Is Consumer Reports having its revenge against Apple?

“No, that’s going way too far, but Consumer Reports still deserves more well-deserved criticism,” Gene Steinberg writes for Tech Night Owl. “CR just can’t get tech gear right. More to the point, their undefined test methods result in skewing the ratings against Apple in curious ways, without an iota of apparent support with facts and figures. Worse, ratings are buried under generic labels, with no indication how the conclusions were reached.”

“So in the August 2012 issue, for example, the iPhone 4S gets, at best, middling ratings, a 67, compared to the other smartphone offerings from the major wireless carriers in the U.S.,” Steinberg writes. “Now such ratings would be deserved if all the other products examined were demonstrably superior, but there are serious questions about CR’s test standards and results.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Consumer Reports blasts Apple because they need free publicity to get a continuing stream of oblivious subscribers or the POS would mercifully cease to exist.

If you’ve unfortunately endured a brain injury and are therefore still subscribing to Consumer Reports, please cancel your subscription. Consumer Reports is garbage. Unscientific tripe. Anachronistic fish wrap. You couldn’t waste your money any more thoroughly.

Related articles:
How Apple and facts killed Consumer Reports – March 29, 2012
Consumer Reports was no iPhone killer and they’re no iPad killer, either – March 28, 2012
Tests prove Apple’s new iPad heat levels comparable to Android tablets – March 26, 2012
Expert: iPad heat claims overblown, not a real issue – March 22, 2012
What’s the deal with Consumer Reports and Apple? – March 21, 2012
Consumer Reports’ bombshell: New iPad runs hotter than predecessor but ‘not especially uncomfortable’ – March 20, 2012
FUD Alert: Consumer Reports to ‘investigate’ reports of iPad and ‘excess heat’ – March 20, 2012
Consumer Reports hops off free PR gravy train, officially recommends Apple iPhone 4S – November 8, 2011
Why does anyone believe Consumer Reports? – April 6, 2011
Consumer Reports on iPad 2: We didn’t notice any significant speed improvement – March 15, 2011
Consumer Reports was wrong on Verizon iPhone 4; so-called ‘death grip’ fixed by Apple – March 2, 2011
Consumer Reports: Verizon iPhone 4 has antenna ‘problem’; not recommended – February 25, 2011
Consumer Reports continues laughable vendetta against iPhone 4 – January 14, 2011
Android sweeps Consumer Reports’ rankings as iPhone 4 is omitted – November 17, 2010
All of Consumer Reports’ ‘recommended’ smartphones suffer attenuation when held – July 19, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple’s free Bumper case does not earn iPhone 4 our recommendation – July 16, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple’s Bumper case fixes iPhone 4 signal-loss issue – July 15, 2010
Consumer Reports continues harping on iPhone 4 attenuation issue – July 14, 2010
Electromagnetic engineer: Consumer Reports’ iPhone 4 study flawed – July 13, 2010
The Consumer Reports – Apple iPhone 4 fiasco – July 13, 2010
Consumer Reports: Oh yeah, almost forgot, Apple iPhone 4 is also the best smartphone on the market – July 12, 2010
Consumer Reports: We cannot recommend Apple iPhone 4 – July 12, 2010
Consumer Reports does their readership a disservice, says viruses target Apple Macs – December 13, 2005
Consumer Reports: Apple’s new iPod screens scratch-prone like iPod nanos – October 28, 2005
Consumer Reports dubiously finds 20-percent of Mac users ‘detected’ virus in last two years -UPDATED – August 10, 2005

32 Comments

  1. I agree. Consumer Reports tries too hard to create a balance between the mediocre and the excellent like they don’t want to contribute to Apple’s already substantial lead in tech. Even if it is against consumer’s interest, ironically, to do it. Their tests are faulty and conclusions erroneous which reminds me of a line from GHOSTBUSTERS: “Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor reviewer, Dr. CR!”

    1. I stopped reading them when they rated the then brand new 1965 Ford Galaxy 500 the best car on the road. Remember that same year there were Porsche 911s, big block Corvettes, Jaguar XKEs, Mustangs, Camaros, and the fabulous AC Cobra 427.

      1. I had one and it was a good car. Not everyone has the disposable income to afford those other vehicles, or the delusions of Speed Racer grandeur you apparently possess. I’m sure you pee yourself when cars like the Honda Accord or Toyota Camry are awarded kudos.

        1. Delusions? I’ve been a race car builder and have owned most of the cars I mentioned. So who pee’d in your Wheaties, little man? Is your Dell a “good” computer?

          1. Race car builder huh? Yeah, it takes great skill to put glass packs and an STP sticker on your mom’s sedan. You can go back to masturbating over your recent issue of Road & Track now dipshit.

  2. I canceled my subscription to that POS rag the day they gave a terrible review to a product I knew and used each and every day and couldn’t live without. (Forgive the hyperbole.) I wrote them with my objections to their article, asking if their tester had used the product for any length of time . . . or just for a few minutes/hours. A reasonable question, I thought, but one they declined to answer in any fashion.

    That’s the way of this bird cage lining rag: “We have our opinions, we can’t be wrong, we can’t be questioned, take our word for it, don’t use your own mind, BEND OVER.”

    Scroom AND the horse they rode in on.

  3. MDN, why stop going back further? You don’t have any records back further than 2005?

    I remember back in the “dark days” when a CR article compared “equivalent” Mac and Windows and claimed the Mac was a factor or two or more slower then the Windows machine. Turns out in order to do a “direct comparison” they thought they needed to use the Windows version of Office on both machines! (Presumably in the completely delusional attempt to have the exact same software running on both machines.) Thus they were running Windows on a PowerPC based Mac under emulation. Obviously, this slowed things down a LOT.

    It should have been abundantly clear to anyone with two functioning brain cells (but not CR) that emulating an Intel chip on a PowerPC chip should have been dead slow.

    However, when CR did their report they did not mention this emulation at all. They merely stated that one of their primary benchmarks was running identical versions of Office on both machines.

    CR has not gotten any better since!

  4. It’s a shame… Once upon a time, Consumer Reports was an important publication providing an invaluable service to consumers. But the world has moved on and the magazine hasn’t moved on with it. Really, it’s worthless now.

    I came to this conclusion when I tried to use their ratings to help me buy a new microwave oven, only to learn that every model they reviewed was no longer available to buy, rendering their ratings utterly worthless. And the issue in question was only a few months old. I mentioned this to the appliances guy at the store, and he said that appliance models turn over so fast these days that CR can’t keep up.

    Before that experience, I figured CR was still worth looking at for non high-tech stuff. But now I understand — this magazine no longer has a reason to exist.

    “Selling It” is still funny, though. But I can read that on the shelf.

    ——RM

Reader Feedback

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