ team is critical to the success of a startup.  How did you go about making your first 10 hires?

DR: You know, I recently read a Tweet from the CEO of Flipboard, who said that one of the first people he hired was an in-house recruiter. I think that’s a pretty smart idea. I wish I had thought of it. Basically, I had to do a lot of homework on my own. I was personally going after hardworking people in the same space as uTest – not software testing, but crowdsourcing – so I had to do a lot of research. Looking back now, I wished I had done what the Flipboard CEO did and went with an in-house recruiter. I probably would have a lot of the same people, but it could have saved me a lot of time.

Any other points of advice for entrepreneurs?

DR: If you really believe in what you are doing, don’t give up. There will be plenty of people who’ll tell you that your business model won’t work and all the things that can’t be done, but you will be rewarded for your persistence. And eventually, if you stick with it, you will find investors that align with your goals.

So much of the advice I have for entrepreneurs depends on what industry they are involved with, but the bottom line is to not give up.

Did you think seriously about passing up the money and continuing to iterate on your own?

DR: Absolutely. That was actually our original plan. But the way we were growing– and the rate of which companies were adopting our model – made it a once in a lifetime opportunity to capture marketshare and mindshare. And at the end of the day, we couldn’t pass up the opportunity to disrupt the $50B testing market.

What was the deal term that took the longest time to work through?

DR: This question came from Dharmesh Shah, the co-founder of another hot startup in the Boston market, HubSpot.  They recently raised $16MM, so I’ll give my answer, but I’d love to hear his thoughts as well.

Oddly enough, it was the smaller details that ended up taking more time. The negotiation phase was completed very quickly. We saw eye to eye on the most important issues. The valuation, for instance, was agreed upon instantly – no arguments there. It was things like the size of the board, who gets an observation seat and who doesn’t, who has voting rights – those were the things that took some time. But even there, the process moved along pretty quickly. Nothing substantial ever really got in the way.

We had the original investors, the new investors and of course the company itself involved in this whole process. My job as CEO was to represent the company and facilitate these discussions in a timely manner. This gets to be a bit overwhelming with some many people involved, so it becomes very important to manage your time effectively.

With so many options, how does one even decide which VC firms to approach?

DR: You can do all the research you want, but at the end of the day, you have to go with your gut feeling. It’s more than just the terms of agreement, it’s a courtship, so you need to really get to know them personally and go with your gut.

I’ll also pass along this bit of hard-earned wisdom to entrepreneurs: try to figure out the real goals and motivations of the VC you’re pitching. In my experience, they fall into three categories:

• They are genuinely interested (best case scenario)
• They are going through the motions and wasting your time (annoying, but not the worst case scenario)
• They are pumping you for information and will be backing someone else in your space (luckily, we didn’t run into this, but it’s the most despicable activity a prospective investor can take part in… avoid these people like the plague)

So how do you tell the difference between these three groups? Part of it is gut feel and the degree of responsiveness that a VC shows (are they investing time in the due diligence or just pushing you to invest time?).  You should also talk to CEOs who have pitched these VCs to find out what they’re like and what they’re reputations is.  You can also check out TheFunded to see what other entrepreneurs are saying about a VC. Like I said, a lot of it comes down to your perception of the level and sincerity of their interest, but you should be asking yourself the question… don’t be happy just to be in the room talking to them.

Remember, the most scarce and precious assets you have are your time and your killer idea. Respect and protect both of them.

How did you get introduced to all the different VCs with whom you spoke?

DR: I started out by identifying five VCs that fit the description of what we were looking for. This meant the size of the firm, the growth rate of the companies they invest in, their previous track-record and things like that. From there I pretty much just used my personal connections to get introductions.

When you get these introductions, it’s important to know that not everyone is going to “get” your idea. Some people will just lack the knowledge of your industry, and some people won’t get it no matter how convincing you are. The important thing is to spend the most time with the people who are genuinely excited about your idea. The initial reaction will be very important. It’s a tell, so to speak, but a very important one.

Editor’s note: If you have any more questions for Doron about the VC funding process, leave them in the comment section and we’ll nudge him to respond.

The media definitely re-affirmed and fueled our enthusiasm because leading journalists, bloggers, and social media mavens (500+ tweets!) were buzzing with the news. If you’d like to catch up on the details, here are our top biggest press hits:

1. TechCrunch by @leenarao
2. Xconomy by @wroush
3. Huffington Post/Silicon Alley by @courtneybmyers
4. Dow Jones Venture Wire by @tomiogeron
5. Boston Business Journal/MHT by @galenmoore
6. FINS/The Wall Street Journal by John Shinal

For all news, please visit the uTest News page. So, if you get a quick coffee break today, please join us and “Read All About It!” and let us know if you have any questions about our upcoming plans and expansion. Thanks again to all for your notes of congrats!

*Disclaimer: This post is a bit of a shameless self plug for all our moms out there.

And while this particular bug has since been squashed by Twitter’s engineers, it’s still an interesting defect. As all of the major new media heavyweights noted, this Twitter bug briefly enabled the brevity-challenged among you to stretch your legs and break free from the shackles of 140 characters. To put it more plainly, let’s bring in Alexia Tsotsis (@alexia) from TechCrunch:

The Twitter bug which has left many befuddled is exploiting a length limit flaw in the new t.co URL shortener, allowing users to tweet out non-URL links of outrageously more than 140 characters

If you’d like to reproduce the effect, and it seems to be catching, you can visit http://twitter.com/share?text=&url=yourtext, add whatever you want in place of “yourtext,” copy and paste your new t.co URL to Twitter and long tweet away.

Update: Looks like the nimble engineers at Twitter have disabled the feature within the hour this post went up, much to everyone’s dismay. Scripting News’ Dave Winer went so far as to create a web app for the Fat Tweets.

For those of you who follow Twitter (sorry, couldn’t resist), check out the entire TechCrunch article, as well as Mashable’s take.

Apple recently revealed that there is a fundamental flaw in their method for calculating how many signal bars to display.  And we have the iPhone 4 (and its “learn to hold your phone the right way” fiasco) to thank for bringing this software snafu to light.

CNN Money shares the following details from Apple:

“Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong,” Apple wrote in a statement posted on its website. “Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength.”

That means, for example, that iPhones sometimes display four bars when they should be displaying two. Apple said users reporting a significant drop in bars when they hold their iPhone 4 are probably in an area of “very weak signal strength” but were unaware of that because the phone displayed four to five bars.

“Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place,” the company said.

Perhaps most surprising, Apple disclosed that the problem is not confined to the iPhone 4.  The faulty formula has been present in every iPhone model since the 2007 original.  Questions remain about whether the issue is strictly software-related, or if it also involved hardware problems.  However, Apple has said it will release a free software update in the next several weeks to fix the glitch. It will use a new formula recommended by AT&T.