Don't ever make the mistake that any organization is totally open, or honest. And yes, that does include Apple. They all have goals. They all have needs.
CU needs subs. how do they get them? We all know that bad news sells papers. It also sells CU. They seem to have latched onto this like a leech. I would like to know why. It's way out of proportion to the actual problem. They said that Apple should give away free cases. So Apple gave away feee cases. did they change their recommendation? No. They put further restraints on what Apple had to do. They never gave a good explanation of this who thing. Now they further berate Apple for giving cases away starting in October to those who actually ask for them. Nuts!
Am I ticked off at them? Yes, I am. As I said, I've seen it before. They are not riven as the snow. They are people like everywhere else. I'm even willing to bet that they wish they didn't make such a big deal of this, as their motives and testing methods have now been questioned by a number of those in the business.
I've laid out exactly what's happened. People can check out the issues for themselves, as well as what they've said and done on their own blog and site (payment required for the site).
(kaboom! )
Like I said, I'd had enough of CR years ago, so you're not talking to someone who takes them as the ultimate authority, or perfect, or anything of the kind. Yes, they play to their membership, which are the kind of people who like type of buying advice they provide. What else are they supposed to do? It's not like the world is full of better and less biased sources of consumer advice. The fact is, most of it is far worse -- beholden to and therefore biased by advertisers. At least CR tries. Fails sometimes, but tries.
You honestly don't realize that you're attacking them? Do you at least realize that you're now attacking me as well with this last post?
Melgross, you've stepped over the line and are now just being an asshole. There is no point in further discussion now that you're simply attacking anyone who disagrees with you.
No, I'm not attacking them. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in their reasoning and testing.
And I wasn't aware that I was attacking your competence as an RF engineer. Please advise me if I've done that. But you pretty much dismissed a link from someone who does understand this issue. I have my doubts that you understand it as well as he does. if that's an attack, then you are too sensitive.
Like I said, I'd had enough of CR years ago, so you're not talking to someone who takes them as the ultimate authority, or perfect, or anything of the kind. Yes, they play to their membership, which are the kind of people who like type of buying advice they provide. What else are they supposed to do? It's not like the world is full of better and less biased sources of consumer advice. The fact is, most of it is far worse -- beholden to and therefore biased by advertisers. At least CR tries. Fails sometimes, but tries.
I agree. And this is one of those times where they've failed, and have played to their would be subscribers. And that's the problem in a nutshell.
Consumer report type orgs are paid by companies to spin, they are actually an ad agency by stealth. We have the same kinda orgs here too.
Just want to mention that contrary to what publications do in Australia (I know, my dad was the publisher for several trade magazines in Sydney, and he wrote all the copy based on his advertisers' marketing), CU does not accept any advertising or marketing fees, they buy all the products they test with real money in real stores by ordinary staff members, and their sole income stream is individual subscribers. Rather like a grass-roots organization.
I never understood why some people slag CU so much; what do they find so uncomfortable about independent non-biased analysis, anyway? Reminds me of American conservatives slagging Public Broadcasting because PBS and NPR aren't opinionated (read, radical) enough.
I never understood why some people slag CU so much; what do they find so uncomfortable about independent non-biased analysis, anyway? Reminds me of American conservatives slagging Public Broadcasting because PBS and NPR aren't opinionated (read, radical) enough.
I understand it, though I often wish I didn't. The operational theory is that every source of information is biased, you just have to be able to figure out how and why. Or maybe not even how and why, if it's too much trouble. The origin of the bias accusation is the source saying something with which the critic doesn't agree. Therefore, the source must be biased (deliberately and maliciously of course), and the information can be discounted. We see that reasoning in spades in this thread.
Its true. When I grab the phone like a normal person holds a phone the meter bars go down. Try it its simple enough test. You can test it on Wifi because its the only time the meter bars are there for all the smart asses that don't see anything. If I hold the phone with two fingers like an idiot wow I get more bars. Sorry people but a phone is a phone and it needs an antenna on top of the device like all radios, telephones, and walkie talkies have had since World War II. If Apple can't just say hey we f**ked up, we will fix it on the 5 model it would snow lollipops. But the fact is if they did that their stock would sink like a motorola flip phone tied to a Barbie Dolls leg. So it's like that and thats what its like. Nothing more needs to be said. I can hold my phone in my nice Mophie Juice batter case and its great. Spend the money, get an extra 9 hours of battery and stop the bitchin.
