Apple's New MacBook Air Tops 'Consumer Reports' Ratings

[KnightWRX]

The problem with CR on the iPhone is that they added new criteria based on stuff they became aware of through the media.

No, they changed their recommendation status based on additional tests they did, like you yourself claim. They specifically said at first that they hadn't had the issue, but they were testing in a closed environment on a simulated cellular network and the issue only showed up when they got into the field.

They at first didn't buy in to the media "frenzy", claiming they couldn't reproduce the issue. This was already some time after the story had broke.

CR were very consistent in their handling of the iPhone 4 issue and still are. Apple hasn't fixed the problem, they can't change their recommendation status. Apple will never fix the problem at this point, so it is what it is.

 

[sjo]

Despite some reports of display issues with the new MacBook Air, the notebook does seem to be proving relatively popular, generating significant buzz and demand appearing to force Apple to bump shipping estimates for the entry-level 11-inch model slightly to 1-3 business days.

Wasn't that the case with the original MBA as well? It was extremely popular for a quarter or so, then the stiff pricing and lackluster hardware caused it to fall out of grace...

 

[bobr1952]

I always take Consumer Reports' computer and electronics ratings with a grain of salt... even if I happen to agree with them.

They are much better at rating dishwashers and blenders.

I don't really consider them techie enough for my tastes--same with autos as far as performance issues and drivability are concerned.

 

[Small White Car]

CR were very consistent in their handling of the iPhone 4 issue and still are.

No, 'consistent' would have been to apply a number to the issue and rank it against other phones.

Tell me that the iPhone is a "6" on some bad scale while the Blackberry is a "2." Or is it 6 to 5? Or 100 to 2? I have no idea because CR didn't think that mattered. They just gave it a failing grade without giving me any context.

And context is pretty much the only reason to read CR in the first place! So what am I there for if they're not going to compare things?

That was my problem with the whole thing.

 

[KnightWRX]

No, 'consistent' would have been to apply a number to the issue and rank it against other phones.

So you're saying they should have changed their testing methodology which didn't include such a test in the first place to then lower the score of the iPhone 4 ?

I think you need to look up what consistent means.

 

[dmelgar]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8B117)

Looks like CR finally got something right. Doesn't excuse their stand on the iPhone, however: tops on their list but "do not recommend.". LOL I guess Apple's figures from last quarter put that nonsense to bed right quick.

Consume reports calls it like a non-Apple fanboy would see it.

The Macbook Air is a great product. Praise it.

The iPhone 4 has a seriously flawed design. Can't recommend it.

All Apple products don't have to be perfect to like their other products.

 

[Small White Car]

I think you need to look up what consistent means.

I said they should have subjected all phones to the same tests.

I don't understand how that's not consistent.

 

[Swift]

Exactly the first thing I thought about. Will "MacRumors" go wild with praise for Consumer Reports or will people stick to what they said last summer about Consumer Reports being a meaningless rag.

Frankly, I will think of Consumer Reports as I always did: great in things like toasters and washing machines, less reliable in things like stereos and other things in which esthetics and personal taste play a part. They warned me against buying my stereo, ten years ago. I love it. They "can't recommend" the iPhone 4. I "can't recommend" that review. It's useful, but use your own judgment.

 

[KnightWRX]

I said they should have subjected all phones to the same tests.

I don't understand how that's not consistent.

Changing their testing and scoring methodology would have not been consistent unless they had gone back and re-tested every phone which might not even be possible, depending on if they still had all the testing units or not. It's much simpler to simply say that in light of the issues, while the phone scores the most point, it is not recommended for purchase until Apple addresses the issue.

That is very consistent.

less reliable in things like stereos and other things in which esthetics and personal taste play a part.

I don't buy electronics based on esthetics. I don't know any sane person that does either.

 

[Swift]

Why? Because you know something about computers?

Do you know anything about dishwashers? What about hardwood flooring? Lawn tractors? Counter surfaces? Pharmaceuticals?

The arrogance which people demonstrate on forums like this is hilarious. There isn't a single person on this forum or any other that is an expert on everything that CR covers.

