Did anyone but me read the actual article? I'm still looking for the "scathing critique" part. Every issue they raise are exactly the same ones raised by posters right here on this board. CR says it and they are the spawn of Satan.
I did read it and noticed it was their "Electronics Blog". No real testing just a lot of opinion including when they think it will be replaced by iPhone 5. I don't remember ever seeing CR downgrade a product because it was to be replaced but I do remember trying to find any number of appliances that they review that are no longer available.
Interestingly, on their ratings page the iPhone 4 (AT&T) takes up the top 2 spots (tied with the Captivate) and the venerable 3GS take up the 4th spot. The 3G isn't available new any more but I bet would still come in in the top 10.
I also find their automobile reviews next to useless. Maybe they should stick to toasters.
In any case, the iPhone on Verizon is so far understood to be running 4.2.5.
There will be people who bought their phone in July still running iOS4.
Those that buy in January or February 2011 will never run iOS4 or 4.1.
and while Apple are calling it the iPhone 4, it is a different phone, different hardware driven by the CDMA radio/antenna. It wasn't released in July 2010, it was announced in January 2011.
I did read it and noticed it was their "Electronics Blog". No real testing just a lot of opinion including when they think it will be replaced by iPhone 5. I don't remember ever seeing CR downgrade a product because it was to be replaced but I do remember trying to find any number of appliances that they review that are no longer available.
Interestingly, on their ratings page the iPhone 4 (AT&T) takes up the top 2 spots (tied with the Captivate) and the venerable 3GS take up the 4th spot. The 3G isn't available new any more but I bet would still come in in the top 10.
I also find their automobile reviews next to useless. Maybe they should stick to toasters.
So you can say you didn't learn anything new. I would say the same thing. In fact in keeping with most of what I've ever read from CR, it runs heavily towards the obvious, nothing which hasn't been hashed out here over and over. A complete yawn, really. So I think all the righteous indignation is more than a bit overblown.
Daniel, your argument would hold more water if your very disposition didn't sound biased to begin with. And I don't mean this story, but every story you write. It's like you have your agenda before you set out to write your "report".
I believe in this instance he has every right to have an agenda. He is pointing out the stunning lack of logic and objectivity displayed by Consumer Reports with regards to the iPhone 4. They DID say they could recommend their top-rated smartphone; it's a fair point to make and a difficult one to make without being tempted to pour scorn on them.
Consumer Reports should point out that the iPhone 4 may well be replaced by an iPhone 5 in the summer, but that doesn't make this a bad buy or a bad phone. It's still an iPhone 4 and like this article states, it's still on a far less frequent product cycle than most other device manufacturers' offerings.
Crucially, none of us know the terms of the Verizon deal. For all we know, AT&T may have the iPhone 5 in the summer and Verizon may have to wait until this time next year; we don't know how all this got settled so it's absurd for Consumer Reports to be scathing of what has come through the insane, nonsensical firestorm of - and I quote this word with scorn - "antennagate" to show itself as the king of the current crop.
The top and bottom of it is that the iPhone 4 is a quite simply superb smartphone and that should be reflected in any sensible review of it, regardless of any caveats based on speculation of an impending, as-yet-unreleased successor that may not even be available as a CDMA variant at launch.
It's good to see the WSJ pointing out the oddness of Consumer Reports' behaviour. It deserves to lose credibility of this.
So you can say you didn't learn anything new. I would say the same thing. In fact in keeping with most of what I've ever read from CR, it runs heavily towards the obvious, nothing which hasn't been hashed out here over and over. A complete yawn, really. So I think all the righteous indignation is more than a bit overblown.
CR's take on the Verizon iPhone is some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. They wish, for credibility's sake, last summer editorial on iPhone 4 to be borne out by reality, a reality unfortunately out of their subjective grasp. They miserably failed then and they only compound their failure by piling on what turned out to be an outstanding success story.
Furthermore, it's common practice at AI to target Dilger's credibility. The more spiteful your description of him, the more he tends to inhabit the character you desperately wished he were, all the while serving AI readership with top notch analysis, with probably the best prognosis and predictive ability around the Net and beyond.
I find him irresistibly entertaining, thanks to all your diatribes, all the while being systematically correct with his probing instinct. The best of both worlds, a winning proposition for AI's hit counts and for maintaining their credibility in the process.
