Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Consumer Reports' Satisfied that iPhone 4S Fixes Antenna Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thank God. I can buy Apple phones again!
Why do people say this ? A lot of the media hype for the Antenna problem eventually led Apple to give us the 4S antenna which is much better than even my 3GS.
That is a good thing no ? I know I'm quite happy with the 4S' reception compared to my 3GS, I can't imagine what people with the 4 and in areas where the "death touch" issue occurred must've felt like.
Criticism received constructively leads to better products. Thank god for these publications that pushes vendors to make the products offered even better.
There was a problem with the antenna. Jobs knew about it, everyone did, but he did not allow them to coat it with clear as he felt it compromised the aesthetics, not as nice as the bare metal.
Jobs was indeed form over function in many instances. Its in the book.
CR gets it from all sides, especially with products like cars where emotion is involved. CR recommends Car A because it is reliable, gets good gas mileage and is highly rated for safety. People buy Car B because they like it better and claim CR doesn't know what they are doing.
Amazon ratings are great, but there are false ratings and just plain stupid ones. You have to read between the lines and figure out where some of these people are coming from. Some are written by real experts on the product and those are obvious, but that is what CR techs are, experts.
Jobs was indeed form over function in many instances. Its in the book.
CR gets it from all sides, especially with products like cars where emotion is involved. CR recommends Car A because it is reliable, gets good gas mileage and is highly rated for safety. People buy Car B because they like it better and claim CR doesn't know what they are doing.
Amazon ratings are great, but there are false ratings and just plain stupid ones. You have to read between the lines and figure out where some of these people are coming from. Some are written by real experts on the product and those are obvious, but that is what CR techs are, experts.
Because the media hype was totally out of proportion to the actual impact of the problem, and, in particular, CR response was, to some people, incompatible with their reputation for unbiased reviews.
This is idiotic. Most iPhone buyers are over 35. Grandpa is important because, apparently unlike a lot of MR readers, he uses his own money to buy his phone.
Computers are not something that were invented two weeks ago and that can only appreciated by college students. My 78 year old non-techie mom was using computers at work 20 years ago...and they weren't rare then.
I tend not to use CR for tech purchases (although I will glance at them). And they are hugely influential. Apple, unlike some MR posters, knows this. That's why Apple came out with an unprecedented press conference a couple of weeks after the 4 was released to address the antenna issue. (Something that they have *never* done before. Never). That's why Apple allowed longer returns and gave away free bumpers and free cases.
So, again, Apple seems to think that CR is a big deal. Apple conceded that the iPhone 4 had an antenna issue and addressed it with free bumpers and cases. And Apple fixed the problem with the next phone.
I'd say that's pretty influential.
Or hopping on the Apple media frenzy instead of maintaining your reputation of unbiased reviews is a bad thing and finding faults in Apple products is a good thing.
This is what Apple needs to do...
... to produce the top phone according to CR: Build iPhone 5 with a 5' screen (resolution and pixel density irrelevant), include 3D video and still capture at 1080p and make it download data using the yet to be defined 5G network standard. And make it waterproof to 30 ft. And make it auto-shrink, so it still fits in your pocket.
If CR falls for simple one-upmanship, CR won't be more useful to consumers than reading the spec sheet.
... to produce the top phone according to CR: Build iPhone 5 with a 5' screen (resolution and pixel density irrelevant), include 3D video and still capture at 1080p and make it download data using the yet to be defined 5G network standard. And make it waterproof to 30 ft. And make it auto-shrink, so it still fits in your pocket.
If CR falls for simple one-upmanship, CR won't be more useful to consumers than reading the spec sheet.
Yes, all the hype around the iPhone 4 may very well have contributed to Apple's decision to engineer a better antenna design without compromising the new features introduced with the iPhone 4. Benefits such as this, however, do not excuse poor reporting. Consumer Reports overplayed the iPhone 4 antenna issue and did not apply the same standard to other products.
I think Consumer Reports was justified in not recommending the iPhone 4 because of the antenna problem, it was a silly thing Apple should have fixed before it went into production.
Anyway, that's so 2010. iPhone 4S is a great phone for those that like iPhones
Anyway, that's so 2010. iPhone 4S is a great phone for those that like iPhones
How did they overplay it ? The issue was simple, the reporting was also. Put your finger at the proper spot and the signal drops. In certain areas, this meant going from 5 bars to 0 (as the 5 bars of signal representation covered a huge area of usuable signal).
I think a few people took it too personal and are overplaying the coverage because they felt Apple got attacked and feel a need to defend Apple.
Yeah, this CR validation is what Apple (and their customers) was waiting for.
No one gives a rat's ass.
No one gives a rat's ass.
And this happens with all phones, including the original iPhone. They were just part of the media hysteria.
