Well, it doesn't necessarily work like that. They probably rate a max number of points for a bunch of individual factors. So, if you rated "excellent" in all factors, you would get a 100.
Of course, if one of those things is a DVD drive, worth, say, 5 points for excellent, does the MBA get 0 because it doesn't have one, or 5 because the best DVD drive is the one you don't have to carry around with you. Likewise, if they rate Ethernet performance. And so on, and so on.
Hence my comment - The only machine that would score a universally high score is one that cannot be made.
Quote:
And, how can you say that the 13" MBA is objectively better than the 13" MBP? Doesn't it depend on how you intend to use it -- i.e., a bunch of subjective factors that they can't possibly capture?
Totally agree. Unfortunately CR does not stand alone. AI has on many occasions detracted points from a product for ridiculous reasons that the product just was never designed to do. I can't be bothered to back that up as most people here will be familiar
Quote:
This is the basic problem with CR reviews. They break things down into arbitrary factors that may or may not be relevant to you, to someone else, to anyone, and then pretend they are doing Scientific ratings of products. In reality, all they really do with any product, in the best case, is provide reviews that reflect what the reviewer thought was important (which is often very much at odds with what a knowledgeable user would consider important) and which one he would have picked. Their reviews amount to nothing more than rationalizations of their reviewers biases, masquerading as objective fact.
It is fine to break things down factually. It is OK to say that the MBA 11" has a small screen and is not suitable as primary PS workhorse. What is wrong is to attach value to that observation. Making such bleeding obvious statements does not intelligent reviews make, however.
Well, yes, that was sort of my point, CR doesn't even understand the nature of what they are reviewing.
There are 100s of ways you might categorize computers. CR picked one. Read the article. If they picked screen size, fine, go with it. That's probably a top criteria for most people buying computers, so it's legit.
That's not to say that CR knows everything about everything. For example, they are a useful reference for selecting a point-and-shoot camera. But when it comes to DSLRs I look elsewhere, because then it really depends on what you are going to use your camera for.
For the general consumer (ie, nobody on this board ), screen size is as good as any spec to base your groupings on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Consumer reports - like many Apple bashers...
Actually, CR rates Apple's products quite favorably, and always points out Apple's superior service, support, and reliability. iPhone 4 is the only Apple product in recent memory that they severely criticized, and yet they still rated it the top smartphone. I believe they rate products independent of price, but then include price when making their recommendations (ie, a lower rated product gets the recommendation because it's also lower priced, so the reader can decided if a higher rated option is worth the extra price).
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Rating condoms? Great job.
I don't know who checks CR but they did list both the 11 and 13" MBA's as the best, so its not all bad. What I find interesting is that they came in at number one yet they only scored 67 and 78 out of 100 respectively. Mostly things are judged by today's standard i.e. the best available today would score top grade, but CR must have created a metric based upon goals not yet technically achievable. I wonder if one day when this imagined standard is achieved - you know, the 300 gram 15" super fast laptop with a one week battery - if then this amazing machine will score 100, or if the standard will move with the times and it will still only score 75?
Haven't ever developed a scoring matrix before, have you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Totally agree. Unfortunately CR does not stand alone. AI has on many occasions detracted points from a product for ridiculous reasons that the product just was never designed to do.
So what, you created a scorecard that only addresses what a product was designed to do? Are you going to create a different scorecard for every device, because there are no two devices that have the exact same design goals?
If you are going to create a comparison, you need a common scorecard. Otherwise you might as well just list the specs and not try to compare two devices. It's not as if they only give you the final score. The results of each category are shown in the reviews. So you can decided which categories are more important to you. You might as well bash MacWorld (and probably every other publication), because all they do is give you an overall score on a 5 mice rating scale. How did they arrive at the rating?
PS: Why all the hatred? Consumer Reports is targeted at the general consumer. Not the techno geeks here. Talk about rating something based on what it was designed to do. How about rating CR based on what IT was designed to do.
