I'm with Vz currently, my contract is up and I'm fed up with my BB Storm. I currently own a 1rst gen Itouch, and absolutely love it. I plan on buying an Iphone for VZ, it's really just a matter of when.
It amazes me that people, even here, deny the antenna issue. CR didn't design or build the Iphone. All they did is confirm reported design issues. Btw, interesting article on how that might be fixed with the VZ device http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...?taxonomyId=15
The real problem I see here is lack of information from Apple. If the consumer knew when Apple thinks the 4g version will be available, or if VZ will get an updated version in June, we would be able to make a more informed decision. Not telling us, to ramp up sales in the next month or two, is far worse than CR's review. Apple and VZ are both suspect to me right now.
I understand there are competitive concerns here, I also understand that any release schedule would be conjecture. Right now, CR (and others) are providing information to help my decision, Apple and VZ are not.
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. Heck, it was part of the reason I bought an Imac for my wife and a Mac mini for my son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Anybody who is basing their opinion of CR on Daniel's article without reading the actual CR blog entry is being SERIOUSLY misled by Daniel about what CR said.
First, it was a blog post, not an actual CR review or rating. Blogs are typically a little less formal and a bit more brash than other articles. Second, while yes I think the blog post was a bit more negative than I would have written it, it was no where near as vitriol filled as Daniel made it sound. I'm beginning to think that CR shot Daniel's dog or something. And finally, every fact in the CR blog post is true. Undisputably.
Do I disagree with CR's opinions and conclusions? Sure. But Daniel has apparently taken personal offense and has taken his lack of objectivity in his writting to a new low. He gives the worst of the anti-Apple, pro-MS PC journalists a run for their money.
While Daniel has never done a great job of hiding his pro-Apple bias, at least he attempts to make a logical argument backed up by extensive (often, too extensive) data. Your facile criticism of Daniel's article and defense of CR completely ignores the fact that CR have focused on a handful of dubious criticisms of Apple while completely failing to put these criticisms in proper context against their competitors' products. This is the central issue.
The point is not whether to deny or confirm the iPhone's antenna issue, but the fact that many have overstated its significance without doing any scientific testing compared to other cell phone models. Apple did just that in releasing test results of the iPhone 4 alongside other popular mobile phones - illustrating that they were all susceptible to antenna issues in one way or another - and that in many cases, the iPhone 4 performed more reliably than the others. In other words, it's a toss-up, and Apple was getting an undeserved bad rap just because they're Apple. The iPhone's overwhelming popularity and unmatched customer satisfaction levels speak for themselves.
Others, including Consumer Reports (make that ESPECIALLY Consumer Reports) should have kept their mouths shut until and unless they performed testing of their own under test conditions as elaborate as Apple's.
If you don't like Apple products or their history of under-promising and over-delivering, then don't buy their products - simple! But don't go around trying to give Apple advice on how and when they should communicate about future products. I find their practices quite refreshing in a world where other companies routinely brag about vaporware months or years in advance while consistently failing to deliver any quality products.
Consumer Reports objective? Sure they aren't. Just check out their board. A bunch of Ambulance Chasers. They need to keep public sentiment anti-Apple to grease the tort machinery.
It's one thing, when commenting on the iPhone's release on Verizon, to point out Verizon's flaws vs. AT&T's. It's quite another thing to point to those flaws as reasons not to recommend buying an iPhone, while failing to note that the same flaws apply to every other phone on Verizon's network, thereby providing an implicit and undeserved endorsement to iPhone's competitors.
Likewise, it's fine to comment that some users experienced "antenna issues" with the iPhone 4. However it's either misinformed or misleading to do so without acknowledging that all phones suffer from these issues in one way or another and that the overwhelming majority of iPhone 4 owners are immensely satisfied with their purchase.
It's fine to warn prospective iPhone buyers that a newer model is likely months away and they should consider that when making a purchase decision - but only if you also provide the same warning for folks considering other mobile phones which are also to be replaced in the near future. And it's downright incompetent or ethically suspect to do so without mentioning the fact that Android phones are tightly controlled by the wireless carriers, who lock them down to prevent their owners from even upgrading their software.
Consumer Reports is not necessarily saying anything that's inaccurate, but they are reporting half-truths completely out of context and making baseless and irresponsible recommendations.
Consumer Reports has always demonstrated a certain cluelessness about tech products, relying largely on published "specs" when recommending one over another without any attention to real world user experience. Case in point, their years of recommending WIndows PCs as better values than Macs. But throughout this time they at least appeared to be ethical, impartial and well-intentioned. Their recent behavior suggests they've been corrupted by commercial interests.
So every utterance from CR must be encyclopedic or it lacks the proper "context" and is "baseless and irresponsible?" An impossible standard of course, which nobody ever attempts to meet. Not that any "recommendation" was made in this article anyway.
It's how they make their money, selling (ironically enough) Adobe CS5 and other ads on the site. Can't blame AI for what goes on here, it's good mercenary capitalism at its best (if a little whorish for some tastes).
