Protecting Google, while bashing Apple

Written by

Remember when The Verge reviewed the iPhone 4S in October 2011 and listed its lack of LTE support in the “Bad Stuff” column?

Fast forward 12 months to today and Google announces the Nexus 4 with no LTE. The Verge’s headline: Slow down: why Google’s new Nexus 4 doesn’t have LTE.

Yeah, that.



49 thoughts on “Protecting Google, while bashing Apple”

  1. No LTE is bad, but you can overlook that considering an unlocked Nexus is the same cost as a 32 GB iPhone with a carrier subsidy.

  4. The price isn’t the point.

    The point is that over a year ago, the lack of LTE was considered a huge failing of a phone from a competitor. Now, over a year later, the “flagship” phone doesn’t carry LTE but it isn’t considered a huge deal at all.

    The seeming hypocrisy is the point, not that the decision to go without LTE doesn’t have merit.

  6. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Especially if they grunt. Apple’s reason for not including LTE – lack of widespread coverage and power-wasting chipsets (similar to the 3G omission in the original iPhone but that was more of a stretch). Google/Verge’s reason for not including LTE, it would take too long to work with each carrier. Notably, one version of LTE works in a bunch of countries, although the US has 4 incompatible LTE systems. Oh, and Nexus models are not intended to be popular.

  7. Yeah, The Verge does this things. Remember the iPhone 5 launch? They dedicated an article to say that it was boring. Now, after a Google launch, we have an article to justify the lack of features of a android product.

    I guess it’s because Android manufacturers pay for ads on their website and Apple doesn’t.

  8. But both articles say it’s a negative thing..? I don’t think you can class 4 mentions of the lack of LTE in the iPhone article as ‘considered a huge failing’, it was a negative thing.

    One article is a review of a product, in which no LTE is a negative. One is an explanation of the complexities of LTE relating to a product, where no LTE is still a negative, but an explanation of the reason behind it’s omission is brought forth.

  13. False, the Nexus 4 is available from T-Mobile, just like the Galaxy Nexus was (or is it still?) available from Verizon.

  17. Calm down, Jim. To say The Verge “bashed” the 4S over its lack of LTE is being overly dramatic. And coming from someone who bashes the competition all day but leaves out any mention of flaws or drawbacks when discussing Apple products reeks of hypocisy. How do you expect anyone other than Apple zealots to take you seriously? Or is that all you need to keep your business running?

  18. I don’t think that it’s an ad problem, it’s mostly a personal perception and point of view problem. Living in a geek infested echo chamber, tech writers are losing connection to regular people and their needs, turing into fanboys.

  19. Aren’t you yourself guilty of showing an equal bias in the opposite direction however? Protecting Apple while bashing Google?

  20. In the other article about the Nex 4, they said it was a disappointment. They totes bashed the 4s… and gave it an 8.6! Also, two different people wrote those two pieces linked. Or are we assuming they all share one brain over at The Verge?

    I thought no LTE was a failure on any new phone until a few days ago when I realized my LTE-capable phone rarely connects to LTE. (I have AT&T), but connects to HSPA+ often because of where I live. I no longer have a reason to complain about lack of LTE, buut, I think that Apple adopting it means carriers will get on the effing ball about making it available to more people.

  21. Err… and Josh who “bashed” the iPhone for it initially says he’s really upset about the lack of lte, sooo yah.

    disclaimer: I use iOS and Android and love/hate them both equally lol.

  22. Is the Verge called GoogleVerge now? (Actually since verge means dick in French it probably could be)

  24. I can’t believe I’m getting downvoted just for stating my opinion in a non-asshole-like way. I mean I come and reap the Loop almost everyday because there’s good information here but lets not kid ourselves into believing there isn’t a bias on this site as well.

  25. Topolsky is just an Android fanboy. Yes, I said the word. He gets a boner over every Android device and has almost never admitted any faults with it even though iOS is superior in most ways. (Whether you go with Android or not, the “openness” of Android is a huge fault and any true fan of it should recognize them).

    He and his team have a huge double standard.

  26. Come on. Seriously.

    First of all, they mention it as a con in the review for the device. And it is a con. When almost all of the competition’s top end smartphone’s have LTE, and the iPhone 4S didn’t. It’s a con.

    There is no debating it. It was a con. Any sane person, reviewing the iPhone 4S in 2011, and comparing it to other similar devices would list a lack of LTE a con.

    It was a freaking con.

    Also, this article isn’t a review. When the review of the new Nexus 4 comes out, and it doesn’t list a lack of LTE as a con (which it surely will) then maybe you can have a little blogger huff and puff show. That hasn’t happened yet.

    In the meantime, what we do have , is an entire article. A big HUGE article covering why LTE isn’t on the phone. It’s not a defense. It’s a discussion. A discusson that should be had.

    One could come to the exact opposite conclusion that you have. That the true way to “defend” google here would have been just to skip the issue alltogether. Rather, instead what we have is an entire article dedicated to the issue.

    They are calling it out. They are talking about it. It’s a thing.

    I don’t know what more you can want.

    I think people take this stuff way to seriously.

    The google fanboys think the Verge is full of biased apple fanboys.

    The Microsoft fanboys think the Verge is full of biased MS bashers.

    The apple fanboys think the verge is a bunch of google/android fanboys who hate apple.