"The new MacBook Airs were also dinged for their prices, which came in more than double that of their competitors' comparatively less-powerful hardware."
imo that sounds like the netbook class to me. Macbook Air are much expensive but they dont run on intel Atom cpu's and the 320m graphics is not even in the same league as netbook graphic.
It sounds like it?s being compared to netbooks, but nothing in that statement or in the specs for the MBAs is netbook-class.
Let?s start with the biggest issue, the CPU and GPU sans any MoBo, which cost more wholesale (per 1ku) as most netbooks. Then there is the size of the keyboard. It?s not about quality of design or components, as there are very expensive netbooks out there, but they use Atom processors with graphic cards much worse than the original MBA had. These are ultra-light or ultra-portable notebooks.
Why do I classify these machine types this way? Because they were born out of Intel?s creation of the Atom CPU which brought forth the ability for vendors to make small AND cheap notebooks, later called netbooks because that is the only thing their size and performance allowed.
Note, you can make a small laptop with a cramped keyboard and cheap materials but it will cost at least $250 more than the average netbook simply because of the aforementioned CPU and GPU cost. For that reason alone you simply won?t see such a crap machine built around such premium HW. It makes no sense at all, at leas the $1,300 Vaio X with it?s Atom CPU and GM500 IGP makes a little sense from a market perspective.
So what, you created a scorecard that only addresses what a product was designed to do? Are you going to create a different scorecard for every device, because there are no two devices that have the exact same design goals?
If you are going to create a comparison, you need a common scorecard. Otherwise you might as well just list the specs and not try to compare two devices.
A score card tends to be a silly metric for devices designed to do so many different things. But my point was that it is ridiculous to give an otherwise perfect cordless mouse 4.5 stars because it requires the user to change batteries, or detract points from a netbook because it performs badly with Photoshop, or if you like drop the overall score of a Testarossa because it is crap off road. So if you must have a scorecard it must be one designed to measure the merits of a device within its practical scope of operation.
A score card tends to be a silly metric for devices designed to do so many different things. But my point was that it is ridiculous to give an otherwise perfect cordless mouse 4.5 stars because it requires the user to change batteries, or detract points from a netbook because it performs badly with Photoshop, or if you like drop the overall score of a Testarossa because it is crap off road. So if you must have a scorecard it must be one designed to measure the merits of a device within its practical scope of operation.
No, your point was that that top product should have a score of 100. As if it was that single product was the perfect embodiment of every criteria. What if one mouse has longer batter life but another was more ergonomic. Which one would you give the perfect score to?
I care. They have a reputation for providing unbiased and honest reports.
Edit: I will add that I got to use a new 13" MacBook Air a couple of days ago and I really think it is one of the best products I've seen from Apple. Once I picked it up in comparison to the other bulkier MacBooks I really wanted one. The downsides for me were: no antiglare option, high price. The 2GB default configuration also leaves a bad impression with me, I know that Apple could provide 4GB as default across their entire product line without much of a hit to their bottom line.
"Unbiased"? It took me many years to figure out that everyone is biased: there is no such thing as "unbiased". You have to start with basic expectations, assumptions, and beliefs. That is your bias. Not to be pedantic about it, but everyone is biased.
A score card tends to be a silly metric for devices designed to do so many different things. But my point was that it is ridiculous to give an otherwise perfect cordless mouse 4.5 stars because it requires the user to change batteries, or detract points from a netbook because it performs badly with Photoshop, or if you like drop the overall score of a Testarossa because it is crap off road. So if you must have a scorecard it must be one designed to measure the merits of a device within its practical scope of operation.
You might as well give everyone 100% since their score card will be suited for that specific device.
Let's take cars for example.
You say a sports car should be rated on the performance on track.
An offroad truck should be rated on the performance off road.
What about for every day tasks? There needs to be a general scorecard in order to address that issue. Thus neither the sports car or the offroad truck would score 100% on the general scorecard.