But the fans here, man what a hoot. Big segments of the modern Mac audience act like jack-booted fashionistas, believing that it simply isn't even possible for any company in the world but Apple to do anything that isn't evil or incompetent.
Kinda weird, and these fans are the biggest driving factor of the backlash we're beginning to see against the platform. As a shareholder I wish they could just simmer down and get back to having a good time, but I don't expect to see that.
The only refuge I could find that feels at all like the Mac community I grew up with was to start hanging out with Ubuntu users, who spend more time just enjoying their OS and helping others get the most out of it than trying to prove the entire rest of the world wrong.
Times have become dark in the Mac community. I miss the old days, but at least there are still some other communities focused on just using the system and having a good time.
Here's another irony for you. Back in the "good old days," Apple got virtually no positive press, and a whole lot of viciously unfair treatment in the media. I thought then, and was also very vocal about it, that it was Microsoft not Apple which deserved the tough scrutiny. But most of the tech reporters then were full-time Microsoft apologists and you could not gain an inch with them on this front. Some would shamelessly belittle you if you even tried. In those days, the number of honest brokers in the tech media were few and far between. I can count them on the fingers of one hand and still have enough left over to pick my nose. They were grim, grim, grim times. I don't miss them one bit.
So now we maybe have to get used to the idea that Apple is no longer "beleaguered," and everybody knows it. In fact they are now the big dog on the block. I can get used to this, gladly. Trying hard not be a hypocrite, I also can't be too alarmed when Apple comes in for some small amount of scrutiny. It's that, and the competition, which keeps them alert. Maybe if Microsoft had been tested this way 15 years ago, they wouldn't be such a train wreck today.
So I'm going to enjoy being on the winning team, with all the attention that comes with it -- some good, some not so good. I spent way too much time on the losing side to be petulant about finding an occasional thorn in my roses. They come with the territory.
So every utterance from CR must be encyclopedic or it lacks the proper "context" and is "baseless and irresponsible?" An impossible standard of course, which nobody ever attempts to meet. Not that any "recommendation" was made in this article anyway.
Consumer Report took a stand on the iPhone 4 last summer; the consumers took a very different stand, witness Apple's bottom line as of next week.
And yet, CR sweeps concrete results obviously based on consumer satisfaction under the rug with a stump speech worthy of the worst hacks in today's Politics. If you get off your high horse perhaps you'll deign comment on the first and most relevant part of my response to your "above the fray" attempt at objectivity.
This is what I wrote at comment #88 in the first paragraph:
"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."
I reckon they stump for a Google exit from their drifting forays into Google intimacy. AI commenters and the author of the article can't find good faith where greed is so overwhelmingly present. And once you lose the trusting "benefit of the doubt" of your readership, you become suddenly out of your depth in anything worthy of analysis and articulated consideration.
And what applies to a consumer publication does also to a high profile commenter on a Blog.
So every utterance from CR must be encyclopedic or it lacks the proper "context" and is "baseless and irresponsible?" An impossible standard of course, which nobody ever attempts to meet. Not that any "recommendation" was made in this article anyway.
Goodness, Doctor, that seems to be a bit of a strawman.
I don't think it requires demanding "encyclopedic" context to notice that this blog does seem to be applying unusual standards to the iPhone. If someone can point me to a similar posting that warns customers away from buying other phones because they are likely to be updated in 6 months, or because they are on one network or another (you have to admit that its pretty determinedly negative to wonder about the iPhone because its on AT&T's shitty network, then wonder about it because its on Verizon's no data and voice at the same time network), or that there are a handful of competing models that make slightly different size/weight/battery life tradeoffs, or that the phone in question fails to deploy practically nonexistent and likely highly impractical technology, or that purchasing such a handset would be a blind act of faith as befits zealots, then I'll happily concede the point.
Not a huge deal in the scheme of things, of course, but the CR blog's approach does seem a bit odd, in that the criteria are so transparently lopsided.
Not as odd as this NYT piece, however, that seems to have been written from a perspective of simple loathing and near belligerence. I think this might qualify as the kind of actually pernicious Apple bashing of yore that you've mentioned, and does indeed make the CR post look pretty mild.
In that article, we learn that being on Verizon's network will "expose" such iPhone shortcomings as failing to have a physical keyboard, dreadful battery life, a user base with an unseemly fondness for data consuming apps, bug riddled software that may be impervious to Verizon's awesome network, and a lack of "sturdiness" (which style eschewing Android phones apparently have, coolness and sturdiness being, it would seem, mutually exclusive). Not to mention the usual musings on Apple's creepy powers of mind-control, which have enthralled the author's son and are implied to account for the inexplicable success of such a deeply compromised device. The perennials never fail to delight.
You get the feeling the author of the piece is an Android user on Verizon that views the arrival of the iPhone in much the same way native New Yorkers view out of towners-- an invasion of fundamentally clueless wannabes, heads full of vapid dreams and lacking the locals canny knowhow. It's...... a bit much.