    The truth is none of these things. They are a collection of individuals with differing opinions, who attempt to cover these things from a more objective viewpoint.

    It’s almost as if people can’t handle when their news doesn’t come from a source that is 100% from their viewpoint.

  27. The Verge was extremely critical of the device, so I don’t get where you are coming from. They wrote: “Whether the fault lies more with carriers for forcing Google’s hand or with Google for refusing to work within the standard carrier model, the end result is a flagship phone that’s missing an essential flagship feature.”

  29. I didn’t realize The Verge had reviewed the Nexus 4. Can you point me to that review, the one where they list the pros and cons of it and avoided listing the obviously-disappointing lack of LTE as a con?

  30. Yes. Did you read the comment you replied to? The iPhone 4S was reviewed and it listed lack of LTE as a con. The Verge has not reviewed the Nexus 4 yet, but they have posted an article discussing Google’s reasoning for not including LTE in the Nexus 4. Please feel free to let us know when The Verge reviews the Nexus 4 and totally avoids calling out the lack of LTE as a con. Reasonable people will be waiting a long time for that, because there’s no way it happens.

  31. Or it may simply be that The Verge hasn’t actually reviewed the Nexus 4 yet, but they did post an article about Google’s reasoning behind leaving out LTE. When they review the phone, I’m betting the first bullet point in the con list will be “No LTE.” Come on people.

  32. Did you read the article I linked to?

    Here’s the sub heading:

    “Sometimes the only winning move is not to play”

    That makes it sound like they’re more than ok with the lack of LTE, as they say it’s the ‘only winning move’.

  33. Jim, I’m an Apple fan, but I’m really getting tired of seeing so many well-known and well-respected writers attack each other.

    Remember when The Verge reviewed the iPhone 4S in October 2011 and listed its lack of LTE support in the “Bad Stuff” column? I do.

    Remember when The Verge reviewed the Nexus 4 and gave its lack of lack of LTE a pass? I do . . . errr. Nevermind. I don’t. They haven’t reviewed it yet. But they did post an article talking about Google’s own issues with trying to design another LTE phone. So what?

    Maybe you should wait until we see what they say in their actual review before criticizing them.

  34. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t expect anyone other than Apple zealots to take him seriously. I’ve also noticed Gruber has become a little more critical of Apple since loopinsight took off. Maybe he took a look at what Jim is doing, saw a reflection in the mirror and thought “what the fuck?”.

  37. You can’t critize Jim in any way here without getting downvoted. When someone preaches as fervently as Jim does about the greatness and the glory of Apple, he’s bound to attract the loyalty of the blind faithful. And they don’t like seeing their leader questioned.

  38. Obviously I did, because I understand that the article is NOT a review of the phone. It’s Bohn’s and Patel’s story on what Google has reported for their reasoning to not include LTE. For crying out loud, even the headline of the story pokes fun at the phone for being slow. I think that subhead refers to Google “winning” in regards to the carriers. They’re bypassing them totally so they can push updates, and in doing so, they’re giving up LTE. Plain and simple.

    Regardless of how you interpret the subhead, did you find that Nexus 4 review on The Verge anywhere? I can’t seem to find it, or their list of cons, anywhere . . .

  39. I used 2GB on LTE and that included tethering, so… I guess you don’t need an unlimited plan.

  41. After reading the comments previous to this one, I’ve only this to say:

    A) Since when does three sentences constitute an “article?” Jim posted three brief sentences, which:

    B) Nowhere in Jim’s post above does he claim the the latest article at the Verge is a ‘Review’ – so I’m not sure where those comments are coming from.

    C) I read the article at the Verge; I didn’t get the impression they were ‘protecting’ Google. That being said, I’m surprised they didn’t drop the hammer on Google for having a non-LTE phone. But common sense tell you that Google surely wanted LTE on the Nexus 4, but the carrier’s don’t want a Google branded phone to be a big seller because it undermines their ability to screw their customers!

  43. But he did draw a direct comparison between The Verge’s review of the iPhone 4S and their story about the lack of LTE on the Nexus 4. That’s where the problem is. It’s crazy to think The Verge won’t call out that issue when it does actually review the phone.

  45. Yeah it blows my mind how so much weapons-grade stupid is slinging around there ATM. These commenters need to talk up these points like their immortal soul depends on it.

  46. They know their commenters, Jim. Probably get more clicks and traffic if they bash apple no matter what and protect google as well. They are – fickle at best.

  48. They’ve actually reviewed the Nexus 4 now and Lacks LTE is in the bad stuff column. It also got a lower review score than the iPhone 4S.

    So I don’t really see the problem. The iPhone 4S article was a “review”, whereas this was just a regular news post explaining why Google didn’t have LTE in the new phone.

  49. Yes this is very old by now but I came across it while looking for something else.

    And of course, now we know they did comment on it, extensively, we also need to consider the differences between these phones which someone mentioned above but was dismissed out pf hand. Both may have technically been ‘flagship’ phones at the time of launch but one cost $649 for the lowest storage option (16GB) at the time of launch, one cost $299 at the time of launch (again lowest storage option, 8GB in this case). Clearly these are not targeting quite the same market so it’s entirely reasonable even launching a year later that we might have different expectations of what to demand from our $649 phone versus the $299 one. (And please don’t bring nonsense subsidised prices in to the discussion.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *