Consumer Reports condemns end of iPhone 4 free case program - Page 5

A more compelling distortion is the one Apple presented in their antennagate conference meeting. They stated less then 1% of their customers had the antenna issue since that was all that was reported to Applecare. But with all the publicity of the issue, I'm willing to bet a big percentage of the people having the issue never called Applecare. Because they knew Apple was already aware of the issue and were looking into it. The customer knew their particular phone was not unique. I never called Applecare. Because I knew calling Applecare would do no good. I also wonder what the average percentage of people actually report an issue they are experiencing to a manufacturer. I'm sure it's not 100%.

I find the spastic attack on CR for their stance on the iPhone 4 really curious. I have to agree with them (CR) 100%. I couldn't hold the iPhone 4 comfortably without having the antenna signal attenuation problem occur. Regardless of the many merits the iPhone 4 has as a good smartphone/mobile computer, rectifying that problem should not be a cost imposed by the consumer - not one cent. With the bumper, the iPhone 4 is fantastic - I purchased my phone after Apple began the bumper program and I'm satisfied with my purchase - I'm a little disappointed that I will never be able to enjoy the phone unshielded as I love the look of the phone as designed. Now, that attractive stainless steel band is all covered up and that overall clean, crisp design is covered by the black band - so my phone is no longer a sexy piece of design but at least is now performs very well - a definite step up from all previous iPhones.

I think CR is now becoming less relevant they try to be impartial but they bias this report they have compromised their integrity
hey i bought a bosch dishwasher on their "recommendation" well after 3 months it is a POS now i have to wash by hand because the dishes don't get cleaned
and have to wait 10 days for a service tech to check it out....they failed at that too

so i think this whole experience shows they aren't the CR of the past

This post is a perfect example of how statistics are misunderstood. Your experience is not a rule, it is just one instance. CR sends out surveys to every one of their subscribers every year, and the subscribers report the products they bought and repair issues they've encountered. It's not a perfect system, but it is a hell of a lot more scientific than one "for instance."

I think Apple is correct though. We now have three 1Phone 4's and I know at least a dozen others with them. none of us have the problem. If you try very hard, you can see the signal drop, but it isn't affecting the calls. As has been reported, only if you're in a poor signal area will it be a problem, and few people hold their phones that way anyway. Getting a case of any kind stops the problem dead, and most people buy cases anyway, as you must realize from the vast models of them out there. It's really not a problem.

Most customers can't reproduce the behavior.

You compliment the screen and then label it as marketing hype.

Obviously, Consumer Reports is targeting the same customer if they have an iPhone App; why would they make an iPhone App if they weren't interested in reaching iPhone customers?

How is basing your buying decisions on the opinion of a company thinking for yourself?

Sorry, everything in your post is fail.

Yeah, how dare consumer reports report on on products. Just where do they get off, evaluating products and publishing product reviews?

Are you talking just about people mentioning the antenna problem? Or are you suggesting that people claiming they have the problem are actually lying?

There has been plenty of the latter. Because I personally experience the problem when not using a case, this is pretty insulting.

I do think that CU has gone overboard on this one though. I've been subscribing to them for 40 years, and they occasionally do things that simply aren't right, or show that they don't understand the entire product category.

Their reports on cameras are almost useless, as are their reports on audio equipment, and while their reports on computers have gotten better, they still don't totally understand what consumers want and need.

With this, the first report, which was a field usage report, said that the problem was a minor one, and would not prevent them from recommending the phone. After they read some bloggers, all objective of course, complain about the problem they want back to their (according to antenna experts who have commented on this issue) not very well equipped lab for testing. Only after working to duplicate the problem did they say that they didn't recommend the phone. Recommending simply means to not give it a check rating, and they don't explain that properly. Still, it remains at the top of the ratings chart.

It seems to me, because I've seen them do this before, that they found something that would give them publicity, and like a junkyard dog, they won't let go. This problem affects very few people, and Apple will still be giving free cases to anyone who asks for them. Not a big deal. But this has brought them before the public again, so they want to stay there.

What I'm saying is that the survey is asking people about what they don't like, or are CONCERNED about. So, while I and my family have finally upgraded to the 4, and have no problem with it, am I concerned about the problem? Sure! Have I had it? No! Did they ask people if they were experiencing the problem? Apparently not.

It seems that the crux of your beef with consumer reports is that you disagree with their findings. If you agreed, you'd likely not have a problem with them publishing that finding.

On top of that, you probably wouldn't have attributed devious motives to their actions if you agreed with their review.

Because i personally have the antenna problem, I don't have an issue with consumer reports publishing their iPhone review. Nor do I believe that they are publishing something controversial simply for the publicity. Instead, I have a much less paranoid assessment, that consumer reports retested a product after widespread reports of a flaw. Once they had more information about a flaw, they were able to reproduce it reliably.

And what's all this nonsense about consumer reports being ill-equipped to test if the antenna flaw exists? Seriously?

I can prove it exists with a single iPhone4, one hand, and five minutes of labor. I've made quite a believers out of deniers at my local bar. "Oh really? You don't believe the antenna problem exists? Let me prove it to you right now". Five minutes later they admit that the problem is real after I consistently drop to zero connectivity via my normal grip on the phone. Tested with the bumper in place, the phone remains usable.

As for why satisfaction remains high? I'm satisfied even though I have the antenna problem. The reason is quite simple, I'm using a bumper on my iPhone. Problem solved, for me.

What consumer reports has done really isn't that outrageous or sensational. It is only us rabid apple geeks that find it outrageous that they dare publish an unflattering review of an apple product. They publish negative review all the time. We just don't normally notice.

I disagree with you. I'm not going to deny that you have had a problem. Sure, there are those who have, though most have not.

And yes, their testing methods have been in question before, and there have been times when they even retracted statements they made.

What I don't like is that when they actually used the phone, even knowing about the "problem" they were of the opinion that it was minor, and not very important. But only when they tested it in their lab, they then said that it was important. So it wasn't much of a problem in use, where it really matters, but in the lab, they could detail the actual numbers, and that seemed to be more important to them.

I'm not happy about the way they did this, because for one, they really didn't need to take that big piece of duct tape, and slap it on the phone. It was pointed out that most any small, thin and clear tape makes a major difference for those with the problem, so that was a deliberate affront. It's as though they were making a joke about it, which isn't their supposed purpose.

In addition, many products over the years have been given "conditional" recommendations. If this is done to the product, then we can recommend it. Often, that's something the consumer can do, and they'll show how. But they didn't do that here, even though Apple spent a lot of money to give cases to every buyer.

Usually, in a situation like this, they would say that without a case, they can't recommend (check rate) it, but with a case they can. They didn't do that either. They would have praised the manufacturer for taking quick steps to rectify the situation by giving everyone cases.They seemed miffed that Apple didn't quickly jump to recall a couple of billion dollars of phones, halt production for several months, and possibly destroy their business, just because they they said that about the phone.

I know that you seem to think that CU is beyond politics, but they are not. They play it as much as anyone, and they do what they can to obtain readers, and negative reports is how they do it. They are honest, but sometimes they push that to their own advantage.

Now, if a case didn't help, it would be a different story. But return rates are still far below that of most other phones, so people are obviously happy.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said "CU was beyond politics".

Your attack on consumer reports seems to be across the board; Criticizing the quality of reporting in quite a few categories, test facilities, test methodology, and even their honesty. If this is indeed your perception, I suppose trying to convince you to reverse that all-out assault might be a bit tough. But let me try on just one point...

It is in no way strange for reviewers to revisit a product after they hear reports of people having problems. When products become widely distributed, it sometimes comes to light that a particular usage scenario causes problems. In this instance, they clearly explained that they didn't see the problem because of the way they were using the iPhone. Once the problem was better detailed, consumer reports was able to replicate it, with one finger, in real-life.

I certainly agree that free cases should make this a mute point; and possibly even that a conditional recommendation might have been merited. But it seems a bit much to wage an all-out slander campaign with claims of consumer reports being purposefully disingenuous. Is that really the radicalized position that you want to take?


Edit: Removed sentence about lab testing after rereading the consumer reports articles in question. I still find their lab testing to be adequate, but not as I had originally described.

I'm not slandering CU any more than they slander Apple with this "we can't recommend this product".

I'm saying that they went overboard, and they are taking advantage of the high visibility of Apple and its products for their own gain. That's the truth. I wouldn't continue my sub if I didn't think that overall, they do a pretty good job. But there are areas in which they don't.

I remember a number of years ago when they reviewed a large number of SLR's (before digital). Two cameras ended at the bottom of the ratings, just above a dreadful piece of equipment. they were the top pro models from Canon and Nikon. Why? Because they were heavy, and complex. Did CU think to say that these were actually the best cameras they tested, or that the pro community would choose them first? No. They just were selling their mag to those people who would find these cameras to be too heavy and complex. They got a lot of letters on that one, including mine. So later, they printed a semi retraction, pointing out that those cameras were really very good, but not what their readership would be looking for, on the most part.

I feel as though they could have been more accommodating here as well. They did get a lot of letters about this issue, and they've been excoriated in the press about it, not just from me.

I don't like that loaded term "not recommended". They should just have said that they didn't check rate it, and the political overtones wouldn't have been there.

this has been a typical response to the CU iPhone report by people who actually understand these issues, so stop saying that I've "attacking" them.

http://mobileanalyst.wordpress.com/2...-full-of-crap/

lol, but you are attacking them. Can't we at least agree on that?

As for that link, I'm not buying that guy's appeal to authority argument either.

The level of rigorous testing he describes would be preferable. But that doesn't mean that less rigorous testing is worthless. Case in point, I can prove that the iPhone4 consistently drops calls when in certain locations and when touched with one finger in the wrong spot. Many other people are reporting the same problem. I've yet to see that claim made about any other phone. Perhaps the claim has been made, but nowhere near as widespread as compared to the iphone.

A rational and objective person will use this evidence even though it wasn't obtained via a multi-hundred-million dollar test facility. Ironically, this situation really isn't that uncommon. Cheap and imperfect testing is well suited to finding faults missed by the original engineers. What this guy is describing is a level of rigor needed for optimizing performance. It isn't necessary for roughly demonstrating that a problem exists.

So while we agree that the overall rating was a bit harsh, I can't bring myself to condemn their honesty or testing methodology.

I'm not attacking them. I'm stating what's happening. I think that you're overly submissive to their authority. You somehow believe that they're in the right no matter what they say or do. And don't say I'm putting words in your mouth, because it's what you been writing, defending them despite evidence that they're not entirely right here.

As for "that guys" article, he knows far more than you do, and he hasn't been alone in this. Several antenna engineers have said the same thing.

(spots live hand grenade, throws self on it)

Honestly, I think you are in general attacking CR when you use terms such as "slander" and "political overtones" to describe the nature your disagreement with their testing or reporting methods. Those are awfully loaded terms, which to me seem meant to imply something less than an honest approach to their work. I've disagreed with CR many times (and written them my share of critical letters too), to the extent that I gave up subscribing after years and years of doing so. But I never doubted the sincerity of their efforts or attributed their results to possibly nefarious goals, which it appears you are doing.

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).

CR made a simple and irrefutable observation. They cannot recommend a product for which some customers are expected to find a remedy for the design.

I believe that applies whether there are 1% of customers experiencing the problem, or 90%. If insulating the antenna is the fix then there is no reason whatever for Apple to continue producing UN-insulated external antennas. The solution can be incoporated into the design in an aesthetically pleasing way so that ALL customers have the best iphone experience. To do otherwise is decidedly un-Apple and that is why people are upset.

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.

That would be nice if they always did that, but they don't. And Apple does give a solution away that the consumer doesn't have to devise themselves, it's called a case, which most people buy anyway.

(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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.