Goodness, Doctor, that seems to be a bit of a strawman.
I don't think it requires demanding "encyclopedic" context to notice that this blog does seem to be applying unusual standards to the iPhone. If someone can point me to a similar posting that warns customers away from buying other phones because they are likely to be updated in 6 months, or because they are on one network or another (you have to admit that its pretty determinedly negative to wonder about the iPhone because its on AT&T's shitty network, then wonder about it because its on Verizon's no data and voice at the same time network), or that there are a handful of competing models that make slightly different size/weight/battery life tradeoffs, or that the phone in question fails to deploy practically nonexistent and likely highly impractical technology, or that purchasing such a handset would be a blind act of faith as befits zealots, then I'll happily concede the point.
Not a huge deal in the scheme of things, of course, but the CR blog's approach does seem a bit odd, in that the criteria are so transparently lopsided.
Not as odd as this NYT piece, however, that seems to have been written from a perspective of simple loathing and near belligerence. I think this might qualify as the kind of actually pernicious Apple bashing of yore that you've mentioned, and does indeed make the CR post look pretty mild.
In that article, we learn that being on Verizon's network will "expose" such iPhone shortcomings as failing to have a physical keyboard, dreadful battery life, a user base with an unseemly fondness for data consuming apps, bug riddled software that may be impervious to Verizon's awesome network, and a lack of "sturdiness" (which style eschewing Android phones apparently have, coolness and sturdiness being, it would seem, mutually exclusive). Not to mention the usual musings on Apple's creepy powers of mind-control, which have enthralled the author's son and are implied to account for the inexplicable success of such a deeply compromised device. The perennials never fail to delight.
You get the feeling the author of the piece is an Android user on Verizon that views the arrival of the iPhone in much the same way native New Yorkers view out of towners-- an invasion of fundamentally clueless wannabes, heads full of vapid dreams and lacking the locals canny knowhow. It's...... a bit much.
No, I'm not going to try to prove a negative, which of course would minimally require reading everything CR has ever published. You can't win a debate by creating an impossible proof.
As it happens, Joe Nocera is the person I heard on NPR this morning making almost the same claims. As I said before (without previously naming the culprit), I think he's wrong on a variety of facts and should be called on them. (NB: The NYT also employes David Pogue, who's hardly ever met an Apple product that didn't get him horny. Does he need to be truthed out too?)
So I don't think any of this rates as some kind of conspiracy against Apple, let alone, some form of moral depravity. Many on these boards some to come completely unglued at the least little slight against Apple, as though their own parentage has been questioned publicly. Try a little perspective, is my advice. Not every article is going to meet your complete definition of accuracy and inclusiveness and not especially in a media environment where we're getting information blown into our faces 24/7, a lot of it in tiny fragments. I don't honestly believe that even CR's editors are hoping, let alone expecting, that anyone is getting their information about the iPhone from no source but CR. The instant frenzy is just too much.
...Many on these boards some to come completely unglued at the least little slight against Apple, as though their own parentage has been questioned publicly. Try a little perspective, is my advice...
The main thrust of your line of thoughts is a copycat of Google's strategy to counter iPhone in the marketplace: drive a wedge between the user experience and the emotional bond that the end user feels toward a marketed object of communication.
If Google, CR or yourself condescend on a relationship which is based on trust from an intimate experience, be it a communication device or a dear friend of mine, beware of the fallouts on your trusting relationship with me.
CR has lost credibility with me. Do they warn users of middle/end of product cycles for other phones?
Hey, it's not just phones! I used CR to determine which grass trimmer to buy, found a sale on a CR "Best Buy" B&D GH1000? and got burned badly. Lifetime of 1 hour; melted drive pulley. There were many reviews that revealed this situation (that I obviously didn't read), but it DID NOT change CR's review! Nearly chucked my CR subscription then, but I'm thinking now (finally) is a good time to put a virtual bullet in it.
The main thrust of your line of thoughts is a copycat of Google's strategy to counter iPhone in the marketplace: drive a wedge between the user experience and the emotional bond that the end user feels toward a marketed object of communication.
If Google, CR or yourself condescend on a relationship which is based on trust from an intimate experience, be it a communication device or a dear friend of mine, beware of the fallouts on your trusting relationship with me.
That was weird.
For the record, this wasn't even a minor thrust of my thoughts. I believe my thoughts were clearly explained.
No, I'm not going to try to prove a negative, which of course would minimally require reading everything CR has ever published. You can't win a debate by creating an impossible proof.
No no, I'm not looking to prove anything or win any debates. The CR piece just struck me, from a strictly armchair enthusiast perspective, as oddly toned. Kind of needlessly adversarial, which I wouldn't have thought was CR's thing. Particularly the damned if you do, damned if you don't stuff about the relative drawbacks of each carrier.
