The difference, troll, is that in reality there's no ``experience since day one' ', nor ``real issue' ', nor ``3G' '. There is not even a wife yet. But one day the latter will eventually come...
First, I used the word 'significant', not 'primarily', and I stand by that accusation: that they were, in no irrelevant manner, and in your words, acting like "attention whores". The whole snarky duct tape video undermines any arguments to the contrary.
And, no, I don't think they are doing anything different than they have always done. (And note, that your quote on this point is a misquote, what I actually said was, "They may always have been unreliable, [...] they may recently have become unreliable, or they may have always been sometimes unreliable.") I think their review process has always been flawed. The establish arbitrary criteria, test (and how rigorously is debatable), then, when their test results don't line up with what they feel is correct, they will 'ding' products for criteria not part of their tests. How is this in any way objective testing? It isn't, but it does point to the arbitrary nature of their testing criteria. If the points that products are 'dinged' over are relevant, why aren't they part of the rating process? And are the dings based on objective testing, or are they mere subjective whims?
This goes well beyond smartphone "testing", and applies to all their testing, ratings, and recommendations. This might be fine if they didn't maintain a pretense of objective, "scientific" testing of products, but they do. In the case of smartphones, why weren't the tests they subjected the iP4 to part of the rating process to begin with? How many phones have they tested in this way? Did they subject other "recommended" phones to the same testing? If not, what is the validity of those ratings and recommendations?
So you insist on making distinctions that don't make any logical difference. Your argument is fundamentally still the same. It is a circular argument with a cynical twist. Criticizing someone for gaining attention for doing what they do is a completely generic argument for all occasions. You might as well argue that Tolstoy only wrote "War and Peace" to bring attention to himself as a novelist. Well, shame on Tolstoy.
Again, I will point out that you have provided no technical basis for disagreeing with CR's testing results. Instead you have repeatedly questioned their motives. This is not an argument. It is simply applied cynicism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yes, exactly.
Yes, exactly. These reports are intended for members. Shocking.
Companies cannot use consumer reports to beat their competitors. The commercial use of CR reviews is explicitly prohibited.
Don't be naive. Of course companies do this.
Quote:
It sounds more like you have an emotional attachment to the subject and are mad at CR for publishing a review you disagree with. There was nothing sensational about their review at all. Nothing was sensationalized. Nothing was unprofessional. There wasn't across the board criticism, demonization of a CEO, no attacks on an entire company etc. They retested a single product after widespread reports of a single, specific flaw. They confirmed that the flaw could affect some customers and adjusted their rating accordingly.
You can reasonably argue that their review was wrong. But to call it sensationalism is just bizarre.
Actually:
1. I'm not even arguing about whether their review was right or wrong. I'm saying that their entire review process is broken, so they have no credibility, on any subject. In other words, when they are right, it is by accident.
2. Even if my criticisms were motivated by emotions related to the review, that has no bearing on whether the criticisms are valid or not.
3. The way Consumer Report's handled the issue, particularly their duct tape video, was nothing but sensational and unprofessional.
So you insist on making distinctions that don't make any logical difference. Your argument is fundamentally still the same. It is a circular argument with a cynical twist. Criticizing someone for gaining attention for doing what they do is a completely generic argument for all occasions. You might as well argue that Tolstoy only wrote "War and Peace" to bring attention to himself as a novelist. Well, shame on Tolstoy.
Again, I will point out that you have provided no technical basis for disagreeing with CR's testing results. Instead you have repeatedly questioned their motives. This is not an argument. It is simply applied cynicism.
Yes, exactly. These reports are intended for members. Shocking.
Yes, and that's exactly what they are hoping to get out of their sensationalist blog postings, increased "membership", isn't it? Why else do they have free "teaser" postings on their website, with the rest of their content behind a paywall? Obviously, to entice people to become "members".
As far as the rest of your response, it is an entirely misleading, misrepresentation of what I've written on this topic. And the distinction between "significant" and "primary" may be without "logical" difference, but it's not at all without semantic difference.
