Consumer Reports continues laughable vendetta against iPhone 4

As if to cement their total irrelevance, with millions upon millions of iPhone 4s flying of store shelves worldwide, “Consumer Reports is now warning users to wait, calling it ‘middle aged’ and doubting whether Verizon will offer the unlimited data contracts it is said it would,” Daniel Eran Dilger reports for AppleInsider who notes that Consumer Reports awarded “Apple’s iPhone 4 its highest ratings across the board last summer.”

“In a blog posting, Paul Reynolds and Mike Gikas write that the Verizon iPhone 4 is ‘promising, but likely to be short-lived,’ saying that ‘it may be quickly replaced by a newer, cooler version more quickly than is customary even for the die-young life expectancy of most smart phones,'” Dilger reports. “Other smartphone makers release new models every few months, with Motorola, for example, releasing the Droid X just months after its original Droid launched, then following up with the Droid Pro and Droid 2 models within another six months. Consumer Reports does not warn users not to buy Motorola’s Droid phones because a new model will be released within six months, making its warnings about Verizon’s iPhone 4 seem inconsistent.”

MacDailyNews Take: There is no doubt, Consumer Reports doesn’t just “seem” inconsistent, they are inconsistent.

Dilger continues, “The blog posting also criticized Verizon’s iPhone 4 offering as being 3G ‘at a time when carriers—Verizon among them—have launched faster 4G networks and phones that work on them.’ However, while Verizon began rolling out its new ‘4G’ LTE data network in December, it doesn’t over widespread coverage and isn’t yet usable for voice calls.”

“Additionally, the 4G phones Verizon showed at CES earlier this month aren’t yet available and won’t be ‘launched’ until the middle of 2011. If Consumer Reports is worried about iPhone 4 being refreshed, it should also be warning all Verizon users to hold off buying phones because of the new batch of LTE models being offered within six months,” Dilger reports. “If it starts doing that, it can continue to warn users to never buy a new smartphone because Motorola, Samsung and HTC will continue to release new and improved models every few months.”

Much more in the full article – recommended – here.

MacDailyNews Take: Consumer Reports has no credibility (see related articles below). We wouldn’t recommend the rag to a grandma looking for a new vacuum cleaner, much less to a smartphone buyer.

45 Comments

  1. I dropped my CR subscription after their iPhone fiasco last year. Just could not take it any longer. They keep begging me to renew: like I want to keep paying them a fee to lie to me? I think not. CR has always had anti-Apple bias. They no longer get my money or my attention.

  2. My parents used to get that magazine. It was good years ago, but they have been clueless for many recent years. Who needs them when there are on line reviews of people using stuff.

  3. The folks who run Consumer Reports are too embarrassed to admit they fell for the anti-Apple “antennagate” hype last year. iPhone 4 goes on to become the most popular consumer electronics product of all time, despite their so-called “recommendation” that contradicted even their own product evaluation. Now, while everyone else (even “bloggers”) have conveniently forgotten about the whole “non-issue” from just six months ago, Consumer Reports can’t resist the opportunity to make fools of themselves once again.

  4. I recently received an email from CR asking me to resubscribe to their online service (I was on it a few years when looking to buy a car). I told them “No thanks,” and that I wouldn’t resubscribe until they retract their flawed and biased iPhone 4 crap. After that publicity-seeking episode I don’t trust anything they say any more.

  5. CR – as most people and/or organizations – is good at reviewing things they understand. That can be a simple as a washing machine, or as complex as a 401k plan. If they have the staff expertise, and the time to study something thoroughly, CR is as good a resource as any consumer will ever find.

    However, there have always been some products that CR just doesn’t ‘get’, and as a result their conclusions tend to be less useful about them – certainly they can’t be used alone.

    For example, I remember when CR was an absolutely horrible resource for reviewing cars. They understood repair histories, and MPGs, but when it came to the emotional side of things – ‘fun-to-drive’ factors and so on – they were clueless. This reliance on all things empirical would also tend to lead them into some epic Windmill Tilting Contests. The Audi ‘Unintended Acceleration’ saga comes to mind. Empirically, they were getting data that said many Audi drivers were having this problem. But they seemed to have no ability to understand that mechanically there was no way it could be happening due to a design fault (no drive-by-wire black boxes were at work back then), nor did they ever seriously consider driver error and mass psychology as factors at work. They kept Audi in their doghouse long past the point when the rest of the world had moved on. Granted, some of that was due to their own readers not moving on either, but given their mission that’s really no excuse for them. Their own sense of importance – and expectation of their testing processes leading to infallibility – also seemed to keep their dander up longer than it should have.

    The same thing seems to be happening here with the iPhone. CR caught a legitimate kink in the iPhone’s armor, but without seeming to have noticed that every other smartphone on the market with internal antenna (including previous iPhones) had the same reception flaw. The mass psychological impact of the news reportage on the ‘problem’ seemed to affect them also, in ways VERY similar to CBS’s Audi story way back when. And, when the rest of the world has so obviously moved on, there CR is – beating on a lonely drum, almost out of willfulness.

    I would say, for 98% of the products made out there, and for financial and medical service information as well, CR is indispensible. It really is an unbiased source. It’s just a shame they can’t seem to admit a mistake. Or learn how not to keep making the same one over again.

    Those other 2% can be a real bitch.
    ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smirk” style=”border:0;” />

  6. Has anyone considered the possibility that there may be more going on with CR’s stance (in this instance and possibly others) rthan simple inconsistency or incompetence?

    What ever happened to good old fashioned corruption?

  7. Wait, Consumer Reports? Isn’t that something from back in the days when they had those big sets of encyclopedias? Make sure someone at CR turns out the lights when they close the doors for the last time…Wankers

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.