Quote:
As it happens, Joe Nocera is the person I heard on NPR this morning making almost the same claims. As I said before (without previously naming the culprit), I think he's wrong on a variety of facts and should be called on them. (NB: The NYT also employes David Pogue, who's hardly ever met an Apple product that didn't get him horny. Does he need to be truthed out too?)
As I think you'll probably agree, a positive Pogue review doesn't generally drift into made up stuff, which I think is a pertinent distinction. Plus, there's that damn weird "the entire Apple operation, from Jobs to its customers, is sort of sickening" vibe to the really enthusiastic slam that's hard to replicate in positive form, if only because "I like these products I think Apple does a great job" is never going to indulge in a lot of unpleasant mind reading as to what motivates folks to buy their stuff.
Quote:
So I don't think any of this rates as some kind of conspiracy against Apple, let alone, some form of moral depravity. Many on these boards some to come completely unglued at the least little slight against Apple, as though their own parentage has been questioned publicly. Try a little perspective, is my advice. Not every article is going to meet your complete definition of accuracy and inclusiveness and not especially in a media environment where we're getting information blown into our faces 24/7, a lot of it in tiny fragments. I don't honestly believe that even CR's editors are hoping, let alone expecting, that anyone is getting their information about the iPhone from no source but CR. The instant frenzy is just too much.
It amazes me that people, even here, deny the antenna issue. CR didn't design or build the Iphone. All they did is confirm reported design issues. Btw, interesting article on how that might be fixed with the VZ device
Actually all they did was a disservice to their subscribers by trying to gain some publicity by tossing very shoddy "research" out on their blog. "Antenna-gate" was the most overblown technology story in the past 5 years and CR could have done a lot to elevate their sagging credibility by simply ignoring it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
First, it was a blog post, not an actual CR review or rating. Blogs are typically a little less formal and a bit more brash than other articles. Second, while yes I think the blog post was a bit more negative than I would have written it, it was no where near as vitriol filled as Daniel made it sound. I'm beginning to think that CR shot Daniel's dog or something. And finally, every fact in the CR blog post is true. Undisputably.
CR's business is entirely dependent on their reputation and they simply cannot and should not expect consumers to differentiate between their blog posts and their printed materials. If consumers should expect half-assed research and off the cuff comments on the blog, then CR should publish the blog under an entirely different name. You do not get to draw people to your site based on your reputation and then ask them to discard the contents of that site when considering your reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore
That's what happened - marked internal inconsistency in their process results and no indication that they recognized it.
This inconstancy was when I realized that any credibility CR may have ever had was gone forever. I do not see how a business based entirely on credibility can survive disagreeing with itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
So every utterance from CR must be encyclopedic or it lacks the proper "context" and is "baseless and irresponsible?" An impossible standard of course, which nobody ever attempts to meet. Not that any "recommendation" was made in this article anyway.
Absolutely. That is their entire business. It is a standard they expect us all to believe they adhere to. I think we all agree that they do not now come anywhere near it. Wither or not they ever did is an entirely different matter.
No no, I'm not looking to prove anything or win any debates. The CR piece just struck me, from a strictly armchair enthusiast perspective, as oddly toned. Kind of needlessly adversarial, which I wouldn't have thought was CR's thing. Particularly the damned if you do, damned if you don't stuff about the relative drawbacks of each carrier.
It's often CR's thing, especially in recent years. I think they're trying to be a little more hip, or something. But they've always tended to focus on product flaws, at least as they see them, and they really take their role as debunkers very seriously. Too seriously perhaps, but the point is, as a former regular reader of the magazine, the tone is not the least bit surprising to me. If they don't like a product, they'll rip right into it. I would not put this small article in that category at all.
Quote:
As I think you'll probably agree, a positive Pogue review doesn't generally drift into made up stuff, which I think is a pertinent distinction. Plus, there's that damn weird "the entire Apple operation, from Jobs to its customers, is sort of sickening" vibe to the really enthusiastic slam that's hard to replicate in positive form, if only because "I like these products I think Apple does a great job" is never going to indulge in a lot of unpleasant mind reading as to what motivates folks to buy their stuff.
See, the problem is, the CR article included no made up stuff that could see. To the limit of what they said, it was accurate, and none of the issues they raised are new to anyone here. The criticism seems to be about sins of omission rather than commission, and as you've said, the "tone" of the article. Well, if you're concerned about that, then why doesn't Pogue's fawning approach raise similar issues? Surely he doesn't go out of his way to compare every competing product, let alone, objectively. If drift, tone and vibe are important to you, then perhaps you should be less selective in who you criticize.
Comments
I'm with Vz currently, my contract is up and I'm fed up with my BB Storm. I currently own a 1rst gen Itouch, and absolutely love it. I plan on buying an Iphone for VZ, it's really just a matter of when.
I just read the CR report, and it reflects my thoughts fairly closely. I also read this http://gizmodo.com/5729273/dont-buy-...rizon-iphone-4 It's not just CR weighing in on this decision for VZ customers.