Its true. When I grab the phone like a normal person holds a phone the meter bars go down. Try it its simple enough test. You can test it on Wifi because its the only time the meter bars are there for all the smart asses that don't see anything. If I hold the phone with two fingers like an idiot wow I get more bars. Sorry people but a phone is a phone and it needs an antenna on top of the device like all radios, telephones, and walkie talkies have had since World War II. If Apple can't just say hey we f**ked up, we will fix it on the 5 model it would snow lollipops. But the fact is if they did that their stock would sink like a motorola flip phone tied to a Barbie Dolls leg. So it's like that and thats what its like. Nothing more needs to be said. I can hold my phone in my nice Mophie Juice batter case and its great. Spend the money, get an extra 9 hours of battery and stop the bitchin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
No, I'm not attacking them. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in their reasoning and testing.
And I wasn't aware that I was attacking your competence as an RF engineer. Please advise me if I've done that. But you pretty much dismissed a link from someone who does understand this issue. I have my doubts that you understand it as well as he does. if that's an attack, then you are too sensitive.
Jesus! 23,000 posts?? Do you guys have a freekin job? Wow. THis is my second post under my new name. wow
I finally ditched my iP4, went back to a dummy phone. The iPad made more sense to me than a Smartphone.
Having said that...
a) The quality was not great. I had to have it exchanged twice, once for a reluctant Home button and the other for proximity sensor. I got fed up with the cheek dialing so I took it to their retail store and had one of their "Genius" types take a look at it. The tool had the audacity to say, "Well, it sounds software related....and software isn't covered under your [extended] warranty." The phone had already been restored so there was nothing left. "...but, I'll exchange it this one time as a courtesy." Final straw, I sold it.
b) AT&T dropped calls. On my small Samsung A107 "dummy" phone, I don't drop calls--rare if I do. iPhone 3G and iPhone 4? Yes. My wife still has her iPhone 4, loves it, but concedes it does drop a lot of calls....Too bad Verizon didn't have the iPhone 4 a few months earlier.
c) "Death Grip" wasn't so much an issue, but it's non-existant on my dummy Samsung. I tried to death grip my friend's Samsung Focus, bars don't drop on there either. Engineering trade-off? Sure. Good idea? Probably not.
Comments
Don't ever make the mistake that any organization is totally open, or honest. And yes, that does include Apple. They all have goals. They all have needs.
CU needs subs. how do they get them? We all know that bad news sells papers. It also sells CU. They seem to have latched onto this like a leech. I would like to know why. It's way out of proportion to the actual problem. They said that Apple should give away free cases. So Apple gave away feee cases. did they change their recommendation? No. They put further restraints on what Apple had to do. They never gave a good explanation of this who thing. Now they further berate Apple for giving cases away starting in October to those who actually ask for them. Nuts!
Am I ticked off at them? Yes, I am. As I said, I've seen it before. They are not riven as the snow. They are people like everywhere else. I'm even willing to bet that they wish they didn't make such a big deal of this, as their motives and testing methods have now been questioned by a number of those in the business.
I've laid out exactly what's happened. People can check out the issues for themselves, as well as what they've said and done on their own blog and site (payment required for the site).
(kaboom!
Like I said, I'd had enough of CR years ago, so you're not talking to someone who takes them as the ultimate authority, or perfect, or anything of the kind. Yes, they play to their membership, which are the kind of people who like type of buying advice they provide. What else are they supposed to do? It's not like the world is full of better and less biased sources of consumer advice. The fact is, most of it is far worse -- beholden to and therefore biased by advertisers. At least CR tries. Fails sometimes, but tries.
You honestly don't realize that you're attacking them? Do you at least realize that you're now attacking me as well with this last post?