Repetitious assaults from self-righteous and self-serving predictable bores only make his writing seem almost Shakespearian where it would merely need to be enlightening. Thanks for your contribution in carving out Dilger's wide creative space for my constantly renewed enjoyment.*
Something strange is going on over at CR. They seem to have a bug up their a** over the iPhone. Someone earlier suggested that they didn't get the "donation" they hoped for from Apple. It sure seems like their could be something to that.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but something sure seems rotten here.
Anyone who takes Daniel Eran Dilger (the author of this article) seriously, needs to read more. He's the Sarah Palin, the Rupert Murdoch and the Dan Quayle of AppleInsider writers.
For the most part, I still like to look at what CR has to say on cars etc., but I've honestly never cared what they said about electronics. As for what they have said about the iPhone, I could care less - I'm still buying it when the VZW version is released. What I do have a problem with is them stating that it has an antenna issue when they do not test/compare that with any other mobile phone/company. When they say that it has the problem and nothing else does, though they did not say that in so many words - it's implied, I have a problem with that. It's like they are comparing the one "apple" to the rest of the oranges, when you can't compare them. The only fair thing to do would be to test all of the phones and their antenna performance, and THEN state which fairs better or worse, etc.
"it may be quickly replaced by a newer, cooler version”
As opposed to other brands, where new models never come along soon In fact, that seems to be a major Android curse (with consequences that can include recent hardware never getting software updates, while you’re stuck for a 2-year contract).
As for 4G, shouldn’t CR be thorough and honest about that for ALL brands? 4G is the future... but it’s very limited now (in terms of geography, real-world performance, and battery life). That won’t suddenly change in a couple months.
Some (at least) of CR’s writers have always had an anti-Apple agenda, reflected in their Mac coverage and now their iOS coverage.
CR does studies and surveys reasonably well—I take an interest in their hard data sometimes. Not in their commentary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
Anyone who takes Daniel Eran Dilger (the author of this article) seriously, needs to read more. He's the Sarah Palin, the Rupert Murdoch and the Dan Quayle of AppleInsider.
There is some truth in what you say... yet we can (and should) still judge each instance of what he says on its own merits, and judge CR on their own as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timothyjay2004
For the most part, I still like to look at what CR has to say on cars etc., but I've honestly never cared what they said about electronics.
...
I find that when I know something about a topic at CR, there are errors. So there are probably errors in the topics I can’t judge, too! For instance, they have long had misinformation about Pentax digital cameras that I’m familiar with.
They should be providing NON-techies with good consumer advice. They really don’t. (Like how they’ve never had a full and honest look at how an everyday non-techie user might choose between Mac and Windows. Their computer reviews tend to let you make that initial decision blind. Not helpful!)
Anyone who takes Daniel Eran Dilger (the author of this article) seriously, needs to read more. He's the Sarah Palin, the Rupert Murdoch and the Dan Quayle of AppleInsider.
No wonder he's so entertaining to read!
(I'd rather have those folks doing my entertainment than my politics, but that's another thread...... )
There is some truth in what you say... yet we can (and should) still judge each instance of what he says on its own merits, and judge CR on their own as well.
To his credit he has written some well written and informative posts, but he crosses the line with truth. It's quite alien to him regarding certain Apple flaws.
Here we go again. CR provides a bit of spin, then AI gives CR's comments huge backspin and calls it fair.
Dear Doctor, a bit of spin - seriously?? the contents of the blog were flawed logically and speculatively, ignoring the effective real life of the devices via "middle age" comment, and flogging the iPhone with the network limitations. Don't even mention the ridiculous nonsense about releasing a not ready for primetime LTE version - they haven't even deployed the technology widely across the network coverage area and somehow Apple is supposed to take flawed LTW chipsets and cram them into the iPhones regardless of actual function or form-factor?
So . . . I'm confused. Whenever CR disses the iPhone they are deemed a rag, on the take, uncredible, etc. When they diss AT&T they are not a rag, on the take, nor uncredible.
Am I missing something?
You just are not remembering as you read to separate comments by commenter in these posts - you seem to be lumping everyone's opinion and conveniently tarring everyone with the same brush. Really, you need to get out more and have more interactions with other (presumably) humans for you learn this very important differential technique. It will greatly enhance your ability to express opinions that are based on facts and not flawed reasoning and make you a joy to be around.
Did anyone but me read the actual article? I'm still looking for the "scathing critique" part. Every issue they raise are exactly the same ones raised by posters right here on this board. CR says it and they are the spawn of Satan.