The bottom line is, and it cannot be honestly avoided, that for the iP4 to be the top rated smartphone, and for them to say they cannot recommend it, is an inconsistency that undermines everything they have to say on this topic. Either it is the best smartphone, and their "can't recommend" statement is disingenuous, or their entire rating system is meaningless and tells you nothing at all, leaving us with nothing but their subjective decisions on products.
You wouldn't mind supplying any, you know, evidence for this, would you? When was the last time you saw "Consumer Reports recommended" in any product advertising? (Hint: You never have, since they don't allow it.)
Quote:
Actually:
1. I'm not even arguing about whether their review was right or wrong. I'm saying that their entire review process is broken, so they have no credibility, on any subject. In other words, when they are right, it is by accident.
2. Even if my criticisms were motivated by emotions related to the review, that has no bearing on whether the criticisms are valid or not.
3. The way Consumer Report's handled the issue, particularly their duct tape video, was nothing but sensational and unprofessional.
First of all, you most certainly have argued that it was wrong. Repeatedly, even in the very statement that "their entire review process is broken." How can a review be right if entire process is broken? Second, your motivations are not being questioned. Your facts and the soundness of your arguments are. Third, what you judge to be "professional" has no impact on whether the testing was valid.
What do they do? Reference CR reviews to promote their own product? This is specifically prohibited by consumer reports and they actively pursue companies that do. Granted, there are some references that never get noticed.
But since you think they have "no credibility on any subject", all further discussion is probably pointless. It doesn't seem as if reason would persuade someone with such a radical view already.
What do they do? Reference CR reviews to promote their own product? This is specifically prohibited by consumer reports and they actively pursue companies that do. Granted, there are some references that never get noticed.
Right, they never casually point out to the press that their product is rated higher by CR than product B. They never push that information to the public in "unofficial" ways. They never mention the details of those reviews in any context. Uh, huh.
Yes, and that's exactly what they are hoping to get out of their sensationalist blog postings, increased "membership", isn't it? Why else do they have free "teaser" postings on their website, with the rest of their content behind a paywall? Obviously, to entice people to become "members".
As far as the rest of your response, it is an entirely misleading, misrepresentation of what I've written on this topic. And the distinction between "significant" and "primary" may be without "logical" difference, but it's not at all without semantic difference.
The bottom line is, and it cannot be honestly avoided, that for the iP4 to be the top rated smartphone, and for them to say they cannot recommend it, is an inconsistency that undermines everything they have to say on this topic. Either it is the best smartphone, and their "can't recommend" statement is disingenuous, or their entire rating system is meaningless and tells you nothing at all, leaving us with nothing but their subjective decisions on products.
No, I have already explained that this is entirely consistent with their ratings policy which they have practiced for decades. This is a fact, but you simply refuse to accept it.
And now we know -- Tolstoy was an attention whore. Anybody who gets attention for doing what they do can be criticized for their motives, especially if we don't like what they do. Whether it is true or not is immaterial. The very fact that they do it and people pay attention is the problem.
Yes, and that's exactly what they are hoping to get out of their sensationalist blog postings, increased "membership", isn't it? Why else do they have free "teaser" postings on their website, with the rest of their content behind a paywall? Obviously, to entice people to become "members".
As far as the rest of your response, it is an entirely misleading, misrepresentation of what I've written on this topic. And the distinction between "significant" and "primary" may be without "logical" difference, but it's not at all without semantic difference.
The bottom line is, and it cannot be honestly avoided, that for the iP4 to be the top rated smartphone, and for them to say they cannot recommend it, is an inconsistency that undermines everything they have to say on this topic. Either it is the best smartphone, and their "can't recommend" statement is disingenuous, or their entire rating system is meaningless and tells you nothing at all, leaving us with nothing but their subjective decisions on products.
Are you really that outraged that a magazine/website dare charge for subscriptions?
As for the motivation sensationalize in order to get subscribers, isn't that conflict of interest true for all publications? If they really wanted to sensationalize, they would have been doing so for years. But they haven't.