The attenuation which occurred on the iPhone 4 was, at worst, slightly worse than a range of other phones (and there were actually plenty of phones with problems in that range). Regardless of the poor representation of signal strength Apple was using at the time (note that it was comparable to signal strength tiers used by many other phones as well) it did only cause a drop which, normally, could only result in a dropped call in areas with quite poor signal strength.
I had plenty of time to experiment with it myself in a poor signal strength and I can think of only a few occasions where it might have actually resulted in a dropped call (note that I actually lost fewer calls with my iPhone 4 than with my 3GS). It was also easily remedied with any of numerous cases. Consumer Reports chose to take an avenue of reporting which targeted the iPhone 4 with concern and testing that was not applied to a range of other phones, promoted this matter heavily, and even followed up with numerous additional reports on exactly this matter. It was ****** reporting. I don't really care about it personally, but I also don't care what they have to say about it because, as far as I can imagine, it became a pride thing for them, and may have initially been hyped because they knew it would attract significant publicity and attention.
No need to defend Apple. I'm as critical as anyone when I disagree with them (e.g. their initial vision of the 30/70 split on subscriptions and heavy-handed approach to it). And it is shortsighted to lump everyone who disagrees with Consumer Reports on this matter into a pool of people who are being defensive in defending Apple.
It does need to be pointed out that 1) there was a slightly greater signal strength drop in the iPhone 4 when you 'death gripped' it (not a natural way to hold the phone, though), and 2) the antenna attenuation could be achieved in an area of the phone where it was more natural for one to place their hands, thus it had a greater impact than it did on some other models where the antenna was in a slightly more convenient area. Conversely, there were numerous phones with worse problems, including some flagship Android smartphones.
Also conversely, it is overlooked that the outside antenna provided a better signal generally than most other phones, and this was lost in the equation during reporting.
It wasn't complete hysteria, but in sum it was hysteria.
Last edited:
My thoughts exactly...
Don't get me wrong I think Apple had an obligation to fix the problem but CR doesn't seem coherent at all..
How about they changed the phone that earned the top spot in their unbiased rating to "Not recommended" based on a problem that they did not attempt to quantify in relation to their standard antenna-based ratings or attempt to compare signal issues on other phones that they reviewed?
Reporting the simple issue wasn't the problem.
Last year, when covering the antennae, my iPhone 4 lost a bar or two; call quality was very good. I realize that this was my experience.
That iPhone has since been sold. For a short time, I had the 4s and the battery life was not as good as the 4. That iPhone, also, has been sold (for $ reasons only).
How can CR recommend the 4s with it's battery issues? Apple has admitted this. (I'm not saying it's not a good phone).
Consistency is lacking...
That iPhone has since been sold. For a short time, I had the 4s and the battery life was not as good as the 4. That iPhone, also, has been sold (for $ reasons only).
How can CR recommend the 4s with it's battery issues? Apple has admitted this. (I'm not saying it's not a good phone).
Consistency is lacking...
No - you're evidently a completely biased fanbot because you have Mac in your screen name.
I KID. I SWEAR!!!
(see - smiley face)As for "Antennagate" - I would say that some people feel it was overblown. But for those experiencing the issue and then being told it wasn't an issue (in essence being not only ignored when bringing it to their attention - but then just about chastised by Apple and this board for insinuating that there was a problem) it was hardly overblown.
And without the vocal minority(?) on this issue - there might not have been ANY antenna changes in the 4S. And from what I understand - people are experiencing a much better experience. So overblown or not - it took that much to have Apple go back to the drawing board.
If no one complained - or it was left to Steve's emails "just hold it different" - there might not have been any changes with the 4s.
----------
Well if Apple wants to assert that all phones have antenna issues - then anyone can assert that all phones have battery issues
I say this as a lifetime subscriber of Consumer Reports, Consumer Reports stopped being relevant years ago for just about everything. They were good when there was no internet, and no specialized reporting on different products. These days, they just don't measure up against most of the alternatives.
Consumer Reports uses flawed testing methodology and always has, but that used to be the only methodology available. Basically they get a single product and then test it however they think they can, then give it a score in various attributes. They don't, and can't, take into account individual variation between devices due to a single broken device. Most of their tests are highly subjective, and done in an unrepeatable fashion, based on the particular likes and dislikes of a single individual. They do not run tests over a long enough time to show long-term reliability or real world use.
Ultimately, Consumer Reports is unscientific and very subjective. Just because you hire engineers does not mean you're getting useful data and evaluating without bias. Nor does it indicate you have particular expertise and understanding of what you are reviewing in order to evaluate different products on an equal footing based on differing consumer need.