It amazes me that people, even here, deny the antenna issue. CR didn't design or build the Iphone. All they did is confirm reported design issues. Btw, interesting article on how that might be fixed with the VZ device http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...?taxonomyId=15
The real problem I see here is lack of information from Apple. If the consumer knew when Apple thinks the 4g version will be available, or if VZ will get an updated version in June, we would be able to make a more informed decision. Not telling us, to ramp up sales in the next month or two, is far worse than CR's review. Apple and VZ are both suspect to me right now.
I understand there are competitive concerns here, I also understand that any release schedule would be conjecture. Right now, CR (and others) are providing information to help my decision, Apple and VZ are not.
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. Heck, it was part of the reason I bought an Imac for my wife and a Mac mini for my son.
Anybody who is basing their opinion of CR on Daniel's article without reading the actual CR blog entry is being SERIOUSLY misled by Daniel about what CR said.
First, it was a blog post, not an actual CR review or rating. Blogs are typically a little less formal and a bit more brash than other articles. Second, while yes I think the blog post was a bit more negative than I would have written it, it was no where near as vitriol filled as Daniel made it sound. I'm beginning to think that CR shot Daniel's dog or something. And finally, every fact in the CR blog post is true. Undisputably.
Do I disagree with CR's opinions and conclusions? Sure. But Daniel has apparently taken personal offense and has taken his lack of objectivity in his writting to a new low. He gives the worst of the anti-Apple, pro-MS PC journalists a run for their money.
While Daniel has never done a great job of hiding his pro-Apple bias, at least he attempts to make a logical argument backed up by extensive (often, too extensive) data. Your facile criticism of Daniel's article and defense of CR completely ignores the fact that CR have focused on a handful of dubious criticisms of Apple while completely failing to put these criticisms in proper context against their competitors' products. This is the central issue.
It is like consumer reports trashing a car because it is a sports car and they think everyone should drive minivans.
Which they often do. LOL.
Next month's Consumer Reports: "The best denture adhesives and how to keep kids off your lawn!"
The point is not whether to deny or confirm the iPhone's antenna issue, but the fact that many have overstated its significance without doing any scientific testing compared to other cell phone models. Apple did just that in releasing test results of the iPhone 4 alongside other popular mobile phones - illustrating that they were all susceptible to antenna issues in one way or another - and that in many cases, the iPhone 4 performed more reliably than the others. In other words, it's a toss-up, and Apple was getting an undeserved bad rap just because they're Apple. The iPhone's overwhelming popularity and unmatched customer satisfaction levels speak for themselves.
Others, including Consumer Reports (make that ESPECIALLY Consumer Reports) should have kept their mouths shut until and unless they performed testing of their own under test conditions as elaborate as Apple's.
If you don't like Apple products or their history of under-promising and over-delivering, then don't buy their products - simple! But don't go around trying to give Apple advice on how and when they should communicate about future products. I find their practices quite refreshing in a world where other companies routinely brag about vaporware months or years in advance while consistently failing to deliver any quality products.
I would up-vote this if I could.
Seconded on the vaporware.
C
You're ignoring a tiny detail: CONTEXT.
It's one thing, when commenting on the iPhone's release on Verizon, to point out Verizon's flaws vs. AT&T's. It's quite another thing to point to those flaws as reasons not to recommend buying an iPhone, while failing to note that the same flaws apply to every other phone on Verizon's network, thereby providing an implicit and undeserved endorsement to iPhone's competitors.
Likewise, it's fine to comment that some users experienced "antenna issues" with the iPhone 4. However it's either misinformed or misleading to do so without acknowledging that all phones suffer from these issues in one way or another and that the overwhelming majority of iPhone 4 owners are immensely satisfied with their purchase.
It's fine to warn prospective iPhone buyers that a newer model is likely months away and they should consider that when making a purchase decision - but only if you also provide the same warning for folks considering other mobile phones which are also to be replaced in the near future. And it's downright incompetent or ethically suspect to do so without mentioning the fact that Android phones are tightly controlled by the wireless carriers, who lock them down to prevent their owners from even upgrading their software.
Consumer Reports is not necessarily saying anything that's inaccurate, but they are reporting half-truths completely out of context and making baseless and irresponsible recommendations.
Consumer Reports has always demonstrated a certain cluelessness about tech products, relying largely on published "specs" when recommending one over another without any attention to real world user experience. Case in point, their years of recommending WIndows PCs as better values than Macs. But throughout this time they at least appeared to be ethical, impartial and well-intentioned. Their recent behavior suggests they've been corrupted by commercial interests.
So every utterance from CR must be encyclopedic or it lacks the proper "context" and is "baseless and irresponsible?" An impossible standard of course, which nobody ever attempts to meet. Not that any "recommendation" was made in this article anyway.
It's how they make their money, selling (ironically enough) Adobe CS5 and other ads on the site. Can't blame AI for what goes on here, it's good mercenary capitalism at its best (if a little whorish for some tastes).