And to address your comments on ratings. Ratings are useful. However that doesn't mean that they can all just be averaged together to come up with a numeric winner. If a product has a single significant flaw, but is superior at every other category, then we end up with exactly the situation like we have with the iPhone. It is best at nearly everything... except for the one flaw which for some people overshadows all other factors.
It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I nearly bought a house that was tops in nearly all of the criteria I was using to compare to other homes. Then I was made aware of a seasonal spring that ran through the basement. It was the best price, had the best kitchen, the best woodwork, etc. But the yearly basement flooding made all that irrelevant.
It is obvious that you disagree with the consumer reports review. That would be a reasonable topic to debate. But instead it seems that you're out to slam the organization in every possible way, saying they have "no credibility on any subject".
... First of all, you most certainly have argued that it was wrong. Repeatedly, even in the very statement that "their entire review process is broken." How can a review be right if entire process is broken?
One can "accidentally" be right.
Quote:
Second, your motivations are not being questioned. Your facts and the soundness of your arguments are.
No, I don't think so, you haven't addressed the facts and arguments at all. All of your responses have been personally directed.
Quote:
Third, what you judge to be "professional" has no impact on whether the testing was valid.
True, to some extent, as long as the unprofessional behavior does not spill over to the actual test, but is confined only to their publicity about the test. However, it does cast some doubt on the objectivity.
Right, they never casually point out to the press that their product is rated higher by CR than product B. They never push that information to the public in "unofficial" ways. They never mention the details of those reviews in any context. Uh, huh.
Really? That's the tone and quality of post you want to build a reputation upon?
Of course this happens sometimes. The point is that it is exceedingly rare. It almost never happens in print ads or on television. It almost never happens on corporate websites, etc.
To get a quick understanding of how rare this is, try googling for: consumer reports rated higher
Coming to agreement on just how exceedingly rare it is doesn't seem important though. It is enough to simply realize that consumer reports isn't motivated by whether or not their review will be cited by the companies they are reviewing.
The point is, this is just one of the practices consumer reports uses to ensure the high level of impartiality possible. They want purposefully avoid interaction with the companies they are reviewing.
Which is why I suppose you are belaboring this point. You are out to prove that consumer reports is despicable, worthless, etc.
... It is enough to simply realize that consumer reports isn't motivated by whether or not their review will be cited by the companies they are reviewing. ....
Well, I never said it was. Among other things, they are motivated by gaining and keeping subscribers, to pay their salaries. And, keeping themselves aloof from companies of products they review, does not mean their reviews are objective. It just means that, hopefully, their reviews are not influenced by those companies. But they may certainly be biased or not objective in other ways.
Which is why I suppose you are belaboring this point. You are out to prove that consumer reports is despicable, worthless, etc.
The reason I am belaboring this point is that there are obviously fundamental problems with the way Consumer Reports reviews smartphones. I think there are fundamental problems with the way they review many items. One of these problems is that their rating criteria are arbitrary and subjectively chosen. Otherwise, if they had chosen appropriate criteria and tests on which to rate smartphones, we would not have the ridiculous situation where the highest rated smartphone is "not recommended".
Let's even assume their testing of iP4 signal is valid. Why wasn't that part of the criteria of how they rate smartphones? Did they previously consider it unimportant? Now it is? Or is it? So, because they don't rate based on this, they decide to apply a "fudge factor", resulting in a "not recommended" recommendation. How is this objective? How is it transparent? (Yes, they are behind a paywall, but they are selectively releasing data to the general public on some phones and not on others, assuming they have even tested other phones in the same way.)
I really can't see how any rational, intelligent person can think that Consumer Reports' does not obviously have a credibility problem, with all of their reviews.
The reason I am belaboring this point is that there are obviously fundamental problems with the way Consumer Reports reviews smartphones. I think there are fundamental problems with the way they review many items. One of these problems is that their rating criteria are arbitrary and subjectively chosen. Otherwise, if they had chosen appropriate criteria and tests on which to rate smartphones, we would not have the ridiculous situation where the highest rated smartphone is "not recommended".
Let's even assume their testing of iP4 signal is valid. Why wasn't that part of the criteria of how they rate smartphones? Did they previously consider it unimportant? Now it is? Or is it? So, because they don't rate based on this, they decide to apply a "fudge factor", resulting in a "not recommended" recommendation. How is this objective? How is it transparent? (Yes, they are behind a paywall, but they are selectively releasing data to the general public on some phones and not on others, assuming they have even tested other phones in the same way.)
I really can't see how any rational, intelligent person can think that Consumer Reports' does not obviously have a credibility problem, with all of their reviews.
Obviously they thought that a working antenna was a given. Then they found out it wasn't and amended their conclusion. This is a perfectly rational development. It is how all scientists operate.
Please go back and read my previous post as to how overall ratings can be overshadowed by a single but important defect. What do you think of the analogy of a great house that has a basement that floods frequently?
Obviously they thought that a working antenna was a given. Then they found out it wasn't and amended their conclusion. This is a perfectly rational development. It is how all scientists operate.
Please go back and read my previous post as to how overall ratings can be overshadowed by a single but important defect. What do you think of the analogy of a great house that has a basement that floods frequently?
Obviously, they weren't testing antennas on any phones, or they would have noticed this issue previously, on any number of phones. (Obviously, it isn't that hard to reproduce on most of them.) Obviously, they focused on this phone because grandstanding on the issue would garner them lots of publicity. Obviously, they did not behave professionally. Obviously, they aren't scientists.
The only counter argument that can even be attempted is essentially that Consumer Reports has never been an objective testing organization, so that throwing in an extra factor when they don't get the results they expect in their ratings is standard practice with them. Consumer Reports exists to promote and perpetuate itself, not to provide honest, objective reviews of products.
I only read consumer reports for reviews on Toyotas and washing machines...for years they were biased against Apple computers...recommending Dell, HP, Sony, etc.
No thanks consumer reports!
My boyfriend subscribes to Consumer Reports and treats their reviews like they are the Bible.
I don't usually agree with their reports so this can be the cause of many arguments when buying stuff (one of the latest ones was about which Energy Star washing machine to get)
I will, instead, go to as many review sites as I can to find out what people who bought the products actually say about them. A lot of times a product starts out great and then falls apart sooner than other brands.
Consumer Reports tests things, but do they use them long term in a real life situation? I don't think they do, so I would rather listen to a review from someone who has had the product and takes the time to submit a review without getting anything for it at all. When I was looking at washing machine reviews, people would come back and edit their initial review if the product broke or they had repair problems after owning for a while.
So I take all of Consumer Reports reviews with a grain of salt. This whole way they presented their reviews of the iPhone is sort of funky. As was Apple's first response to the issues. However I found Steve's press conference to be impressive and for me that turned my opinion around about Apple's response on the issue. If I were in the market for a smart phone I would again read reviews from people who are using the phone. Personally I wouldn't hold it over the antenna, I tried to hold my iPod touch that way and it hurt my hand, and I would probably get a bumper anyway because I like how they look and would want some protection for it. So Consumer Reports would hold no sway for me on that product either.
But, I am not in the market for a smart phone, I hate talking on the phone as it is so I am sticking with my land line and LG Go phone. Saving my money for the iPad that I will NOT be reading in full sunlight. (another ridiculous mess, I have a black garden hose...another thing the boyfriend bought...if it sits in full sunlight for even a brief time the water coming out of it is scolding hot, enough to burn my hand! If people think reading on a computer in full sun is a great idea... well it certainly is not)
Obviously, they weren't testing antennas on any phones, or they would have noticed this issue previously, on any number of phones.
Uhh, name one other phone that loses 24 db simply by touching one small spot with a fingertip. A small spot that is in a place many people naturally hold the phone.
Comments
Mossberg took issue with Apple's claim that the iPhone 4 performs better than the iPhone 3GS in areas with poor reception.
I find my iP4 performs better than my iP3G in areas with poor reception. My two pennies worth.
First, I used the word 'significant', not 'primarily', and I stand by that accusation: that they were, in no irrelevant manner, and in your words, acting like "attention whores". The whole snarky duct tape video undermines any arguments to the contrary.
And, no, I don't think they are doing anything different than they have always done. (And note, that your quote on this point is a misquote, what I actually said was, "They may always have been unreliable, [...] they may recently have become unreliable, or they may have always been sometimes unreliable.") I think their review process has always been flawed. The establish arbitrary criteria, test (and how rigorously is debatable), then, when their test results don't line up with what they feel is correct, they will 'ding' products for criteria not part of their tests. How is this in any way objective testing? It isn't, but it does point to the arbitrary nature of their testing criteria. If the points that products are 'dinged' over are relevant, why aren't they part of the rating process? And are the dings based on objective testing, or are they mere subjective whims?
This goes well beyond smartphone "testing", and applies to all their testing, ratings, and recommendations. This might be fine if they didn't maintain a pretense of objective, "scientific" testing of products, but they do. In the case of smartphones, why weren't the tests they subjected the iP4 to part of the rating process to begin with? How many phones have they tested in this way? Did they subject other "recommended" phones to the same testing? If not, what is the validity of those ratings and recommendations?
So you insist on making distinctions that don't make any logical difference. Your argument is fundamentally still the same. It is a circular argument with a cynical twist. Criticizing someone for gaining attention for doing what they do is a completely generic argument for all occasions. You might as well argue that Tolstoy only wrote "War and Peace" to bring attention to himself as a novelist. Well, shame on Tolstoy.
Again, I will point out that you have provided no technical basis for disagreeing with CR's testing results. Instead you have repeatedly questioned their motives. This is not an argument. It is simply applied cynicism.
Yes, exactly.
Yes, exactly. These reports are intended for members. Shocking.
Companies cannot use consumer reports to beat their competitors. The commercial use of CR reviews is explicitly prohibited.
Don't be naive. Of course companies do this.
It sounds more like you have an emotional attachment to the subject and are mad at CR for publishing a review you disagree with. There was nothing sensational about their review at all. Nothing was sensationalized. Nothing was unprofessional. There wasn't across the board criticism, demonization of a CEO, no attacks on an entire company etc. They retested a single product after widespread reports of a single, specific flaw. They confirmed that the flaw could affect some customers and adjusted their rating accordingly.
You can reasonably argue that their review was wrong. But to call it sensationalism is just bizarre.
Actually:
1. I'm not even arguing about whether their review was right or wrong. I'm saying that their entire review process is broken, so they have no credibility, on any subject. In other words, when they are right, it is by accident.
2. Even if my criticisms were motivated by emotions related to the review, that has no bearing on whether the criticisms are valid or not.
3. The way Consumer Report's handled the issue, particularly their duct tape video, was nothing but sensational and unprofessional.
So you insist on making distinctions that don't make any logical difference. Your argument is fundamentally still the same. It is a circular argument with a cynical twist. Criticizing someone for gaining attention for doing what they do is a completely generic argument for all occasions. You might as well argue that Tolstoy only wrote "War and Peace" to bring attention to himself as a novelist. Well, shame on Tolstoy.
Again, I will point out that you have provided no technical basis for disagreeing with CR's testing results. Instead you have repeatedly questioned their motives. This is not an argument. It is simply applied cynicism.
Yes, exactly. These reports are intended for members. Shocking.
Yes, and that's exactly what they are hoping to get out of their sensationalist blog postings, increased "membership", isn't it? Why else do they have free "teaser" postings on their website, with the rest of their content behind a paywall? Obviously, to entice people to become "members".
As far as the rest of your response, it is an entirely misleading, misrepresentation of what I've written on this topic. And the distinction between "significant" and "primary" may be without "logical" difference, but it's not at all without semantic difference.
The bottom line is, and it cannot be honestly avoided, that for the iP4 to be the top rated smartphone, and for them to say they cannot recommend it, is an inconsistency that undermines everything they have to say on this topic. Either it is the best smartphone, and their "can't recommend" statement is disingenuous, or their entire rating system is meaningless and tells you nothing at all, leaving us with nothing but their subjective decisions on products.
Don't be naive. Of course companies do this.
You wouldn't mind supplying any, you know, evidence for this, would you? When was the last time you saw "Consumer Reports recommended" in any product advertising? (Hint: You never have, since they don't allow it.)
Actually:
1. I'm not even arguing about whether their review was right or wrong. I'm saying that their entire review process is broken, so they have no credibility, on any subject. In other words, when they are right, it is by accident.
2. Even if my criticisms were motivated by emotions related to the review, that has no bearing on whether the criticisms are valid or not.
3. The way Consumer Report's handled the issue, particularly their duct tape video, was nothing but sensational and unprofessional.
First of all, you most certainly have argued that it was wrong. Repeatedly, even in the very statement that "their entire review process is broken." How can a review be right if entire process is broken? Second, your motivations are not being questioned. Your facts and the soundness of your arguments are. Third, what you judge to be "professional" has no impact on whether the testing was valid.
Don't be naive. Of course companies do this.
What do they do? Reference CR reviews to promote their own product? This is specifically prohibited by consumer reports and they actively pursue companies that do. Granted, there are some references that never get noticed.
But since you think they have "no credibility on any subject", all further discussion is probably pointless. It doesn't seem as if reason would persuade someone with such a radical view already.
What do they do? Reference CR reviews to promote their own product? This is specifically prohibited by consumer reports and they actively pursue companies that do. Granted, there are some references that never get noticed.
Right, they never casually point out to the press that their product is rated higher by CR than product B. They never push that information to the public in "unofficial" ways. They never mention the details of those reviews in any context. Uh, huh.
Yes, and that's exactly what they are hoping to get out of their sensationalist blog postings, increased "membership", isn't it? Why else do they have free "teaser" postings on their website, with the rest of their content behind a paywall? Obviously, to entice people to become "members".
As far as the rest of your response, it is an entirely misleading, misrepresentation of what I've written on this topic. And the distinction between "significant" and "primary" may be without "logical" difference, but it's not at all without semantic difference.
The bottom line is, and it cannot be honestly avoided, that for the iP4 to be the top rated smartphone, and for them to say they cannot recommend it, is an inconsistency that undermines everything they have to say on this topic. Either it is the best smartphone, and their "can't recommend" statement is disingenuous, or their entire rating system is meaningless and tells you nothing at all, leaving us with nothing but their subjective decisions on products.
No, I have already explained that this is entirely consistent with their ratings policy which they have practiced for decades. This is a fact, but you simply refuse to accept it.
And now we know -- Tolstoy was an attention whore. Anybody who gets attention for doing what they do can be criticized for their motives, especially if we don't like what they do. Whether it is true or not is immaterial. The very fact that they do it and people pay attention is the problem.
Yes, and that's exactly what they are hoping to get out of their sensationalist blog postings, increased "membership", isn't it? Why else do they have free "teaser" postings on their website, with the rest of their content behind a paywall? Obviously, to entice people to become "members".
As far as the rest of your response, it is an entirely misleading, misrepresentation of what I've written on this topic. And the distinction between "significant" and "primary" may be without "logical" difference, but it's not at all without semantic difference.
The bottom line is, and it cannot be honestly avoided, that for the iP4 to be the top rated smartphone, and for them to say they cannot recommend it, is an inconsistency that undermines everything they have to say on this topic. Either it is the best smartphone, and their "can't recommend" statement is disingenuous, or their entire rating system is meaningless and tells you nothing at all, leaving us with nothing but their subjective decisions on products.
Are you really that outraged that a magazine/website dare charge for subscriptions?
As for the motivation sensationalize in order to get subscribers, isn't that conflict of interest true for all publications? If they really wanted to sensationalize, they would have been doing so for years. But they haven't.
And to address your comments on ratings. Ratings are useful. However that doesn't mean that they can all just be averaged together to come up with a numeric winner. If a product has a single significant flaw, but is superior at every other category, then we end up with exactly the situation like we have with the iPhone. It is best at nearly everything... except for the one flaw which for some people overshadows all other factors.
It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I nearly bought a house that was tops in nearly all of the criteria I was using to compare to other homes. Then I was made aware of a seasonal spring that ran through the basement. It was the best price, had the best kitchen, the best woodwork, etc. But the yearly basement flooding made all that irrelevant.
It is obvious that you disagree with the consumer reports review. That would be a reasonable topic to debate. But instead it seems that you're out to slam the organization in every possible way, saying they have "no credibility on any subject".
... First of all, you most certainly have argued that it was wrong. Repeatedly, even in the very statement that "their entire review process is broken." How can a review be right if entire process is broken?
One can "accidentally" be right.
Second, your motivations are not being questioned. Your facts and the soundness of your arguments are.
No, I don't think so, you haven't addressed the facts and arguments at all. All of your responses have been personally directed.
Third, what you judge to be "professional" has no impact on whether the testing was valid.
True, to some extent, as long as the unprofessional behavior does not spill over to the actual test, but is confined only to their publicity about the test. However, it does cast some doubt on the objectivity.
Right, they never casually point out to the press that their product is rated higher by CR than product B. They never push that information to the public in "unofficial" ways. They never mention the details of those reviews in any context. Uh, huh.
Really? That's the tone and quality of post you want to build a reputation upon?
Of course this happens sometimes. The point is that it is exceedingly rare. It almost never happens in print ads or on television. It almost never happens on corporate websites, etc.
To get a quick understanding of how rare this is, try googling for: consumer reports rated higher
Coming to agreement on just how exceedingly rare it is doesn't seem important though. It is enough to simply realize that consumer reports isn't motivated by whether or not their review will be cited by the companies they are reviewing.
The point is, this is just one of the practices consumer reports uses to ensure the high level of impartiality possible. They want purposefully avoid interaction with the companies they are reviewing.
Which is why I suppose you are belaboring this point. You are out to prove that consumer reports is despicable, worthless, etc.
... It is enough to simply realize that consumer reports isn't motivated by whether or not their review will be cited by the companies they are reviewing. ....
Well, I never said it was. Among other things, they are motivated by gaining and keeping subscribers, to pay their salaries. And, keeping themselves aloof from companies of products they review, does not mean their reviews are objective. It just means that, hopefully, their reviews are not influenced by those companies. But they may certainly be biased or not objective in other ways.
Which is why I suppose you are belaboring this point. You are out to prove that consumer reports is despicable, worthless, etc.
The reason I am belaboring this point is that there are obviously fundamental problems with the way Consumer Reports reviews smartphones. I think there are fundamental problems with the way they review many items. One of these problems is that their rating criteria are arbitrary and subjectively chosen. Otherwise, if they had chosen appropriate criteria and tests on which to rate smartphones, we would not have the ridiculous situation where the highest rated smartphone is "not recommended".
Let's even assume their testing of iP4 signal is valid. Why wasn't that part of the criteria of how they rate smartphones? Did they previously consider it unimportant? Now it is? Or is it? So, because they don't rate based on this, they decide to apply a "fudge factor", resulting in a "not recommended" recommendation. How is this objective? How is it transparent? (Yes, they are behind a paywall, but they are selectively releasing data to the general public on some phones and not on others, assuming they have even tested other phones in the same way.)
I really can't see how any rational, intelligent person can think that Consumer Reports' does not obviously have a credibility problem, with all of their reviews.
At least we know the true argument now.
The reason I am belaboring this point is that there are obviously fundamental problems with the way Consumer Reports reviews smartphones. I think there are fundamental problems with the way they review many items. One of these problems is that their rating criteria are arbitrary and subjectively chosen. Otherwise, if they had chosen appropriate criteria and tests on which to rate smartphones, we would not have the ridiculous situation where the highest rated smartphone is "not recommended".
Let's even assume their testing of iP4 signal is valid. Why wasn't that part of the criteria of how they rate smartphones? Did they previously consider it unimportant? Now it is? Or is it? So, because they don't rate based on this, they decide to apply a "fudge factor", resulting in a "not recommended" recommendation. How is this objective? How is it transparent? (Yes, they are behind a paywall, but they are selectively releasing data to the general public on some phones and not on others, assuming they have even tested other phones in the same way.)
I really can't see how any rational, intelligent person can think that Consumer Reports' does not obviously have a credibility problem, with all of their reviews.
Obviously they thought that a working antenna was a given. Then they found out it wasn't and amended their conclusion. This is a perfectly rational development. It is how all scientists operate.
Please go back and read my previous post as to how overall ratings can be overshadowed by a single but important defect. What do you think of the analogy of a great house that has a basement that floods frequently?
Obviously they thought that a working antenna was a given. Then they found out it wasn't and amended their conclusion. This is a perfectly rational development. It is how all scientists operate.
Please go back and read my previous post as to how overall ratings can be overshadowed by a single but important defect. What do you think of the analogy of a great house that has a basement that floods frequently?
Obviously, they weren't testing antennas on any phones, or they would have noticed this issue previously, on any number of phones. (Obviously, it isn't that hard to reproduce on most of them.) Obviously, they focused on this phone because grandstanding on the issue would garner them lots of publicity. Obviously, they did not behave professionally. Obviously, they aren't scientists.
The only counter argument that can even be attempted is essentially that Consumer Reports has never been an objective testing organization, so that throwing in an extra factor when they don't get the results they expect in their ratings is standard practice with them. Consumer Reports exists to promote and perpetuate itself, not to provide honest, objective reviews of products.
I only read consumer reports for reviews on Toyotas and washing machines...for years they were biased against Apple computers...recommending Dell, HP, Sony, etc.
No thanks consumer reports!
My boyfriend subscribes to Consumer Reports and treats their reviews like they are the Bible.
I don't usually agree with their reports so this can be the cause of many arguments when buying stuff (one of the latest ones was about which Energy Star washing machine to get)
I will, instead, go to as many review sites as I can to find out what people who bought the products actually say about them. A lot of times a product starts out great and then falls apart sooner than other brands.
Consumer Reports tests things, but do they use them long term in a real life situation? I don't think they do, so I would rather listen to a review from someone who has had the product and takes the time to submit a review without getting anything for it at all. When I was looking at washing machine reviews, people would come back and edit their initial review if the product broke or they had repair problems after owning for a while.
So I take all of Consumer Reports reviews with a grain of salt. This whole way they presented their reviews of the iPhone is sort of funky. As was Apple's first response to the issues. However I found Steve's press conference to be impressive and for me that turned my opinion around about Apple's response on the issue. If I were in the market for a smart phone I would again read reviews from people who are using the phone. Personally I wouldn't hold it over the antenna, I tried to hold my iPod touch that way and it hurt my hand, and I would probably get a bumper anyway because I like how they look and would want some protection for it. So Consumer Reports would hold no sway for me on that product either.
But, I am not in the market for a smart phone, I hate talking on the phone as it is so I am sticking with my land line and LG Go phone. Saving my money for the iPad that I will NOT be reading in full sunlight. (another ridiculous mess, I have a black garden hose...another thing the boyfriend bought...if it sits in full sunlight for even a brief time the water coming out of it is scolding hot, enough to burn my hand! If people think reading on a computer in full sun is a great idea... well it certainly is not)
Obviously, they weren't testing antennas on any phones, or they would have noticed this issue previously, on any number of phones.
Uhh, name one other phone that loses 24 db simply by touching one small spot with a fingertip. A small spot that is in a place many people naturally hold the phone.