CR is supposed to be impartial and objective. AI is anything but those and isn't really meant to be that way.
Comments
Did anyone but me read the actual article? I'm still looking for the "scathing critique" part. Every issue they raise are exactly the same ones raised by posters right here on this board. CR says it and they are the spawn of Satan.
I did read it and noticed it was their "Electronics Blog". No real testing just a lot of opinion including when they think it will be replaced by iPhone 5. I don't remember ever seeing CR downgrade a product because it was to be replaced but I do remember trying to find any number of appliances that they review that are no longer available.
Interestingly, on their ratings page the iPhone 4 (AT&T) takes up the top 2 spots (tied with the Captivate) and the venerable 3GS take up the 4th spot. The 3G isn't available new any more but I bet would still come in in the top 10.
I also find their automobile reviews next to useless. Maybe they should stick to toasters.
iPhone 4
iOS4.3
July2010
just wrong under any reading of it. No?
Hardware and software release dates confused.
4.3 isn't out. wasn't out in July 2010
In any case, the iPhone on Verizon is so far understood to be running 4.2.5.
There will be people who bought their phone in July still running iOS4.
Those that buy in January or February 2011 will never run iOS4 or 4.1.
and while Apple are calling it the iPhone 4, it is a different phone, different hardware driven by the CDMA radio/antenna. It wasn't released in July 2010, it was announced in January 2011.
I did read it and noticed it was their "Electronics Blog". No real testing just a lot of opinion including when they think it will be replaced by iPhone 5. I don't remember ever seeing CR downgrade a product because it was to be replaced but I do remember trying to find any number of appliances that they review that are no longer available.
Interestingly, on their ratings page the iPhone 4 (AT&T) takes up the top 2 spots (tied with the Captivate) and the venerable 3GS take up the 4th spot. The 3G isn't available new any more but I bet would still come in in the top 10.
I also find their automobile reviews next to useless. Maybe they should stick to toasters.
So you can say you didn't learn anything new. I would say the same thing. In fact in keeping with most of what I've ever read from CR, it runs heavily towards the obvious, nothing which hasn't been hashed out here over and over. A complete yawn, really. So I think all the righteous indignation is more than a bit overblown.
Daniel, your argument would hold more water if your very disposition didn't sound biased to begin with. And I don't mean this story, but every story you write. It's like you have your agenda before you set out to write your "report".
I believe in this instance he has every right to have an agenda. He is pointing out the stunning lack of logic and objectivity displayed by Consumer Reports with regards to the iPhone 4. They DID say they could recommend their top-rated smartphone; it's a fair point to make and a difficult one to make without being tempted to pour scorn on them.
Consumer Reports should point out that the iPhone 4 may well be replaced by an iPhone 5 in the summer, but that doesn't make this a bad buy or a bad phone. It's still an iPhone 4 and like this article states, it's still on a far less frequent product cycle than most other device manufacturers' offerings.
Crucially, none of us know the terms of the Verizon deal. For all we know, AT&T may have the iPhone 5 in the summer and Verizon may have to wait until this time next year; we don't know how all this got settled so it's absurd for Consumer Reports to be scathing of what has come through the insane, nonsensical firestorm of - and I quote this word with scorn - "antennagate" to show itself as the king of the current crop.
The top and bottom of it is that the iPhone 4 is a quite simply superb smartphone and that should be reflected in any sensible review of it, regardless of any caveats based on speculation of an impending, as-yet-unreleased successor that may not even be available as a CDMA variant at launch.
It's good to see the WSJ pointing out the oddness of Consumer Reports' behaviour. It deserves to lose credibility of this.
I no longer trust anything they say.
The day they put duct tape on the iPhone4 was the day they lost all credibility.
I no longer trust anything they say.
But when MacGyver uses duct tape it’s cool?
PS: Little known fact: "duck tape" is just as valid a term and probably predates the tape being used for ducts or named duct tape.
So you can say you didn't learn anything new. I would say the same thing. In fact in keeping with most of what I've ever read from CR, it runs heavily towards the obvious, nothing which hasn't been hashed out here over and over. A complete yawn, really. So I think all the righteous indignation is more than a bit overblown.
CR's take on the Verizon iPhone is some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. They wish, for credibility's sake, last summer editorial on iPhone 4 to be borne out by reality, a reality unfortunately out of their subjective grasp. They miserably failed then and they only compound their failure by piling on what turned out to be an outstanding success story.
Furthermore, it's common practice at AI to target Dilger's credibility. The more spiteful your description of him, the more he tends to inhabit the character you desperately wished he were, all the while serving AI readership with top notch analysis, with probably the best prognosis and predictive ability around the Net and beyond.
I find him irresistibly entertaining, thanks to all your diatribes, all the while being systematically correct with his probing instinct. The best of both worlds, a winning proposition for AI's hit counts and for maintaining their credibility in the process.
Repetitious assaults from self-righteous and self-serving predictable bores only make his writing seem almost Shakespearian where it would merely need to be enlightening. Thanks for your contribution in carving out Dilger's wide creative space for my constantly renewed enjoyment.*
Something strange is going on over at CR. They seem to have a bug up their a** over the iPhone. Someone earlier suggested that they didn't get the "donation" they hoped for from Apple. It sure seems like their could be something to that.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but something sure seems rotten here.
But when MacGyver uses duct tape it?s cool?
Pros use gaffers tape, b/c it doesn't leave a residue when you remove it.
As opposed to other brands, where new models never come along soon
As for 4G, shouldn’t CR be thorough and honest about that for ALL brands? 4G is the future... but it’s very limited now (in terms of geography, real-world performance, and battery life). That won’t suddenly change in a couple months.
Some (at least) of CR’s writers have always had an anti-Apple agenda, reflected in their Mac coverage and now their iOS coverage.
CR does studies and surveys reasonably well—I take an interest in their hard data sometimes. Not in their commentary.
Anyone who takes Daniel Eran Dilger (the author of this article) seriously, needs to read more. He's the Sarah Palin, the Rupert Murdoch and the Dan Quayle of AppleInsider.
There is some truth in what you say... yet we can (and should) still judge each instance of what he says on its own merits, and judge CR on their own as well.
For the most part, I still like to look at what CR has to say on cars etc., but I've honestly never cared what they said about electronics.
...
I find that when I know something about a topic at CR, there are errors. So there are probably errors in the topics I can’t judge, too! For instance, they have long had misinformation about Pentax digital cameras that I’m familiar with.
They should be providing NON-techies with good consumer advice. They really don’t. (Like how they’ve never had a full and honest look at how an everyday non-techie user might choose between Mac and Windows. Their computer reviews tend to let you make that initial decision blind. Not helpful!)
Anyone who takes Daniel Eran Dilger (the author of this article) seriously, needs to read more. He's the Sarah Palin, the Rupert Murdoch and the Dan Quayle of AppleInsider.
No wonder he's so entertaining to read!
(I'd rather have those folks doing my entertainment than my politics, but that's another thread......
There is some truth in what you say... yet we can (and should) still judge each instance of what he says on its own merits, and judge CR on their own as well.
To his credit he has written some well written and informative posts, but he crosses the line with truth. It's quite alien to him regarding certain Apple flaws.
Here we go again. CR provides a bit of spin, then AI gives CR's comments huge backspin and calls it fair.
Dear Doctor, a bit of spin - seriously?? the contents of the blog were flawed logically and speculatively, ignoring the effective real life of the devices via "middle age" comment, and flogging the iPhone with the network limitations. Don't even mention the ridiculous nonsense about releasing a not ready for primetime LTE version - they haven't even deployed the technology widely across the network coverage area and somehow Apple is supposed to take flawed LTW chipsets and cram them into the iPhones regardless of actual function or form-factor?
Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor not a technologist!
So . . . I'm confused. Whenever CR disses the iPhone they are deemed a rag, on the take, uncredible, etc. When they diss AT&T they are not a rag, on the take, nor uncredible.
Am I missing something?
You just are not remembering as you read to separate comments by commenter in these posts - you seem to be lumping everyone's opinion and conveniently tarring everyone with the same brush. Really, you need to get out more and have more interactions with other (presumably) humans for you learn this very important differential technique. It will greatly enhance your ability to express opinions that are based on facts and not flawed reasoning and make you a joy to be around.
Did anyone but me read the actual article? I'm still looking for the "scathing critique" part. Every issue they raise are exactly the same ones raised by posters right here on this board. CR says it and they are the spawn of Satan.
CR is supposed to be impartial and objective. AI is anything but those and isn't really meant to be that way.
CR is supposed to be impartial and objective.
That hasn't been true for at least a decade and a half... Even in the decades before that, their testing methods left a lot to be desired.