But the fans here, man what a hoot. Big segments of the modern Mac audience act like jack-booted fashionistas, believing that it simply isn't even possible for any company in the world but Apple to do anything that isn't evil or incompetent.
Kinda weird, and these fans are the biggest driving factor of the backlash we're beginning to see against the platform. As a shareholder I wish they could just simmer down and get back to having a good time, but I don't expect to see that.
The only refuge I could find that feels at all like the Mac community I grew up with was to start hanging out with Ubuntu users, who spend more time just enjoying their OS and helping others get the most out of it than trying to prove the entire rest of the world wrong.
Times have become dark in the Mac community. I miss the old days, but at least there are still some other communities focused on just using the system and having a good time.
Here's another irony for you. Back in the "good old days," Apple got virtually no positive press, and a whole lot of viciously unfair treatment in the media. I thought then, and was also very vocal about it, that it was Microsoft not Apple which deserved the tough scrutiny. But most of the tech reporters then were full-time Microsoft apologists and you could not gain an inch with them on this front. Some would shamelessly belittle you if you even tried. In those days, the number of honest brokers in the tech media were few and far between. I can count them on the fingers of one hand and still have enough left over to pick my nose. They were grim, grim, grim times. I don't miss them one bit.
So now we maybe have to get used to the idea that Apple is no longer "beleaguered," and everybody knows it. In fact they are now the big dog on the block. I can get used to this, gladly. Trying hard not be a hypocrite, I also can't be too alarmed when Apple comes in for some small amount of scrutiny. It's that, and the competition, which keeps them alert. Maybe if Microsoft had been tested this way 15 years ago, they wouldn't be such a train wreck today.
So I'm going to enjoy being on the winning team, with all the attention that comes with it -- some good, some not so good. I spent way too much time on the losing side to be petulant about finding an occasional thorn in my roses. They come with the territory.
So every utterance from CR must be encyclopedic or it lacks the proper "context" and is "baseless and irresponsible?" An impossible standard of course, which nobody ever attempts to meet. Not that any "recommendation" was made in this article anyway.
Consumer Report took a stand on the iPhone 4 last summer; the consumers took a very different stand, witness Apple's bottom line as of next week.
And yet, CR sweeps concrete results obviously based on consumer satisfaction under the rug with a stump speech worthy of the worst hacks in today's Politics. If you get off your high horse perhaps you'll deign comment on the first and most relevant part of my response to your "above the fray" attempt at objectivity.
This is what I wrote at comment #88 in the first paragraph:
"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."
I reckon they stump for a Google exit from their drifting forays into Google intimacy. AI commenters and the author of the article can't find good faith where greed is so overwhelmingly present. And once you lose the trusting "benefit of the doubt" of your readership, you become suddenly out of your depth in anything worthy of analysis and articulated consideration.
And what applies to a consumer publication does also to a high profile commenter on a Blog.
So every utterance from CR must be encyclopedic or it lacks the proper "context" and is "baseless and irresponsible?" An impossible standard of course, which nobody ever attempts to meet. Not that any "recommendation" was made in this article anyway.
Goodness, Doctor, that seems to be a bit of a strawman.
I don't think it requires demanding "encyclopedic" context to notice that this blog does seem to be applying unusual standards to the iPhone. If someone can point me to a similar posting that warns customers away from buying other phones because they are likely to be updated in 6 months, or because they are on one network or another (you have to admit that its pretty determinedly negative to wonder about the iPhone because its on AT&T's shitty network, then wonder about it because its on Verizon's no data and voice at the same time network), or that there are a handful of competing models that make slightly different size/weight/battery life tradeoffs, or that the phone in question fails to deploy practically nonexistent and likely highly impractical technology, or that purchasing such a handset would be a blind act of faith as befits zealots, then I'll happily concede the point.
Not a huge deal in the scheme of things, of course, but the CR blog's approach does seem a bit odd, in that the criteria are so transparently lopsided.
Not as odd as this NYT piece, however, that seems to have been written from a perspective of simple loathing and near belligerence. I think this might qualify as the kind of actually pernicious Apple bashing of yore that you've mentioned, and does indeed make the CR post look pretty mild.
In that article, we learn that being on Verizon's network will "expose" such iPhone shortcomings as failing to have a physical keyboard, dreadful battery life, a user base with an unseemly fondness for data consuming apps, bug riddled software that may be impervious to Verizon's awesome network, and a lack of "sturdiness" (which style eschewing Android phones apparently have, coolness and sturdiness being, it would seem, mutually exclusive). Not to mention the usual musings on Apple's creepy powers of mind-control, which have enthralled the author's son and are implied to account for the inexplicable success of such a deeply compromised device. The perennials never fail to delight.
You get the feeling the author of the piece is an Android user on Verizon that views the arrival of the iPhone in much the same way native New Yorkers view out of towners-- an invasion of fundamentally clueless wannabes, heads full of vapid dreams and lacking the locals canny knowhow. It's...... a bit much.
