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.
Which other phones did Consumer Reports test for that phenomenon? Oh, none? That's exactly the point, how can you 'ding' one phone for something you didn't even test other phones for. However, the Samsung Galaxy S, which is demonstrated to lose signal from being touched by a single finger, in a spot where your index finger is likely to rest during a call, is a likely candidate. It's entirely possible that every phone has a "spot" that causes a big signal drop from a single finger touch, but Consumer Reports isn't actually trying to determine that, because, really, other than a handful of self-described geeks, no one cares about any other phones, so Consumer Reports wouldn't get any publicity for actually trying to find out.
Unfortunately, people seem so emotionally invested in the image they have of Consumer Reports, that any excuse will be made for them. Meanwhile, this is what intelligent consumers do (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggbrigette
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. ...
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.
Do you behave like this in real life as well? I have no interest in continuing a debate with someone who acts like this.
Do you behave like this in real life as well? I have no interest in continuing a debate with someone who acts like this.
Actually, you have no interest in continuing a debate in which you know you are wrong but don't want to admit it. Consumer Reports simply is not a reliable reviewer of any product.
Which other phones did Consumer Reports test for that phenomenon? Oh, none? That's exactly the point, how can you 'ding' one phone for something you didn't even test other phones for. However, the Samsung Galaxy S, which is demonstrated to lose signal from being touched by a single finger, in a spot where your index finger is likely to rest during a call, is a likely candidate. It's entirely possible that every phone has a "spot" that causes a big signal drop from a single finger touch, but Consumer Reports isn't actually trying to determine that, because, really, other than a handful of self-described geeks, no one cares about any other phones, so Consumer Reports wouldn't get any publicity for actually trying to find out.
Unfortunately, people seem so emotionally invested in the image they have of Consumer Reports, that any excuse will be made for them. Meanwhile, this is what intelligent consumers do (emphasis mine):
Uh, the iPhone is the only phone that has 2 external antennas that can easily be bridged by naturally holding the phone. This isn't just antenna attenuation common to all phones, which Apple wants to us believe. This is a new issue unique to only the iPhone.
Intelligent consumers don't blindly worship a company and it's products. I love Apple products. But I realize this is a design flaw unique to the iPhone. And I don't like the way Apple is trying to hide the issue by poorly attempting to prove other phones have this exact same issue.
Also, show us some independent tests, not some random, unknown youtube video, that demonstrates how the Samsung Galaxy S has the same reception issue caused by a fingertip.
Consumer Reports simply is not a reliable reviewer of any product.
That's your opinion. Many people think otherwise. I think Consumer Reports is a valuable tool, along with other resources to help with a purchase of a product. And I think Consumer Reports is spot on in reporting this important and unique issue with the iPhone 4.
... Also, show us some independent tests, not some random, unknown youtube video, that demonstrates how the Samsung Galaxy S has the same reception issue caused by a fingertip.
Yes, that's exactly the point. No one is actually testing to verify this on other phones, least of all Consumer Reports. So, what does that tell you about the value of their testing?
That's your opinion. Many people think otherwise. I think Consumer Reports is a valuable tool, along with other resources to help with a purchase of a product. ...
It's not, it's next to worthless, an artifact of an age where information was hard to come by and people were desperate for little charts that told them what to buy. They are really nothing but a carefully crafted image. Real information about the quality of products is not to be found within their pages.
Yes, that's exactly the point. No one is actually testing to verify this on other phones, least of all Consumer Reports. So, what does that tell you about the value of their testing?
You are the one thats claiming the Samsung has the same issue. Show us the proof!! Also, the Samsung does not have external antennas that can be easily bridged by naturally holding the phone. That is the unique issue and flaw with the iPhone 4.
It's not, it's next to worthless, an artifact of an age where information was hard to come by and people were desperate for little charts that told them what to buy. They are really nothing but a carefully crafted image. Real information about the quality of products is not to be found within their pages.
Yes, we already heard your *opinion*. To each their own. Many other people, including myself, find CR is an excellent tool and independent source for researching products. I don't blindly accept their conclusions. But it's a valuable piece of my research.
You are the one thats claiming the Samsung has the same issue. Show us the proof!! Also, the Samsung does not have external antennas that can be easily bridged by naturally holding the phone. That is the unique issue and flaw with the iPhone 4.
We've all seen the video of this happening. They thing about the external antenna is a straw man. Why does it matter if the antenna is internal or external when the signal drops? It doesn't, it's the same effect. We could take any of the phones where this is demonstrated and pick out some feature of it's antenna design that is unique to it, and say, see, it's the only one with this feature where the signal drops. Fixating on an issue on a single phone just means you aren't interested in honest discussion, but in bashing that phone.