To say nothing of the arrogance of people who love coming to MacRumors and act as if they know anything about anything.

 

[Small White Car]

It's much simpler to simply say...

I'm saying what they should have done.

It's nice that you want to be nice to them and find the easiest way to do it, but that doesn't really mean anything. If I don't do something at work I get critisized for that, even if I were to say "it was hard."

Ok, so as you say, maybe they couldn't do it. Then that's what I'm critisizing...the fact that a magazine that tests things couldn't actually test things.

I think that's a fair thing to point out.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm saying what they should have done.

Ok, so as you say, maybe they couldn't do it. Then that's what I'm critisizing...the fact that a magazine that tests things couldn't actually test things.

Except we're not talking about testing things, you are asking them to re-test everything they have tested previously in that category in order to give out consistent results.

That means having to track down many test units and re-running the tests on them and re-scoring them. If they can't find all the test units or if these units have up to date firmwares, then you introduce inconsistencies. What they did was the most consistent thing they could. You can argue all you want that it came out weird, but it was not even close to inconsistent.

 

[Small White Car]

You can argue all you want that it came out weird

There was nothing wrong with the iPhone 4 results. They were just useless.

CR: The i4 is worse at this particular thing.
Public: How much worse?
CR: I dunno...just guess.

How is that useful? What if they said the screen on the i4 was "better" without talking about resolution or brightness? Would that be useful? Or would it be annoying to be told something without being told what it really means?

 

[Swift]

I don't buy electronics based on esthetics. I don't know any sane person that does either.

I do. For instance, if a certain stereo is judged to be "airy" by some reviewer, what does that matter? I listened to several, preferred the sound of X, and bought that one, though it wasn't the highest rated, nor was it the BEST BUY. I auditioned Consumer Reports picks. But to my ears, X sounds best in a package I could afford. I've still got it, and I'm pleased.

Judging by Apple's sales, esthetics is a major contributing factor in the way REAL people buy electronics. Oh, I know, the iPad is not a laptop. You can do more for cheaper (theoretically) with a netbook. For certain use cases, a laptop is what you need. For others, a netbook might suffice, though sales figures seem to show that a good number of people prefer the iPad to either a laptop or a netbook, and some use an iPad as a supplemental machine. If your needs aren't for an iPad, buy something else. You need a hard drive for storage, and you don't mind the short battery life, the tiny keyboard, and the overall cheapness of the thing. Fine. It's also cheap enough that you could buy a replacement quickly, which you might have to do.

What is arrogant about your standards is that you think what you want is rational, and what others want is not.

 

[shartypants]

surprised they didn't find something wrong with it. did they ever lift their can't-recommend-iphone4?

 

[scarletbiro]

It looks so impressive that I am thinking of getting one, maybe as a second laptop.

I've already done this (bought the maxed-out 11.6", which is fantastic, BTW). I'm having trouble justifying keeping my old laptop, although I'd like to, because it's a really nice machine. Do many people keep a second laptop? Is there any practical reason or just because you want to? I'm leaning toward selling it (13" MBP) at this point, but it makes me sad.

 

[KnightWRX]

I do. For instance, if a certain stereo is judged to be "airy" by some reviewer, what does that matter? I listened to several, preferred the sound of X, and bought that one, though it wasn't the highest rated, nor was it the BEST BUY. I auditioned Consumer Reports picks. But to my ears, X sounds best in a package I could afford. I've still got it, and I'm pleased.

Audio quality is not esthetics. Esthetics is purely physical appearance. If you bought the stereo based on which sounded better to you, you didn't buy it based on esthetics.

People don't buy electronics based on how they look, but usually based on price and what they do. Like your example, for stereos, they buy what they can afford that sounds better to them in the store.

 

[Swift]

I don't really consider them techie enough for my tastes--same with autos as far as performance issues and drivability are concerned.

That's quite true. If you're really knowledgable about one field, they come to some pretty odd conclusions. Some of the stereos considered as a "BEST BUY" I would consider really ugly, mid-level junk. They're purposely mass market, which has pluses and minuses.