No, your point was that that top product should have a score of 100. As if it was that single product was the perfect embodiment of every criteria. What if one mouse has longer batter life but another was more ergonomic. Which one would you give the perfect score to?
No, my point was that you can't have one set of criteria for all types of computers. Not even all kinds of laptops. My secondary point was that criticizing a device for something it was not intended for is somewhat pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FurbiesAndBeans
You might as well give everyone 100% since their score card will be suited for that specific device.
Let's take cars for example.
You say a sports car should be rated on the performance on track.
An offroad truck should be rated on the performance off road.
What about for every day tasks? There needs to be a general scorecard in order to address that issue. Thus neither the sports car or the offroad truck would score 100% on the general scorecard.
I don't see why there needs to be a general scorecard. By your measure both cars would get a mediocre score. If you have two sports cars by all means use the 'every day' measure, why use the off road measure at all? And to judge a sports car and and off roader by the same criteria is meaningless.
I almost bought a MBA 11" on the spot when I was in the Apple store a week or two ago. I think it, and also the 13" version, are certainly worth their money. But I will still go for the 13" MBP when my 15" MBP has died. That one is still the best computer for me at the moment.
No, my point was that you can't have one set of criteria for all types of computers. Not even all kinds of laptops. My secondary point was that criticizing a device for something it was not intended for is somewhat pointless.
I don't see why there needs to be a general scorecard. By your measure both cars would get a mediocre score. If you have two sports cars by all means use the 'every day' measure, why use the off road measure at all? And to judge a sports car and and off roader by the same criteria is meaningless.
Because not everyone knows exactly they want. Some people (yes i know quite a few actually) only care about getting from point A to point B. So if for example the truck offered better MPG than the sports car, they would go with the truck.
Because not everyone knows exactly they want. Some people (yes i know quite a few actually) only care about getting from point A to point B. So if for example the truck offered better MPG than the sports car, they would go with the truck.
So put it in the review but don't use it in a score sheet. This iMac scores 75/100 because you need to plug it in at the airport... silly. But for the ones who have no idea what they want by all means tell them that the imac is not a good choice if you need to travel with your computer.
Re the truck v sports car MPG. That's silly. Your friends would in all likelihood not consider buying a truck. Nor a sports car for that matter. Within the 'truck category' MPG is a score-worthy factor, however. As it is within each category.
No, my point was that you can't have one set of criteria for all types of computers. Not even all kinds of laptops. My secondary point was that criticizing a device for something it was not intended for is somewhat pointless.
There has to be some sort of common ground between the laptops compared for any sort of comparison to be meaningful. The MBA is an ultra-portable laptop so the main criteria for comparison purposes would probably be size, weight, durability and battery life. This would be compared to other computers with the same purpose which would probably include netbooks and other ultra-portables. And clearly the price of the MBA can be criticised in comparison to a netbook if the purpose of the machine is to be portable. Both are equally as portable, i.e., they both achieve the same goal, but one is considerably more expensive.
There has to be some sort of common ground between the laptops compared for any sort of comparison to be meaningful. The MBA is an ultra-portable laptop so the main criteria for comparison purposes would probably be size, weight, durability and battery life. This would be compared to other computers with the same purpose which would probably include netbooks and other ultra-portables. And clearly the price of the MBA can be criticised in comparison to a netbook if the purpose of the machine is to be portable. Both are equally as portable, i.e., they both achieve the same goal, but one is considerably more expensive.
Exactly - I would place the small MBA in the netbook / ultraportable bracket.
Comments
I have to mention the devastating disappointment that hit me the other day, though . . .
WHERE IS MY BACKLIT KEYBOARD???
Why on earth would Apple remove that?
Well, it doesn't necessarily work like that. They probably rate a max number of points for a bunch of individual factors. So, if you rated "excellent" in all factors, you would get a 100.
Of course, if one of those things is a DVD drive, worth, say, 5 points for excellent, does the MBA get 0 because it doesn't have one, or 5 because the best DVD drive is the one you don't have to carry around with you. Likewise, if they rate Ethernet performance. And so on, and so on.
Hence my comment - The only machine that would score a universally high score is one that cannot be made.
And, how can you say that the 13" MBA is objectively better than the 13" MBP? Doesn't it depend on how you intend to use it -- i.e., a bunch of subjective factors that they can't possibly capture?
Totally agree. Unfortunately CR does not stand alone. AI has on many occasions detracted points from a product for ridiculous reasons that the product just was never designed to do. I can't be bothered to back that up as most people here will be familiar
This is the basic problem with CR reviews. They break things down into arbitrary factors that may or may not be relevant to you, to someone else, to anyone, and then pretend they are doing Scientific ratings of products. In reality, all they really do with any product, in the best case, is provide reviews that reflect what the reviewer thought was important (which is often very much at odds with what a knowledgeable user would consider important) and which one he would have picked. Their reviews amount to nothing more than rationalizations of their reviewers biases, masquerading as objective fact.
It is fine to break things down factually. It is OK to say that the MBA 11" has a small screen and is not suitable as primary PS workhorse. What is wrong is to attach value to that observation. Making such bleeding obvious statements does not intelligent reviews make, however.
Well, yes, that was sort of my point, CR doesn't even understand the nature of what they are reviewing.
There are 100s of ways you might categorize computers. CR picked one. Read the article. If they picked screen size, fine, go with it. That's probably a top criteria for most people buying computers, so it's legit.
That's not to say that CR knows everything about everything. For example, they are a useful reference for selecting a point-and-shoot camera. But when it comes to DSLRs I look elsewhere, because then it really depends on what you are going to use your camera for.
For the general consumer (ie, nobody on this board
Consumer reports - like many Apple bashers...
Actually, CR rates Apple's products quite favorably, and always points out Apple's superior service, support, and reliability. iPhone 4 is the only Apple product in recent memory that they severely criticized, and yet they still rated it the top smartphone. I believe they rate products independent of price, but then include price when making their recommendations (ie, a lower rated product gets the recommendation because it's also lower priced, so the reader can decided if a higher rated option is worth the extra price).
Rating condoms? Great job.
I don't know who checks CR but they did list both the 11 and 13" MBA's as the best, so its not all bad. What I find interesting is that they came in at number one yet they only scored 67 and 78 out of 100 respectively. Mostly things are judged by today's standard i.e. the best available today would score top grade, but CR must have created a metric based upon goals not yet technically achievable. I wonder if one day when this imagined standard is achieved - you know, the 300 gram 15" super fast laptop with a one week battery - if then this amazing machine will score 100, or if the standard will move with the times and it will still only score 75?
Haven't ever developed a scoring matrix before, have you.
Totally agree. Unfortunately CR does not stand alone. AI has on many occasions detracted points from a product for ridiculous reasons that the product just was never designed to do.
So what, you created a scorecard that only addresses what a product was designed to do? Are you going to create a different scorecard for every device, because there are no two devices that have the exact same design goals?
If you are going to create a comparison, you need a common scorecard. Otherwise you might as well just list the specs and not try to compare two devices. It's not as if they only give you the final score. The results of each category are shown in the reviews. So you can decided which categories are more important to you. You might as well bash MacWorld (and probably every other publication), because all they do is give you an overall score on a 5 mice rating scale. How did they arrive at the rating?
PS: Why all the hatred? Consumer Reports is targeted at the general consumer. Not the techno geeks here. Talk about rating something based on what it was designed to do. How about rating CR based on what IT was designed to do.
because it doesn't give glowing reviews to Apple.
I'm kiddin' - how about areason or are you simply a 2 year old?
"The new MacBook Airs were also dinged for their prices, which came in more than double that of their competitors' comparatively less-powerful hardware."
imo that sounds like the netbook class to me. Macbook Air are much expensive but they dont run on intel Atom cpu's and the 320m graphics is not even in the same league as netbook graphic.
It sounds like it?s being compared to netbooks, but nothing in that statement or in the specs for the MBAs is netbook-class.
Let?s start with the biggest issue, the CPU and GPU sans any MoBo, which cost more wholesale (per 1ku) as most netbooks. Then there is the size of the keyboard. It?s not about quality of design or components, as there are very expensive netbooks out there, but they use Atom processors with graphic cards much worse than the original MBA had. These are ultra-light or ultra-portable notebooks.
Why do I classify these machine types this way? Because they were born out of Intel?s creation of the Atom CPU which brought forth the ability for vendors to make small AND cheap notebooks, later called netbooks because that is the only thing their size and performance allowed.
Note, you can make a small laptop with a cramped keyboard and cheap materials but it will cost at least $250 more than the average netbook simply because of the aforementioned CPU and GPU cost. For that reason alone you simply won?t see such a crap machine built around such premium HW. It makes no sense at all, at leas the $1,300 Vaio X with it?s Atom CPU and GM500 IGP makes a little sense from a market perspective.
So what, you created a scorecard that only addresses what a product was designed to do? Are you going to create a different scorecard for every device, because there are no two devices that have the exact same design goals?
If you are going to create a comparison, you need a common scorecard. Otherwise you might as well just list the specs and not try to compare two devices.
A score card tends to be a silly metric for devices designed to do so many different things. But my point was that it is ridiculous to give an otherwise perfect cordless mouse 4.5 stars because it requires the user to change batteries, or detract points from a netbook because it performs badly with Photoshop, or if you like drop the overall score of a Testarossa because it is crap off road. So if you must have a scorecard it must be one designed to measure the merits of a device within its practical scope of operation.
As you said both are given high scores. It's just that they found the iPHOne 4 has worse than average reception issues and thus couldn't recommend it.
A score card tends to be a silly metric for devices designed to do so many different things. But my point was that it is ridiculous to give an otherwise perfect cordless mouse 4.5 stars because it requires the user to change batteries, or detract points from a netbook because it performs badly with Photoshop, or if you like drop the overall score of a Testarossa because it is crap off road. So if you must have a scorecard it must be one designed to measure the merits of a device within its practical scope of operation.
No, your point was that that top product should have a score of 100. As if it was that single product was the perfect embodiment of every criteria. What if one mouse has longer batter life but another was more ergonomic. Which one would you give the perfect score to?
I care. They have a reputation for providing unbiased and honest reports.
Edit: I will add that I got to use a new 13" MacBook Air a couple of days ago and I really think it is one of the best products I've seen from Apple. Once I picked it up in comparison to the other bulkier MacBooks I really wanted one. The downsides for me were: no antiglare option, high price. The 2GB default configuration also leaves a bad impression with me, I know that Apple could provide 4GB as default across their entire product line without much of a hit to their bottom line.
"Unbiased"? It took me many years to figure out that everyone is biased: there is no such thing as "unbiased". You have to start with basic expectations, assumptions, and beliefs. That is your bias. Not to be pedantic about it, but everyone is biased.
And yes, the 13" Air is pretty fscking amazing
A score card tends to be a silly metric for devices designed to do so many different things. But my point was that it is ridiculous to give an otherwise perfect cordless mouse 4.5 stars because it requires the user to change batteries, or detract points from a netbook because it performs badly with Photoshop, or if you like drop the overall score of a Testarossa because it is crap off road. So if you must have a scorecard it must be one designed to measure the merits of a device within its practical scope of operation.
You might as well give everyone 100% since their score card will be suited for that specific device.
Let's take cars for example.
You say a sports car should be rated on the performance on track.
An offroad truck should be rated on the performance off road.
What about for every day tasks? There needs to be a general scorecard in order to address that issue. Thus neither the sports car or the offroad truck would score 100% on the general scorecard.
