Consumer Reports offers scathing critique on Verizon iPhone 4 - Page 3

LOL. It's been on the market six-months. That's middle-aged? In Microsoft Kin years, that's more than a lifetime!

I did read it and noticed it was their "Electronics Blog". No real testing just a lot of opinion including when they think it will be replaced by iPhone 5. I don't remember ever seeing CR downgrade a product because it was to be replaced but I do remember trying to find any number of appliances that they review that are no longer available.

Interestingly, on their ratings page the iPhone 4 (AT&T) takes up the top 2 spots (tied with the Captivate) and the venerable 3GS take up the 4th spot. The 3G isn't available new any more but I bet would still come in in the top 10.

I also find their automobile reviews next to useless. Maybe they should stick to toasters.

I dont get the the chart where it says;

iPhone 4
iOS4.3
July2010

just wrong under any reading of it. No?
Hardware and software release dates confused.

4.3 isn't out. wasn't out in July 2010
In any case, the iPhone on Verizon is so far understood to be running 4.2.5.

There will be people who bought their phone in July still running iOS4.
Those that buy in January or February 2011 will never run iOS4 or 4.1.

and while Apple are calling it the iPhone 4, it is a different phone, different hardware driven by the CDMA radio/antenna. It wasn't released in July 2010, it was announced in January 2011.

So you can say you didn't learn anything new. I would say the same thing. In fact in keeping with most of what I've ever read from CR, it runs heavily towards the obvious, nothing which hasn't been hashed out here over and over. A complete yawn, really. So I think all the righteous indignation is more than a bit overblown.

I believe in this instance he has every right to have an agenda. He is pointing out the stunning lack of logic and objectivity displayed by Consumer Reports with regards to the iPhone 4. They DID say they could recommend their top-rated smartphone; it's a fair point to make and a difficult one to make without being tempted to pour scorn on them.

Consumer Reports should point out that the iPhone 4 may well be replaced by an iPhone 5 in the summer, but that doesn't make this a bad buy or a bad phone. It's still an iPhone 4 and like this article states, it's still on a far less frequent product cycle than most other device manufacturers' offerings.

Crucially, none of us know the terms of the Verizon deal. For all we know, AT&T may have the iPhone 5 in the summer and Verizon may have to wait until this time next year; we don't know how all this got settled so it's absurd for Consumer Reports to be scathing of what has come through the insane, nonsensical firestorm of - and I quote this word with scorn - "antennagate" to show itself as the king of the current crop.

The top and bottom of it is that the iPhone 4 is a quite simply superb smartphone and that should be reflected in any sensible review of it, regardless of any caveats based on speculation of an impending, as-yet-unreleased successor that may not even be available as a CDMA variant at launch.

It's good to see the WSJ pointing out the oddness of Consumer Reports' behaviour. It deserves to lose credibility of this.

The day they put duct tape on the iPhone4 was the day they lost all credibility.
I no longer trust anything they say.

But when MacGyver uses duct tape it’s cool?



PS: Little known fact: "duck tape" is just as valid a term and probably predates the tape being used for ducts or named duct tape.

CR's take on the Verizon iPhone is some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. They wish, for credibility's sake, last summer editorial on iPhone 4 to be borne out by reality, a reality unfortunately out of their subjective grasp. They miserably failed then and they only compound their failure by piling on what turned out to be an outstanding success story.

Furthermore, it's common practice at AI to target Dilger's credibility. The more spiteful your description of him, the more he tends to inhabit the character you desperately wished he were, all the while serving AI readership with top notch analysis, with probably the best prognosis and predictive ability around the Net and beyond.

I find him irresistibly entertaining, thanks to all your diatribes, all the while being systematically correct with his probing instinct. The best of both worlds, a winning proposition for AI's hit counts and for maintaining their credibility in the process.

Repetitious assaults from self-righteous and self-serving predictable bores only make his writing seem almost Shakespearian where it would merely need to be enlightening. Thanks for your contribution in carving out Dilger's wide creative space for my constantly renewed enjoyment.*

CR has gone completely bonkers.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but something sure seems rotten here.

Pros use gaffers tape, b/c it doesn't leave a residue when you remove it.

Anyone who takes Daniel Eran Dilger (the author of this article) seriously, needs to read more. He's the Sarah Palin, the Rupert Murdoch and the Dan Quayle of AppleInsider writers.