Melgross, you've stepped over the line and are now just being an asshole. There is no point in further discussion now that you're simply attacking anyone who disagrees with you.
No, I'm not attacking them. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in their reasoning and testing.
And I wasn't aware that I was attacking your competence as an RF engineer. Please advise me if I've done that. But you pretty much dismissed a link from someone who does understand this issue. I have my doubts that you understand it as well as he does. if that's an attack, then you are too sensitive.
(kaboom!
Like I said, I'd had enough of CR years ago, so you're not talking to someone who takes them as the ultimate authority, or perfect, or anything of the kind. Yes, they play to their membership, which are the kind of people who like type of buying advice they provide. What else are they supposed to do? It's not like the world is full of better and less biased sources of consumer advice. The fact is, most of it is far worse -- beholden to and therefore biased by advertisers. At least CR tries. Fails sometimes, but tries.
I agree. And this is one of those times where they've failed, and have played to their would be subscribers. And that's the problem in a nutshell.
Consumer report type orgs are paid by companies to spin, they are actually an ad agency by stealth. We have the same kinda orgs here too.
Just want to mention that contrary to what publications do in Australia (I know, my dad was the publisher for several trade magazines in Sydney, and he wrote all the copy based on his advertisers' marketing), CU does not accept any advertising or marketing fees, they buy all the products they test with real money in real stores by ordinary staff members, and their sole income stream is individual subscribers. Rather like a grass-roots organization.
I never understood why some people slag CU so much; what do they find so uncomfortable about independent non-biased analysis, anyway? Reminds me of American conservatives slagging Public Broadcasting because PBS and NPR aren't opinionated (read, radical) enough.
I never understood why some people slag CU so much; what do they find so uncomfortable about independent non-biased analysis, anyway? Reminds me of American conservatives slagging Public Broadcasting because PBS and NPR aren't opinionated (read, radical) enough.
I understand it, though I often wish I didn't. The operational theory is that every source of information is biased, you just have to be able to figure out how and why. Or maybe not even how and why, if it's too much trouble. The origin of the bias accusation is the source saying something with which the critic doesn't agree. Therefore, the source must be biased (deliberately and maliciously of course), and the information can be discounted. We see that reasoning in spades in this thread.
Its true. When I grab the phone like a normal person holds a phone the meter bars go down. Try it its simple enough test. You can test it on Wifi because its the only time the meter bars are there for all the smart asses that don't see anything. If I hold the phone with two fingers like an idiot wow I get more bars. Sorry people but a phone is a phone and it needs an antenna on top of the device like all radios, telephones, and walkie talkies have had since World War II. If Apple can't just say hey we f**ked up, we will fix it on the 5 model it would snow lollipops.
No, I'm not attacking them. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in their reasoning and testing.
And I wasn't aware that I was attacking your competence as an RF engineer. Please advise me if I've done that. But you pretty much dismissed a link from someone who does understand this issue. I have my doubts that you understand it as well as he does. if that's an attack, then you are too sensitive.
Jesus! 23,000 posts?? Do you guys have a freekin job? Wow. THis is my second post under my new name. wow
Having said that...
a) The quality was not great. I had to have it exchanged twice, once for a reluctant Home button and the other for proximity sensor. I got fed up with the cheek dialing so I took it to their retail store and had one of their "Genius" types take a look at it. The tool had the audacity to say, "Well, it sounds software related....and software isn't covered under your [extended] warranty." The phone had already been restored so there was nothing left. "...but, I'll exchange it this one time as a courtesy." Final straw, I sold it.
b) AT&T dropped calls. On my small Samsung A107 "dummy" phone, I don't drop calls--rare if I do. iPhone 3G and iPhone 4? Yes. My wife still has her iPhone 4, loves it, but concedes it does drop a lot of calls....Too bad Verizon didn't have the iPhone 4 a few months earlier.
c) "Death Grip" wasn't so much an issue, but it's non-existant on my dummy Samsung. I tried to death grip my friend's Samsung Focus, bars don't drop on there either. Engineering trade-off? Sure. Good idea? Probably not.