Which is exactly where Consumer Reports went wrong on this issue. They weren't interested in honestly evaluating phones, they were interested in grabbing headlines. But, the main problem, with all of their reviews, is that they use arbitrary criteria for rating them: criteria that often have no relevance, but look good in a chart. For example, they used to (may still) ding bicycles for having quick release wheels because the wheel would come off if the lever was released. Well, yeah, that's how they are supposed to work. Instead of recognizing this, they would recommend some piece of junk bike, inferior in all ways, including that it did not have quick release wheels. Duh!
Yes, we already heard your *opinion*. To each their own. Many other people, including myself, find CR is an excellent tool and independent source for researching products. I don't blindly accept their conclusions. But it's a valuable piece of my research.
If it wasn't obvious already, you're wasting your time. We already know that from his point of view, if you don't agree with him, you are an idiot and you are not rational.
We've all seen the video of this happening. They thing about the external antenna is a straw man. Why does it matter if the antenna is internal or external when the signal drops? It doesn't, it's the same effect. We could take any of the phones where this is demonstrated and pick out some feature of it's antenna design that is unique to it, and say, see, it's the only one with this feature where the signal drops. Fixating on an issue on a single phone just means you aren't interested in honest discussion, but in bashing that phone.
A flawed *external* antenna design has everything to do with the iPhone 4. All phones have varying degrees of antenna attenuation when you grip them in certain ways. But the iPhone 4 has an extra issue. It has an antenna bridging issue (because of using external antennas separated by only a seam) in addition to the common antenna attenuation. Apple's is poorly trying to confuse the consumers by making it look like the issue is just antenna attenuation common with all phones. But most, if not all, phones do not drop 24 db by *naturally* holding the phone. Except the iPhone 4. That is the issue.
Yes, some of CR testing methodology might not be the best for every customer and every product. But their independent testing provides me and many other people with valuable information.
If it wasn't obvious already, you're wasting your time. We already know that from his point of view, if you don't agree with him, you are an idiot and you are not rational.
Have at it, if arguing with a concrete wall gives you some jollies. Pretty soon you will realize that unless you completely agree, nothing you say can possibly be respected even in the slightest.
So, explain why, if the signal drops, it matters whether the antenna is internal or external, when what's measured is the same phenomenon. Oh, right, it doesn't matter because it's the same phenomenon.
Have at it, if arguing with a concrete wall gives you some jollies. Pretty soon you will realize that unless you completely agree, nothing you say can possibly be respected even in the slightest.
Well, if you want your opinion to be respected, it might help if you had some actual argument to support it, you know, something other than, "Consumer Reports' reviews have never been objective, so why does it matter now?" or, "Consumer reports is a respected institution."
So, explain why, if the signal drops, it matters whether the antenna is internal or external, when what's measured is the same phenomenon. Oh, right, it doesn't matter because it's the same phenomenon.
This will be my last response to the stone wall (anonymouse) on this subject. LOL. Other phones don't drop 24 db by *naturally* holding the phone. Of course Apple's overly big hand, wrapped unnaturally & tightly around the phone demos, and only showing bars, not db, will like you to believe otherwise. lol
Well, if you want your opinion to be respected, it might help if you had some actual argument to support it, you know, something other than, "Consumer Reports' reviews have never been objective, so why does it matter now?" or, "Consumer reports is a respected institution."
Once someone calls everyone who disagrees with their view irrational or an idiot, they have voluntarily seceded from the debate. You did just that, so your questions are no longer of any consequence. They are mere provocations.
This will be my last response to the stone wall (anonymouse) on this subject. LOL. Other phones don't drop 24 db by *naturally* holding the phone. Of course Apple's overly big hand, wrapped unnaturally & tightly around the phone demos, and only showing bars, not db, will like you to believe otherwise. lol
Actually, the most you can state is that other phones have not been determined to drop 24dB in signal by being held. Since no one cares about other phones, no one has bothered to do extensive testing to determine this, or at least no one is publishing the data, if they have.
Once someone calls everyone who disagrees with their view irrational or an idiot, they have voluntarily seceded from the debate. You did just that, so your questions are no longer of any consequence. They are mere provocations.
Actually, this is another instance of your repeated misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I've written. I understand that it's a certain rhetorical technique to do so, but it doesn't exactly bolster your arguments.
Comments
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.
Which other phones did Consumer Reports test for that phenomenon? Oh, none? That's exactly the point, how can you 'ding' one phone for something you didn't even test other phones for. However, the Samsung Galaxy S, which is demonstrated to lose signal from being touched by a single finger, in a spot where your index finger is likely to rest during a call, is a likely candidate. It's entirely possible that every phone has a "spot" that causes a big signal drop from a single finger touch, but Consumer Reports isn't actually trying to determine that, because, really, other than a handful of self-described geeks, no one cares about any other phones, so Consumer Reports wouldn't get any publicity for actually trying to find out.
Unfortunately, people seem so emotionally invested in the image they have of Consumer Reports, that any excuse will be made for them. Meanwhile, this is what intelligent consumers do (emphasis mine):
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. ...
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.
Do you behave like this in real life as well? I have no interest in continuing a debate with someone who acts like this.
Do you behave like this in real life as well? I have no interest in continuing a debate with someone who acts like this.
Actually, you have no interest in continuing a debate in which you know you are wrong but don't want to admit it. Consumer Reports simply is not a reliable reviewer of any product.
Which other phones did Consumer Reports test for that phenomenon? Oh, none? That's exactly the point, how can you 'ding' one phone for something you didn't even test other phones for. However, the Samsung Galaxy S, which is demonstrated to lose signal from being touched by a single finger, in a spot where your index finger is likely to rest during a call, is a likely candidate. It's entirely possible that every phone has a "spot" that causes a big signal drop from a single finger touch, but Consumer Reports isn't actually trying to determine that, because, really, other than a handful of self-described geeks, no one cares about any other phones, so Consumer Reports wouldn't get any publicity for actually trying to find out.
Unfortunately, people seem so emotionally invested in the image they have of Consumer Reports, that any excuse will be made for them. Meanwhile, this is what intelligent consumers do (emphasis mine):
Uh, the iPhone is the only phone that has 2 external antennas that can easily be bridged by naturally holding the phone. This isn't just antenna attenuation common to all phones, which Apple wants to us believe. This is a new issue unique to only the iPhone.
Intelligent consumers don't blindly worship a company and it's products. I love Apple products. But I realize this is a design flaw unique to the iPhone. And I don't like the way Apple is trying to hide the issue by poorly attempting to prove other phones have this exact same issue.
Also, show us some independent tests, not some random, unknown youtube video, that demonstrates how the Samsung Galaxy S has the same reception issue caused by a fingertip.
Consumer Reports simply is not a reliable reviewer of any product.
That's your opinion. Many people think otherwise. I think Consumer Reports is a valuable tool, along with other resources to help with a purchase of a product. And I think Consumer Reports is spot on in reporting this important and unique issue with the iPhone 4.
... Also, show us some independent tests, not some random, unknown youtube video, that demonstrates how the Samsung Galaxy S has the same reception issue caused by a fingertip.
Yes, that's exactly the point. No one is actually testing to verify this on other phones, least of all Consumer Reports. So, what does that tell you about the value of their testing?
That's your opinion. Many people think otherwise. I think Consumer Reports is a valuable tool, along with other resources to help with a purchase of a product. ...
It's not, it's next to worthless, an artifact of an age where information was hard to come by and people were desperate for little charts that told them what to buy. They are really nothing but a carefully crafted image. Real information about the quality of products is not to be found within their pages.
Yes, that's exactly the point. No one is actually testing to verify this on other phones, least of all Consumer Reports. So, what does that tell you about the value of their testing?
You are the one thats claiming the Samsung has the same issue. Show us the proof!! Also, the Samsung does not have external antennas that can be easily bridged by naturally holding the phone. That is the unique issue and flaw with the iPhone 4.
It's not, it's next to worthless, an artifact of an age where information was hard to come by and people were desperate for little charts that told them what to buy. They are really nothing but a carefully crafted image. Real information about the quality of products is not to be found within their pages.
Yes, we already heard your *opinion*. To each their own. Many other people, including myself, find CR is an excellent tool and independent source for researching products. I don't blindly accept their conclusions. But it's a valuable piece of my research.
You are the one thats claiming the Samsung has the same issue. Show us the proof!! Also, the Samsung does not have external antennas that can be easily bridged by naturally holding the phone. That is the unique issue and flaw with the iPhone 4.
We've all seen the video of this happening. They thing about the external antenna is a straw man. Why does it matter if the antenna is internal or external when the signal drops? It doesn't, it's the same effect. We could take any of the phones where this is demonstrated and pick out some feature of it's antenna design that is unique to it, and say, see, it's the only one with this feature where the signal drops. Fixating on an issue on a single phone just means you aren't interested in honest discussion, but in bashing that phone.
Which is exactly where Consumer Reports went wrong on this issue. They weren't interested in honestly evaluating phones, they were interested in grabbing headlines. But, the main problem, with all of their reviews, is that they use arbitrary criteria for rating them: criteria that often have no relevance, but look good in a chart. For example, they used to (may still) ding bicycles for having quick release wheels because the wheel would come off if the lever was released. Well, yeah, that's how they are supposed to work. Instead of recognizing this, they would recommend some piece of junk bike, inferior in all ways, including that it did not have quick release wheels. Duh!
Yes, we already heard your *opinion*. To each their own. Many other people, including myself, find CR is an excellent tool and independent source for researching products. I don't blindly accept their conclusions. But it's a valuable piece of my research.
If it wasn't obvious already, you're wasting your time. We already know that from his point of view, if you don't agree with him, you are an idiot and you are not rational.
We've all seen the video of this happening. They thing about the external antenna is a straw man. Why does it matter if the antenna is internal or external when the signal drops? It doesn't, it's the same effect. We could take any of the phones where this is demonstrated and pick out some feature of it's antenna design that is unique to it, and say, see, it's the only one with this feature where the signal drops. Fixating on an issue on a single phone just means you aren't interested in honest discussion, but in bashing that phone.
A flawed *external* antenna design has everything to do with the iPhone 4. All phones have varying degrees of antenna attenuation when you grip them in certain ways. But the iPhone 4 has an extra issue. It has an antenna bridging issue (because of using external antennas separated by only a seam) in addition to the common antenna attenuation. Apple's is poorly trying to confuse the consumers by making it look like the issue is just antenna attenuation common with all phones. But most, if not all, phones do not drop 24 db by *naturally* holding the phone. Except the iPhone 4. That is the issue.
Yes, some of CR testing methodology might not be the best for every customer and every product. But their independent testing provides me and many other people with valuable information.
If it wasn't obvious already, you're wasting your time. We already know that from his point of view, if you don't agree with him, you are an idiot and you are not rational.
LOL, so true !!! I guess I am wasting my time.
LOL, so true !!! I guess I am wasting my time.
Have at it, if arguing with a concrete wall gives you some jollies. Pretty soon you will realize that unless you completely agree, nothing you say can possibly be respected even in the slightest.
Blah blah blah... external antenna ... blah blah blah
So, explain why, if the signal drops, it matters whether the antenna is internal or external, when what's measured is the same phenomenon. Oh, right, it doesn't matter because it's the same phenomenon.
Have at it, if arguing with a concrete wall gives you some jollies. Pretty soon you will realize that unless you completely agree, nothing you say can possibly be respected even in the slightest.
Well, if you want your opinion to be respected, it might help if you had some actual argument to support it, you know, something other than, "Consumer Reports' reviews have never been objective, so why does it matter now?" or, "Consumer reports is a respected institution."
So, explain why, if the signal drops, it matters whether the antenna is internal or external, when what's measured is the same phenomenon. Oh, right, it doesn't matter because it's the same phenomenon.
This will be my last response to the stone wall (anonymouse) on this subject. LOL. Other phones don't drop 24 db by *naturally* holding the phone. Of course Apple's overly big hand, wrapped unnaturally & tightly around the phone demos, and only showing bars, not db, will like you to believe otherwise. lol
Well, if you want your opinion to be respected, it might help if you had some actual argument to support it, you know, something other than, "Consumer Reports' reviews have never been objective, so why does it matter now?" or, "Consumer reports is a respected institution."
Once someone calls everyone who disagrees with their view irrational or an idiot, they have voluntarily seceded from the debate. You did just that, so your questions are no longer of any consequence. They are mere provocations.
This will be my last response to the stone wall (anonymouse) on this subject. LOL. Other phones don't drop 24 db by *naturally* holding the phone. Of course Apple's overly big hand, wrapped unnaturally & tightly around the phone demos, and only showing bars, not db, will like you to believe otherwise. lol
Actually, the most you can state is that other phones have not been determined to drop 24dB in signal by being held. Since no one cares about other phones, no one has bothered to do extensive testing to determine this, or at least no one is publishing the data, if they have.
Once someone calls everyone who disagrees with their view irrational or an idiot, they have voluntarily seceded from the debate. You did just that, so your questions are no longer of any consequence. They are mere provocations.
Actually, this is another instance of your repeated misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I've written. I understand that it's a certain rhetorical technique to do so, but it doesn't exactly bolster your arguments.