Goodness, Doctor, that seems to be a bit of a strawman.
I don't think it requires demanding "encyclopedic" context to notice that this blog does seem to be applying unusual standards to the iPhone. If someone can point me to a similar posting that warns customers away from buying other phones because they are likely to be updated in 6 months, or because they are on one network or another (you have to admit that its pretty determinedly negative to wonder about the iPhone because its on AT&T's shitty network, then wonder about it because its on Verizon's no data and voice at the same time network), or that there are a handful of competing models that make slightly different size/weight/battery life tradeoffs, or that the phone in question fails to deploy practically nonexistent and likely highly impractical technology, or that purchasing such a handset would be a blind act of faith as befits zealots, then I'll happily concede the point.
Not a huge deal in the scheme of things, of course, but the CR blog's approach does seem a bit odd, in that the criteria are so transparently lopsided.
Not as odd as this NYT piece, however, that seems to have been written from a perspective of simple loathing and near belligerence. I think this might qualify as the kind of actually pernicious Apple bashing of yore that you've mentioned, and does indeed make the CR post look pretty mild.
In that article, we learn that being on Verizon's network will "expose" such iPhone shortcomings as failing to have a physical keyboard, dreadful battery life, a user base with an unseemly fondness for data consuming apps, bug riddled software that may be impervious to Verizon's awesome network, and a lack of "sturdiness" (which style eschewing Android phones apparently have, coolness and sturdiness being, it would seem, mutually exclusive). Not to mention the usual musings on Apple's creepy powers of mind-control, which have enthralled the author's son and are implied to account for the inexplicable success of such a deeply compromised device. The perennials never fail to delight.
You get the feeling the author of the piece is an Android user on Verizon that views the arrival of the iPhone in much the same way native New Yorkers view out of towners-- an invasion of fundamentally clueless wannabes, heads full of vapid dreams and lacking the locals canny knowhow. It's...... a bit much.
No, I'm not going to try to prove a negative, which of course would minimally require reading everything CR has ever published. You can't win a debate by creating an impossible proof.
As it happens, Joe Nocera is the person I heard on NPR this morning making almost the same claims. As I said before (without previously naming the culprit), I think he's wrong on a variety of facts and should be called on them. (NB: The NYT also employes David Pogue, who's hardly ever met an Apple product that didn't get him horny. Does he need to be truthed out too?)
So I don't think any of this rates as some kind of conspiracy against Apple, let alone, some form of moral depravity. Many on these boards some to come completely unglued at the least little slight against Apple, as though their own parentage has been questioned publicly. Try a little perspective, is my advice. Not every article is going to meet your complete definition of accuracy and inclusiveness and not especially in a media environment where we're getting information blown into our faces 24/7, a lot of it in tiny fragments. I don't honestly believe that even CR's editors are hoping, let alone expecting, that anyone is getting their information about the iPhone from no source but CR. The instant frenzy is just too much.
...Many on these boards some to come completely unglued at the least little slight against Apple, as though their own parentage has been questioned publicly. Try a little perspective, is my advice...
The main thrust of your line of thoughts is a copycat of Google's strategy to counter iPhone in the marketplace: drive a wedge between the user experience and the emotional bond that the end user feels toward a marketed object of communication.
If Google, CR or yourself condescend on a relationship which is based on trust from an intimate experience, be it a communication device or a dear friend of mine, beware of the fallouts on your trusting relationship with me.
NOPE, since 5 years ago.. I quit my subscription then.
OMG then how will you know which coffee maker to buy??? You'll be utterly lost!
CR has lost credibility with me. Do they warn users of middle/end of product cycles for other phones?
Hey, it's not just phones! I used CR to determine which grass trimmer to buy, found a sale on a CR "Best Buy" B&D GH1000? and got burned badly. Lifetime of 1 hour; melted drive pulley. There were many reviews that revealed this situation (that I obviously didn't read), but it DID NOT change CR's review! Nearly chucked my CR subscription then, but I'm thinking now (finally) is a good time to put a virtual bullet in it.
The main thrust of your line of thoughts is a copycat of Google's strategy to counter iPhone in the marketplace: drive a wedge between the user experience and the emotional bond that the end user feels toward a marketed object of communication.
If Google, CR or yourself condescend on a relationship which is based on trust from an intimate experience, be it a communication device or a dear friend of mine, beware of the fallouts on your trusting relationship with me.
That was weird.
For the record, this wasn't even a minor thrust of my thoughts. I believe my thoughts were clearly explained.
That was weird.
For the record, this wasn't even a minor thrust of my thoughts. I believe my thoughts were clearly explained.
Weird but in good faith.
Often all that remains of one's expression of thought is what one tries hard to slip past a reader's afterthoughts.
No, I'm not going to try to prove a negative, which of course would minimally require reading everything CR has ever published. You can't win a debate by creating an impossible proof.