No, your point was that that top product should have a score of 100. As if it was that single product was the perfect embodiment of every criteria. What if one mouse has longer batter life but another was more ergonomic. Which one would you give the perfect score to?
No, my point was that you can't have one set of criteria for all types of computers. Not even all kinds of laptops. My secondary point was that criticizing a device for something it was not intended for is somewhat pointless.
You might as well give everyone 100% since their score card will be suited for that specific device.
Let's take cars for example.
You say a sports car should be rated on the performance on track.
An offroad truck should be rated on the performance off road.
What about for every day tasks? There needs to be a general scorecard in order to address that issue. Thus neither the sports car or the offroad truck would score 100% on the general scorecard.
I don't see why there needs to be a general scorecard. By your measure both cars would get a mediocre score. If you have two sports cars by all means use the 'every day' measure, why use the off road measure at all? And to judge a sports car and and off roader by the same criteria is meaningless.
Cosmo would be more likely to do an article titled, "10 Things Your Boyfriend Wants To Do With Your MacBook Air (And Why You Should Let Him)"
HAAAA
love it
Cosmo would be more likely to do an article titled, "10 Things Your Boyfriend Wants To Do With Your MacBook Air (And Why You Should Let Him)"
Post OF THE WEEK
No, my point was that you can't have one set of criteria for all types of computers. Not even all kinds of laptops. My secondary point was that criticizing a device for something it was not intended for is somewhat pointless.
I don't see why there needs to be a general scorecard. By your measure both cars would get a mediocre score. If you have two sports cars by all means use the 'every day' measure, why use the off road measure at all? And to judge a sports car and and off roader by the same criteria is meaningless.
Because not everyone knows exactly they want. Some people (yes i know quite a few actually) only care about getting from point A to point B. So if for example the truck offered better MPG than the sports car, they would go with the truck.
Because not everyone knows exactly they want. Some people (yes i know quite a few actually) only care about getting from point A to point B. So if for example the truck offered better MPG than the sports car, they would go with the truck.
So put it in the review but don't use it in a score sheet. This iMac scores 75/100 because you need to plug it in at the airport... silly. But for the ones who have no idea what they want by all means tell them that the imac is not a good choice if you need to travel with your computer.
Re the truck v sports car MPG. That's silly. Your friends would in all likelihood not consider buying a truck. Nor a sports car for that matter. Within the 'truck category' MPG is a score-worthy factor, however. As it is within each category.
Cosmo would be more likely to do an article titled, "10 Things Your Boyfriend Wants To Do With Your MacBook Air (And Why You Should Let Him)"
LOL! nice.
No, my point was that you can't have one set of criteria for all types of computers. Not even all kinds of laptops. My secondary point was that criticizing a device for something it was not intended for is somewhat pointless.
There has to be some sort of common ground between the laptops compared for any sort of comparison to be meaningful. The MBA is an ultra-portable laptop so the main criteria for comparison purposes would probably be size, weight, durability and battery life. This would be compared to other computers with the same purpose which would probably include netbooks and other ultra-portables. And clearly the price of the MBA can be criticised in comparison to a netbook if the purpose of the machine is to be portable. Both are equally as portable, i.e., they both achieve the same goal, but one is considerably more expensive.
There has to be some sort of common ground between the laptops compared for any sort of comparison to be meaningful. The MBA is an ultra-portable laptop so the main criteria for comparison purposes would probably be size, weight, durability and battery life. This would be compared to other computers with the same purpose which would probably include netbooks and other ultra-portables. And clearly the price of the MBA can be criticised in comparison to a netbook if the purpose of the machine is to be portable. Both are equally as portable, i.e., they both achieve the same goal, but one is considerably more expensive.
Exactly - I would place the small MBA in the netbook / ultraportable bracket.
Exactly - I would place the small MBA in the netbook / ultraportable bracket.
Ultraportable notebook and netbook should be 2 different categories.