I take them as a guide, but with a grain of salt.

 

[radiotech]

MacBook Air and Consumer Reports

There's bound to be some confusion here...

The December 2010 copy of Consumer Reports print edition landed in my mailbox yesterday. It includes ratings of desktops, netbooks, laptops, reliability, tech support and 'best places to buy.'

The MacBook Air MC233LL/A (almost certainly a previous generation model, but Apple product generations can be a real pain to keep track of) is included in the ratings as an 11- to 13-inch laptop. It doesn't fare so well -- sixth (score of 59) in a field of eight (scores of 57 to 73).

The CU website rates the (apparently newest) MacBook Air models -- MC505LL/A (11-inch) and MC505LL/A (13-inch) tops in their respective categories.

I would bet that for the majority of people who rely on Consumer Reports the print issue will be the rating of record until a new evaluation appears in print.

 

[Mike84]

What did consumer reports say about the previous macbook air?

 

[StefSSU]

Well of course it does. Hasn't anyone heard of density?

 

[Swift]

Audio quality is not esthetics. Esthetics is purely physical appearance. If you bought the stereo based on which sounded better to you, you didn't buy it based on esthetics.

No esthetics? Don't be ridiculous. A certain amp has certain characteristics. Which one you like is more a matter of the way it makes your kind of music sound. Sure, you can read a whole list of specs, but it comes down to how it made that piece you love sound. That's esthetics.

People don't buy electronics based on how they look, but usually based on price and what they do. Like your example, for stereos, they buy what they can afford that sounds better to them in the store.

And you've gone to each and every consumer on the market, and you know?

Sure, price plays a part. But there are speakers that specialize on having a thuddy base for heavy rock, which I can't stand because they make the midrange muddy. A rocker might buy them. I won't. That's esthetics. The standard crap that gives you a home theater in a box for $400-$500? Junk. Yes, bullets fire from all over the room. But cymbals may sound too swishy, and lack a clear image. There's price, and stats, and beauty. All of them are factors in a purchase.

 

[KnightWRX]

No esthetics? Don't be ridiculous. A certain amp has certain characteristics. Which one you like is more a matter of the way it makes your kind of music sound. Sure, you can read a whole list of specs, but it comes down to how it made that piece you love sound. That's esthetics.

No, esthetics is that blue led in front or that buttons shape or the color of the unit. Sound quality is sound quality. While it may be subjective, not all subjective characteristics are esthetic characteristics.

Sure, price plays a part. But there are speakers that specialize on having a thuddy base for heavy rock, which I can't stand because they make the midrange muddy. A rocker might buy them. I won't. That's not esthetics.

Fixed. Again, look up what the word means.

 

[gnasher729]

No, esthetics is that blue led in front or that buttons shape or the color of the unit. Sound quality is sound quality. While it may be subjective, not all subjective characteristics are esthetic characteristics.

Blue LED lights on a TV can make it an immediate no-buy and not because of aesthetics. A TV that goes into a bedroom needs to be completely dark when turned off.

 

[tbrinkma]

Except we're not talking about testing things, you are asking them to re-test everything they have tested previously in that category in order to give out consistent results.

That means having to track down many test units and re-running the tests on them and re-scoring them. If they can't find all the test units or if these units have up to date firmwares, then you introduce inconsistencies. What they did was the most consistent thing they could. You can argue all you want that it came out weird, but it was not even close to inconsistent.

Consistent: Running the same set of tests against the entire batch of products being reported on and using those results to compare those products.

Inconsistent: Running the same set of tests against the entire batch of products, except adding an additional test against a single product and reporting on those results in a vacuum.

They went back after the fact and added a test for *one* product out of the entire set. That is inconsistent. Had they done the same test for *all* products in the set it would have been consistent. The "most consistent thing they could have done" would be to either not add the additional test for any products, or to add it for all of them. Doing it to *some* is inconsistent.

Frankly, it wasn't just inconsistent, it was sloppy.