For the most part, I still like to look at what CR has to say on cars etc., but I've honestly never cared what they said about electronics. As for what they have said about the iPhone, I could care less - I'm still buying it when the VZW version is released. What I do have a problem with is them stating that it has an antenna issue when they do not test/compare that with any other mobile phone/company. When they say that it has the problem and nothing else does, though they did not say that in so many words - it's implied, I have a problem with that. It's like they are comparing the one "apple" to the rest of the oranges, when you can't compare them. The only fair thing to do would be to test all of the phones and their antenna performance, and THEN state which fairs better or worse, etc.

"it may be quickly replaced by a newer, cooler version”

As opposed to other brands, where new models never come along soon In fact, that seems to be a major Android curse (with consequences that can include recent hardware never getting software updates, while you’re stuck for a 2-year contract).

As for 4G, shouldn’t CR be thorough and honest about that for ALL brands? 4G is the future... but it’s very limited now (in terms of geography, real-world performance, and battery life). That won’t suddenly change in a couple months.

Some (at least) of CR’s writers have always had an anti-Apple agenda, reflected in their Mac coverage and now their iOS coverage.

CR does studies and surveys reasonably well—I take an interest in their hard data sometimes. Not in their commentary.


There is some truth in what you say... yet we can (and should) still judge each instance of what he says on its own merits, and judge CR on their own as well.


I find that when I know something about a topic at CR, there are errors. So there are probably errors in the topics I can’t judge, too! For instance, they have long had misinformation about Pentax digital cameras that I’m familiar with.

They should be providing NON-techies with good consumer advice. They really don’t. (Like how they’ve never had a full and honest look at how an everyday non-techie user might choose between Mac and Windows. Their computer reviews tend to let you make that initial decision blind. Not helpful!)

No wonder he's so entertaining to read!

(I'd rather have those folks doing my entertainment than my politics, but that's another thread...... )

To his credit he has written some well written and informative posts, but he crosses the line with truth. It's quite alien to him regarding certain Apple flaws.

The rest of the world is controlled by a Satanic force. You can't see that?

Dear Doctor, a bit of spin - seriously?? the contents of the blog were flawed logically and speculatively, ignoring the effective real life of the devices via "middle age" comment, and flogging the iPhone with the network limitations. Don't even mention the ridiculous nonsense about releasing a not ready for primetime LTE version - they haven't even deployed the technology widely across the network coverage area and somehow Apple is supposed to take flawed LTW chipsets and cram them into the iPhones regardless of actual function or form-factor?

Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor not a technologist!

You just are not remembering as you read to separate comments by commenter in these posts - you seem to be lumping everyone's opinion and conveniently tarring everyone with the same brush. Really, you need to get out more and have more interactions with other (presumably) humans for you learn this very important differential technique. It will greatly enhance your ability to express opinions that are based on facts and not flawed reasoning and make you a joy to be around.

CR is supposed to be impartial and objective. AI is anything but those and isn't really meant to be that way.

That hasn't been true for at least a decade and a half... Even in the decades before that, their testing methods left a lot to be desired.

While CR is usually on the money on their reviews, they definitely blew it on the IPHONE4.
CR has a reputation to defend also and rating it their BEST phone and still not recommending it doesn't make sense.

No, they're a rag in both cases.

Welcome to AI - that was a masterful rendition of trolling - couldn't have done it better myself. Now do you in fact have a real position predicated on real facts you can also regale us with? I for one am waiting with enthusiasm and 'bated breath.

So ummm Mark? 'K, here's the deal: they in fact (and you can of course go to there site, pay the subscription fee and read it for yourself - or back trace thru previous coverage elsewhere) gave the iPhone 4 the highest rating ever for a smartphone (as they claimed), but when Apple refused to apologize profusely for the "antenna issue" they decided to not recommend it - in spite of it's high rating. That's what happened - marked internal inconsistency in their process results and no indication that they recognized it.

interesting, like it's going to impact Apple iPhone 4 sales. who cares what CR think!

Oh shucks Soli, I have to disagree here with ya - a rare thing perhaps but facts is facts: "Duck Tape" is actually a brand of duct tape - which was used widely in the HVAC industry for *gasp* wait for it - sealing joints in ductwork. That it now holds the universe together, and figures so prominently in so much urban legend is only a credit to its original use. And since I was a research technician for 3M - a major supplier of said film-backed adhesive, I think I can speak with some confidence on this. The references in the Wikipedia article need serious validating and correcting on a number of points- including the WWII ammo box sealant reference - which was variants of asphalt tarred cotton fabric not what is now know commonly to be duct tape. Duct tape was in fact used widely until the late 90's when inferiorly-made versions were linked to potential combustibility issues and it's use on ductwork immediately on or adjacent to furnaces was challenged in building codes.

As a result, tape now used for furnace and ductwork joint sealing is adhesive-backed soft aluminum or in some cases very thin annealed stainless steel foils. Variants of these are used in the military as "500mph tape" due to the fact that the adhesive is very aggressive, heat-resistant and the backing material is solid metal, not fabric and plastic, allowing them to be used for minor, temporary emergency repairs to fuselage and lifting surfaces.

My source was the Oxford English Dictionary. I no longer pay for access to it but I assure you that the oldest known reference of duck tape predates duct tape.

I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it’s relaying the most correct information. Like much etymology there are a lot of unknowns and I’m not saying which term came first, only which term we know as being oldest. Duck tape is definitely not an “eggcorn”.

Here is a site that goes into a lot more detail. I have been contributing to their forum for years and trust the content as well as the site’s owner. It also cites the OED.

•

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php...ape_duct_tape/

Exactly. You nailed.

does anyone care what CR thinks about anything?

LOL

CR is a bought and paid for establishment. They cater towards the highest bidder, and their reviews are less than stellar to say the least. Love it how the same guy that tests a washer machine, tests paint as well. No wonder they remain a private firm, as they don't want to be exposed for what they are.

I second the motion that Daniel is incredibly bias and just pissed off that anyone would have something bad to say about his poor beloved iphone.

This article basically proves itself inconclusive. It states that predecessor to duct tape is:

"not the sticky tape we are familiar with today, but rather non-adhesive cloth tape: Cotton Duck Tape, 1” to 1 1/2” wide, 44,108 yds. Duct tape appears a few decades later, this time definitely of the adhesive variety with which we’re familiar today"

But it's trying to say somehow that this cloth cotton duck tape morphed into the adhesive vinyl/cloth backed grey tape most HVAC contractors use for sealing ductwork. But it doesn't give any evidence as to how the one tape became the other...you cannot simply assume the two types of tape are connected in anyway without proper evidence. So I would say (based on this article) that it's just a coincidence that the two tapes have similar names.

While Consumer Reports does seem to be overstating things or being harsh, I find Apple Insider doing any article on objectivity laughable. I like your artcles and read them often, but I enjoy them for what they are: skewed artcles written by Apple fanboys and appologists.

Your comparison charts are designed to make iphone shine and contain inaccurate information about some models, so you have little business pointing fingers. .

Typed on my Droid X that came with 16GB of flash and a replacable battery.

Since I never mentioned the author's name, and don't give two hoots who wrote this article, and was commenting not so much on it as the reaction from everyone else, I thank you too. As for the diatribes, they've nearly all been directed at CR, curiously enough from people who admit to never reading it. Them is some fine diatribes. The best.

Actually, it was completely accurate as nearly as I could tell, and all the issues they raised have been discussed here ad infinitum. The iPhone 4 is literally middle-aged, as we all know it will probably be replaced in six months with a new model. It's a problem that CR mentions this? As for the network limitations, those comments were clearly directed at AT&T and Verizon. And again, how many thousands of times have the very same issues been raised here? So now it's a problem that CR mentions it? And so on. Talk about over the top touchy. I'll bet nobody at Apple cares even half as much about that article as some of the fanatics here. I'll also bet few were around when Apple's press coverage really was unfair. Maybe my problem is having some perspective. I can live with that.

Or.... just iPhone. I mean, we don't call our Macbooks Macbook Pro 6 and Macbook Pro 7, do we?

Thats a good point.

The OS version on Android phones are a very good litmus test of CR's hypocrisy: anything today that doesn't have 2.2 shouldn't be recommended.




Already done several years ago: the straw that broke this camel's back was in car reviews.

One I still recall in particular was that CR trashed an Audi for having a crooked gate transmission shifter, and then PRAISED Mercedes ... for the same exact "crooked gate" feature!

Golly, it couldn't have anything to do with bias against Audi from being proven wrong on the "unintended acceleration" problem (FYI, that was traced to being a human engineering design problem with the gas/brake pedal locations - not a transmission problem afterall - and Detroit had suffered through the same exact problem ~25 years before Audi).



Here's how you can save even more money: CR is usually available for free, down at your local Public Library.



-hh

Sounds like good advice to me.