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.
Yes CR is Evil. Everything Apple is flawless. Do you even think about what you are saying? I guess no one should expect anything negative at all to be said about Apple from Apple Insider. This is why I will never support Apple. If I wanted to join a cult I would read Dianetics instead of buying into Apple. You cult Apple folks will go the way of Heaven's Gate soon enough if you can't see the forest from the trees. Apple is crap, that is of course unless you need a product to hold your hand the whole time you use it.
PS: It's not just CR. Take a look at the news over the last few days. No one is raving about the iPhone. Androids and PC's win all day....the non-Apple-net has been screaming it for years.
Welcome to AI - that was a masterful rendition of trolling - couldn't have done it better myself. Now do you in fact have a real position predicated on real facts you can also regale us with? I for one am waiting with enthusiasm and 'bated breath.
God guys, I don't like the term apple fanboy, because I have two mac computers, but the comments from many of you here are akin to a bunch of blinded-by-religious-faith reborn christians talking about the rest of the world like some empire controlled by a satanic force or something.
Just for the record, didn't Consumer Reports NOT give iPhone4 the recommended sign because of the signal issue? So how could that possibly be "the highest ranking for a phone"?
That was a month AFTER I returned mine for the same reason and side-graded to SGS, which I love.
Mark.
So ummm Mark? 'K, here's the deal: they in fact (and you can of course go to there site, pay the subscription fee and read it for yourself - or back trace thru previous coverage elsewhere) gave the iPhone 4 the highest rating ever for a smartphone (as they claimed), but when Apple refused to apologize profusely for the "antenna issue" they decided to not recommend it - in spite of it's high rating. That's what happened - marked internal inconsistency in their process results and no indication that they recognized it.
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.
Oh shucks Soli, I have to disagree here with ya - a rare thing perhaps but facts is facts: "Duck Tape" is actually a brand of duct tape - which was used widely in the HVAC industry for *gasp* wait for it - sealing joints in ductwork. That it now holds the universe together, and figures so prominently in so much urban legend is only a credit to its original use. And since I was a research technician for 3M - a major supplier of said film-backed adhesive, I think I can speak with some confidence on this. The references in the Wikipedia article need serious validating and correcting on a number of points- including the WWII ammo box sealant reference - which was variants of asphalt tarred cotton fabric not what is now know commonly to be duct tape. Duct tape was in fact used widely until the late 90's when inferiorly-made versions were linked to potential combustibility issues and it's use on ductwork immediately on or adjacent to furnaces was challenged in building codes.
As a result, tape now used for furnace and ductwork joint sealing is adhesive-backed soft aluminum or in some cases very thin annealed stainless steel foils. Variants of these are used in the military as "500mph tape" due to the fact that the adhesive is very aggressive, heat-resistant and the backing material is solid metal, not fabric and plastic, allowing them to be used for minor, temporary emergency repairs to fuselage and lifting surfaces.
Oh shucks Soli, I have to disagree here with ya - a rare thing perhaps but facts is facts: "Duck Tape" is actually a brand of duct tape - which was used widely in the HVAC industry for *gasp* wait for it - sealing joints in ductwork. That it now holds the universe together, and figures so prominently in so much urban legend is only a credit to its original use. And since I was a research technician for 3M - a major supplier of said film-backed adhesive, I think I can speak with some confidence on this. The references in the Wikipedia article need serious validating and correcting on a number of points- including the WWII ammo box sealant reference - which was variants of asphalt tarred cotton fabric not what is now know commonly to be duct tape. Duct tape was in fact used widely until the late 90's when inferiorly-made versions were linked to potential combustibility issues and it's use on ductwork immediately on or adjacent to furnaces was challenged in building codes.
As a result, tape now used for furnace and ductwork joint sealing is adhesive-backed soft aluminum or in some cases very thin annealed stainless steel foils. Variants of these are used in the military as "500mph tape" due to the fact that the adhesive is very aggressive, heat-resistant and the backing material is solid metal, not fabric and plastic, allowing them to be used for minor, temporary emergency repairs to fuselage and lifting surfaces.
My source was the Oxford English Dictionary. I no longer pay for access to it but I assure you that the oldest known reference of duck tape predates duct tape.
I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it’s relaying the most correct information. Like much etymology there are a lot of unknowns and I’m not saying which term came first, only which term we know as being oldest. Duck tape is definitely not an “eggcorn”.
Here is a site that goes into a lot more detail. I have been contributing to their forum for years and trust the content as well as the site’s owner. It also cites the OED.
CR is a bought and paid for establishment. They cater towards the highest bidder, and their reviews are less than stellar to say the least. Love it how the same guy that tests a washer machine, tests paint as well. No wonder they remain a private firm, as they don't want to be exposed for what they are.
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 second the motion that Daniel is incredibly bias and just pissed off that anyone would have something bad to say about his poor beloved iphone.
This article basically proves itself inconclusive. It states that predecessor to duct tape is:
"not the sticky tape we are familiar with today, but rather non-adhesive cloth tape: Cotton Duck Tape, 1” to 1 1/2” wide, 44,108 yds. Duct tape appears a few decades later, this time definitely of the adhesive variety with which we’re familiar today"
But it's trying to say somehow that this cloth cotton duck tape morphed into the adhesive vinyl/cloth backed grey tape most HVAC contractors use for sealing ductwork. But it doesn't give any evidence as to how the one tape became the other...you cannot simply assume the two types of tape are connected in anyway without proper evidence. So I would say (based on this article) that it's just a coincidence that the two tapes have similar names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
My source was the Oxford English Dictionary. I no longer pay for access to it but I assure you that the oldest known reference of duck tape predates duct tape.
I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it’s relaying the most correct information. Like much etymology there are a lot of unknowns and I’m not saying which term came first, only which term we know as being oldest. Duck tape is definitely not an “eggcorn”.
Here is a site that goes into a lot more detail. I have been contributing to their forum for years and trust the content as well as the site’s owner. It also cites the OED.
While Consumer Reports does seem to be overstating things or being harsh, I find Apple Insider doing any article on objectivity laughable. I like your artcles and read them often, but I enjoy them for what they are: skewed artcles written by Apple fanboys and appologists.
Your comparison charts are designed to make iphone shine and contain inaccurate information about some models, so you have little business pointing fingers. .
Typed on my Droid X that came with 16GB of flash and a replacable battery.
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.*
Since I never mentioned the author's name, and don't give two hoots who wrote this article, and was commenting not so much on it as the reaction from everyone else, I thank you too. As for the diatribes, they've nearly all been directed at CR, curiously enough from people who admit to never reading it. Them is some fine diatribes. The best.
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!
Actually, it was completely accurate as nearly as I could tell, and all the issues they raised have been discussed here ad infinitum. The iPhone 4 is literally middle-aged, as we all know it will probably be replaced in six months with a new model. It's a problem that CR mentions this? As for the network limitations, those comments were clearly directed at AT&T and Verizon. And again, how many thousands of times have the very same issues been raised here? So now it's a problem that CR mentions it? And so on. Talk about over the top touchy. I'll bet nobody at Apple cares even half as much about that article as some of the fanatics here. I'll also bet few were around when Apple's press coverage really was unfair. Maybe my problem is having some perspective. I can live with that.
Consumer Reports is now in the business of determining obsolescence as well? the iP4 is middle-aged compared to what? Should it be compared to Android phones that are obsolete essentially 15 minutes after it's introduced since the makers create new phone with locked / difficult-to-upgrade OS?
The OS version on Android phones are a very good litmus test of CR's hypocrisy: anything today that doesn't have 2.2 shouldn't be recommended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaipher
Looks like it's time to cancel your Consumer Report subscription. That, or they should fire those two reviewers.
Already done several years ago: the straw that broke this camel's back was in car reviews.
One I still recall in particular was that CR trashed an Audi for having a crooked gate transmission shifter, and then PRAISED Mercedes ... for the same exact "crooked gate" feature!
Golly, it couldn't have anything to do with bias against Audi from being proven wrong on the "unintended acceleration" problem (FYI, that was traced to being a human engineering design problem with the gas/brake pedal locations - not a transmission problem afterall - and Detroit had suffered through the same exact problem ~25 years before Audi).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGator
As to dropping CR subs, because they dare to criticize an Apple product, that's your loss. I use the information from CR on almost any purchase I make over $100. It's not the only reference, but it certainly helps. It easily saves me the yearly sub fee.
Here's how you can save even more money: CR is usually available for free, down at your local Public Library.
"You may want snap up this new offering if you've been waiting breathlessly for the iPhone to come to Verizon and don't much care about 4G speed, a bigger screen, or other features found on current cutting-edge phones," wrote Reynolds and Gikas. "Or if you're prepared to pay an early termination fee to trade in the Verizon iPhone 4 for its successor when it appears.
"The less iPhone-addicted consumer, on the other hand, may want to hold off for a newer version of the iPhone before even considering whether to buy one," the report concluded.
Comments
CR has a reputation to defend also and rating it their BEST phone and still not recommending it doesn't make sense.
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?
No, they're a rag in both cases.
Yes CR is Evil. Everything Apple is flawless.
PS: It's not just CR. Take a look at the news over the last few days. No one is raving about the iPhone. Androids and PC's win all day....the non-Apple-net has been screaming it for years.
Welcome to AI - that was a masterful rendition of trolling - couldn't have done it better myself. Now do you in fact have a real position predicated on real facts you can also regale us with? I for one am waiting with enthusiasm and 'bated breath.
God guys, I don't like the term apple fanboy, because I have two mac computers, but the comments from many of you here are akin to a bunch of blinded-by-religious-faith reborn christians talking about the rest of the world like some empire controlled by a satanic force or something.
Just for the record, didn't Consumer Reports NOT give iPhone4 the recommended sign because of the signal issue? So how could that possibly be "the highest ranking for a phone"?
That was a month AFTER I returned mine for the same reason and side-graded to SGS, which I love.
Mark.
So ummm Mark? 'K, here's the deal: they in fact (and you can of course go to there site, pay the subscription fee and read it for yourself - or back trace thru previous coverage elsewhere) gave the iPhone 4 the highest rating ever for a smartphone (as they claimed), but when Apple refused to apologize profusely for the "antenna issue" they decided to not recommend it - in spite of it's high rating. That's what happened - marked internal inconsistency in their process results and no indication that they recognized it.
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.
Oh shucks Soli, I have to disagree here with ya - a rare thing perhaps but facts is facts: "Duck Tape" is actually a brand of duct tape - which was used widely in the HVAC industry for *gasp* wait for it - sealing joints in ductwork. That it now holds the universe together, and figures so prominently in so much urban legend is only a credit to its original use. And since I was a research technician for 3M - a major supplier of said film-backed adhesive, I think I can speak with some confidence on this. The references in the Wikipedia article need serious validating and correcting on a number of points- including the WWII ammo box sealant reference - which was variants of asphalt tarred cotton fabric not what is now know commonly to be duct tape. Duct tape was in fact used widely until the late 90's when inferiorly-made versions were linked to potential combustibility issues and it's use on ductwork immediately on or adjacent to furnaces was challenged in building codes.
As a result, tape now used for furnace and ductwork joint sealing is adhesive-backed soft aluminum or in some cases very thin annealed stainless steel foils. Variants of these are used in the military as "500mph tape" due to the fact that the adhesive is very aggressive, heat-resistant and the backing material is solid metal, not fabric and plastic, allowing them to be used for minor, temporary emergency repairs to fuselage and lifting surfaces.
Oh shucks Soli, I have to disagree here with ya - a rare thing perhaps but facts is facts: "Duck Tape" is actually a brand of duct tape - which was used widely in the HVAC industry for *gasp* wait for it - sealing joints in ductwork. That it now holds the universe together, and figures so prominently in so much urban legend is only a credit to its original use. And since I was a research technician for 3M - a major supplier of said film-backed adhesive, I think I can speak with some confidence on this. The references in the Wikipedia article need serious validating and correcting on a number of points- including the WWII ammo box sealant reference - which was variants of asphalt tarred cotton fabric not what is now know commonly to be duct tape. Duct tape was in fact used widely until the late 90's when inferiorly-made versions were linked to potential combustibility issues and it's use on ductwork immediately on or adjacent to furnaces was challenged in building codes.
As a result, tape now used for furnace and ductwork joint sealing is adhesive-backed soft aluminum or in some cases very thin annealed stainless steel foils. Variants of these are used in the military as "500mph tape" due to the fact that the adhesive is very aggressive, heat-resistant and the backing material is solid metal, not fabric and plastic, allowing them to be used for minor, temporary emergency repairs to fuselage and lifting surfaces.
My source was the Oxford English Dictionary. I no longer pay for access to it but I assure you that the oldest known reference of duck tape predates duct tape.
I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it’s relaying the most correct information. Like much etymology there are a lot of unknowns and I’m not saying which term came first, only which term we know as being oldest. Duck tape is definitely not an “eggcorn”.
Here is a site that goes into a lot more detail. I have been contributing to their forum for years and trust the content as well as the site’s owner. It also cites the OED.
Do people really care what Consumer Report says about phones anymore?
does anyone care what CR thinks about anything?
LOL
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 second the motion that Daniel is incredibly bias and just pissed off that anyone would have something bad to say about his poor beloved iphone.
