TidBITS:
I found myself aggravated by this situation, though not through a desire to defend Apple nor to denigrate Consumer Reports, despite its history in leading the charge on the non-existent Antennagate issue back with the iPhone 4.
Rather, it’s the way in which CR failed to serve its readers, rather than how it interacted with Apple, that worries me. (CR is a subscription publication that also makes some material available to the general public at no cost.) By not revealing its test methods more fully in its original report or admitting that it should have done more work to exclude its setup as the reason for the results, I worry that CR’s actions reduce the credibility of all technology reporting and reviewing.
I agree with Fleishman. When CR found its results to be so out of whack with what would be expected, they should have held off publishing their results until they figured out the issue.
Consumer Reports has long shown a willingness to whore itself out over issues like this. Its infamous attempt (successful in the end) to get the Suzuki Samurai to roll over in brutal cornering killed that vehicle in the US while allowing CR to make a claim to a certain moral high ground that undoubtedly attracted a lot of subscribers.
On the other hand CR does publish good information. I’m a subscriber, but, for these reasons, often an ambivalent one. And I almost completely disregard their reviews of computing devices as I find them fundamentally flawed.
yes it’s silly because the scenario they were tested in is not an accurate representation of normal use. the bug was only hit in such a dramatic fashion due to the disabled cache and automation. the batteries weren’t defective. so because it was the test scenario, and obviously so, the responsible thing to do would have been to work with Apple first, before publishing, not after. instead they suggested the notebooks had defective batteries.
“non-existent Antennagate issue” God it’s just like a bad politician who repeats lies often enough until people believe it. The issue existed! It was somewhat overblown because only people who already had spotty reception was driven over the edge because the iPhone 4 had slightly weaker reception! Saying it was “nonexistent” is exactly the sort of FUD people should hate.
I think most people dismiss Antenna-gate because other phones at the time when tested the same way performed worse than the iPhone did, but the iPhone was the only one criticized for it.
Neither side comes out looking good. CR for precipitous reporting, Apple for not fixing known(?) bugs. CR should have held off. Apple’s mindset should be “every known bug that we don’t fix has the potential for damage to our reputation”.
Now we need a consumer reports for consumer reports. Just sayin’