No no, I'm not looking to prove anything or win any debates. The CR piece just struck me, from a strictly armchair enthusiast perspective, as oddly toned. Kind of needlessly adversarial, which I wouldn't have thought was CR's thing. Particularly the damned if you do, damned if you don't stuff about the relative drawbacks of each carrier.
As it happens, Joe Nocera is the person I heard on NPR this morning making almost the same claims. As I said before (without previously naming the culprit), I think he's wrong on a variety of facts and should be called on them. (NB: The NYT also employes David Pogue, who's hardly ever met an Apple product that didn't get him horny. Does he need to be truthed out too?)
As I think you'll probably agree, a positive Pogue review doesn't generally drift into made up stuff, which I think is a pertinent distinction. Plus, there's that damn weird "the entire Apple operation, from Jobs to its customers, is sort of sickening" vibe to the really enthusiastic slam that's hard to replicate in positive form, if only because "I like these products I think Apple does a great job" is never going to indulge in a lot of unpleasant mind reading as to what motivates folks to buy their stuff.
So I don't think any of this rates as some kind of conspiracy against Apple, let alone, some form of moral depravity. Many on these boards some to come completely unglued at the least little slight against Apple, as though their own parentage has been questioned publicly. Try a little perspective, is my advice. Not every article is going to meet your complete definition of accuracy and inclusiveness and not especially in a media environment where we're getting information blown into our faces 24/7, a lot of it in tiny fragments. I don't honestly believe that even CR's editors are hoping, let alone expecting, that anyone is getting their information about the iPhone from no source but CR. The instant frenzy is just too much.
No argument against any of that.
It amazes me that people, even here, deny the antenna issue. CR didn't design or build the Iphone. All they did is confirm reported design issues. Btw, interesting article on how that might be fixed with the VZ device
Actually all they did was a disservice to their subscribers by trying to gain some publicity by tossing very shoddy "research" out on their blog. "Antenna-gate" was the most overblown technology story in the past 5 years and CR could have done a lot to elevate their sagging credibility by simply ignoring it.
First, it was a blog post, not an actual CR review or rating. Blogs are typically a little less formal and a bit more brash than other articles. Second, while yes I think the blog post was a bit more negative than I would have written it, it was no where near as vitriol filled as Daniel made it sound. I'm beginning to think that CR shot Daniel's dog or something. And finally, every fact in the CR blog post is true. Undisputably.
CR's business is entirely dependent on their reputation and they simply cannot and should not expect consumers to differentiate between their blog posts and their printed materials. If consumers should expect half-assed research and off the cuff comments on the blog, then CR should publish the blog under an entirely different name. You do not get to draw people to your site based on your reputation and then ask them to discard the contents of that site when considering your reputation.
That's what happened - marked internal inconsistency in their process results and no indication that they recognized it.
This inconstancy was when I realized that any credibility CR may have ever had was gone forever. I do not see how a business based entirely on credibility can survive disagreeing with itself.
So every utterance from CR must be encyclopedic or it lacks the proper "context" and is "baseless and irresponsible?" An impossible standard of course, which nobody ever attempts to meet. Not that any "recommendation" was made in this article anyway.
Absolutely. That is their entire business. It is a standard they expect us all to believe they adhere to. I think we all agree that they do not now come anywhere near it. Wither or not they ever did is an entirely different matter.
No no, I'm not looking to prove anything or win any debates. The CR piece just struck me, from a strictly armchair enthusiast perspective, as oddly toned. Kind of needlessly adversarial, which I wouldn't have thought was CR's thing. Particularly the damned if you do, damned if you don't stuff about the relative drawbacks of each carrier.
It's often CR's thing, especially in recent years. I think they're trying to be a little more hip, or something. But they've always tended to focus on product flaws, at least as they see them, and they really take their role as debunkers very seriously. Too seriously perhaps, but the point is, as a former regular reader of the magazine, the tone is not the least bit surprising to me. If they don't like a product, they'll rip right into it. I would not put this small article in that category at all.
As I think you'll probably agree, a positive Pogue review doesn't generally drift into made up stuff, which I think is a pertinent distinction. Plus, there's that damn weird "the entire Apple operation, from Jobs to its customers, is sort of sickening" vibe to the really enthusiastic slam that's hard to replicate in positive form, if only because "I like these products I think Apple does a great job" is never going to indulge in a lot of unpleasant mind reading as to what motivates folks to buy their stuff.
See, the problem is, the CR article included no made up stuff that could see. To the limit of what they said, it was accurate, and none of the issues they raised are new to anyone here. The criticism seems to be about sins of omission rather than commission, and as you've said, the "tone" of the article. Well, if you're concerned about that, then why doesn't Pogue's fawning approach raise similar issues? Surely he doesn't go out of his way to compare every competing product, let alone, objectively. If drift, tone and vibe are important to you, then perhaps you should be less selective in who you criticize.
Weird but in good faith.
Often all that remains of one's expression of thought is what one tries hard to slip past a reader's afterthoughts.
Yes, you got me. My message is entirely subliminal.