"not the sticky tape we are familiar with today, but rather non-adhesive cloth tape: Cotton Duck Tape, 1” to 1 1/2” wide, 44,108 yds. Duct tape appears a few decades later, this time definitely of the adhesive variety with which we’re familiar today"
But it's trying to say somehow that this cloth cotton duck tape morphed into the adhesive vinyl/cloth backed grey tape most HVAC contractors use for sealing ductwork. But it doesn't give any evidence as to how the one tape became the other...you cannot simply assume the two types of tape are connected in anyway without proper evidence. So I would say (based on this article) that it's just a coincidence that the two tapes have similar names.
My source was the Oxford English Dictionary. I no longer pay for access to it but I assure you that the oldest known reference of duck tape predates duct tape.
I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it’s relaying the most correct information. Like much etymology there are a lot of unknowns and I’m not saying which term came first, only which term we know as being oldest. Duck tape is definitely not an “eggcorn”.
Here is a site that goes into a lot more detail. I have been contributing to their forum for years and trust the content as well as the site’s owner. It also cites the OED.
Your comparison charts are designed to make iphone shine and contain inaccurate information about some models, so you have little business pointing fingers. .
Typed on my Droid X that came with 16GB of flash and a replacable battery.
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.*
Since I never mentioned the author's name, and don't give two hoots who wrote this article, and was commenting not so much on it as the reaction from everyone else, I thank you too. As for the diatribes, they've nearly all been directed at CR, curiously enough from people who admit to never reading it. Them is some fine diatribes. The best.
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!
Actually, it was completely accurate as nearly as I could tell, and all the issues they raised have been discussed here ad infinitum. The iPhone 4 is literally middle-aged, as we all know it will probably be replaced in six months with a new model. It's a problem that CR mentions this? As for the network limitations, those comments were clearly directed at AT&T and Verizon. And again, how many thousands of times have the very same issues been raised here? So now it's a problem that CR mentions it? And so on. Talk about over the top touchy. I'll bet nobody at Apple cares even half as much about that article as some of the fanatics here. I'll also bet few were around when Apple's press coverage really was unfair. Maybe my problem is having some perspective. I can live with that.
Jun 2007: iPhone
Jul 2008: iPhone 3G
Jun 2009: iPhone 3GS (speed bump, same form factor)
Jun 2010: iPhone 4
Jun 2011: iPhone 4S (speed bump, same form factor)
Jun 2012: iPhone 5
Or.... just iPhone. I mean, we don't call our Macbooks Macbook Pro 6 and Macbook Pro 7, do we?
Or.... just iPhone. I mean, we don't call our Macbooks Macbook Pro 6 and Macbook Pro 7, do we?
That?s a good point.
Consumer Reports is now in the business of determining obsolescence as well? the iP4 is middle-aged compared to what? Should it be compared to Android phones that are obsolete essentially 15 minutes after it's introduced since the makers create new phone with locked / difficult-to-upgrade OS?
The OS version on Android phones are a very good litmus test of CR's hypocrisy: anything today that doesn't have 2.2 shouldn't be recommended.
Looks like it's time to cancel your Consumer Report subscription. That, or they should fire those two reviewers.
Already done several years ago: the straw that broke this camel's back was in car reviews.
One I still recall in particular was that CR trashed an Audi for having a crooked gate transmission shifter, and then PRAISED Mercedes ... for the same exact "crooked gate" feature!
Golly, it couldn't have anything to do with bias against Audi from being proven wrong on the "unintended acceleration" problem (FYI, that was traced to being a human engineering design problem with the gas/brake pedal locations - not a transmission problem afterall - and Detroit had suffered through the same exact problem ~25 years before Audi).
As to dropping CR subs, because they dare to criticize an Apple product, that's your loss. I use the information from CR on almost any purchase I make over $100. It's not the only reference, but it certainly helps. It easily saves me the yearly sub fee.
Here's how you can save even more money: CR is usually available for free, down at your local Public Library.
-hh
"You may want snap up this new offering if you've been waiting breathlessly for the iPhone to come to Verizon and don't much care about 4G speed, a bigger screen, or other features found on current cutting-edge phones," wrote Reynolds and Gikas. "Or if you're prepared to pay an early termination fee to trade in the Verizon iPhone 4 for its successor when it appears.
"The less iPhone-addicted consumer, on the other hand, may want to hold off for a newer version of the iPhone before even considering whether to buy one," the report concluded.
Sounds like good advice to me.
Since I never mentioned the author's name, and don't give two hoots who wrote this article, ....
I understand, neither did I ever mention yours...