Consumer Reports does do some things right. I trust their safety ratings for vehicles (I don't know a lot of car websites that have their own crash test dummies). I trust they have accurate information about manufacturing costs and dealer costs, to help you negotiate with a car dealership (but that doesn't help you pick what model to buy, though). I trust they will properly analyze the sugar and fat contents of various ice creams (their food lab no doubt has the proper testing equipment to determine these things), and give a reasonable, if subjective, description of their tastes. I trust they'll give accurate, if simplistic, comparisons between different types of television screen technologies, camera lenses, or the difference between the three kinds of clothes washers (all of which I could find online easily enough). I will not, however, trust their individual brand or model recommendations for televisions, cameras, or washing machines in each of those categories.
For large appliances or technology purchases, and yes, even cars, I trust many different reviewers, from specific websites dedicated to discussing those products, backed up by thousands of ordinary customer experiences. I routinely see Consumer Reports getting things very, very wrong, recommending products that are universally reviled, and criticizing products for things ordinary customers don't care about or never encountered. Yes, there is self-selection bias, and only the most upset and most ecstatic customers will review a product online, but it's in those extremes you get a fairly accurate picture of what you can expect, both the good and the bad. For all the stuff in the middle, there are specialized product reviewers on specialized sites that have far more expertise in real-world use and the market as a whole.
The one thing Consumer Reports does really well is their yearly survey where they do actual, scientific, statistical analysis on a host of different product categories to determine reliability and customer satisfaction. This is the only way to do it, and Consumer Reports can tout their credentials in that. For everything else, there's specialized reviewers who know what the heck they're talking about, and the internet for long-term and real life use reviews from thousands of actual customers.
I've never found their single-test technology or appliance reviews all that insightful, in any category, and have thankfully always found much better reviews elsewhere. They're good to look at, just for brand information, but for specific models? Forget about it.
The iPhone 4 debacle was, quite simply, a desperate attempt at getting some attention to a dying business model of single expert reviews. Luckily, those days are behind us, and have been for many years. I'm sure it had very little impact, as will this new report on the 4S. I don't think they have an anti-Apple bias. They've always rated Apple products pretty highly, though they've never liked Apple's prices. This was, I'm quite certain, an editorial decision made for business and attention-seeking reasons. The bias was in wanting to get mentioned on TV and blogs a lot, and nothing more.
Consumer Reports will hopefully be around for many more years, and their own current efforts at pooling consumer data online may help them to achieve relevance again, but anyone relying solely on their reviews for information is a fool. A good starting point, yes, and a place to find a comprehensive list of models to see what's out there, but best taken with a grain of salt and always double-checked from the real experts and real consumers.
Again, this from a lifetime subscriber. Consumer Reports just isn't relevant anymore.
Consumer Reports uses flawed testing methodology and always has, but that used to be the only methodology available. Basically they get a single product and then test it however they think they can, then give it a score in various attributes. They don't, and can't, take into account individual variation between devices due to a single broken device. Most of their tests are highly subjective, and done in an unrepeatable fashion, based on the particular likes and dislikes of a single individual. They do not run tests over a long enough time to show long-term reliability or real world use.
Ultimately, Consumer Reports is unscientific and very subjective. Just because you hire engineers does not mean you're getting useful data and evaluating without bias. Nor does it indicate you have particular expertise and understanding of what you are reviewing in order to evaluate different products on an equal footing based on differing consumer need.
Consumer Reports does do some things right. I trust their safety ratings for vehicles (I don't know a lot of car websites that have their own crash test dummies). I trust they have accurate information about manufacturing costs and dealer costs, to help you negotiate with a car dealership (but that doesn't help you pick what model to buy, though). I trust they will properly analyze the sugar and fat contents of various ice creams (their food lab no doubt has the proper testing equipment to determine these things), and give a reasonable, if subjective, description of their tastes. I trust they'll give accurate, if simplistic, comparisons between different types of television screen technologies, camera lenses, or the difference between the three kinds of clothes washers (all of which I could find online easily enough). I will not, however, trust their individual brand or model recommendations for televisions, cameras, or washing machines in each of those categories.
For large appliances or technology purchases, and yes, even cars, I trust many different reviewers, from specific websites dedicated to discussing those products, backed up by thousands of ordinary customer experiences. I routinely see Consumer Reports getting things very, very wrong, recommending products that are universally reviled, and criticizing products for things ordinary customers don't care about or never encountered. Yes, there is self-selection bias, and only the most upset and most ecstatic customers will review a product online, but it's in those extremes you get a fairly accurate picture of what you can expect, both the good and the bad. For all the stuff in the middle, there are specialized product reviewers on specialized sites that have far more expertise in real-world use and the market as a whole.
The one thing Consumer Reports does really well is their yearly survey where they do actual, scientific, statistical analysis on a host of different product categories to determine reliability and customer satisfaction. This is the only way to do it, and Consumer Reports can tout their credentials in that. For everything else, there's specialized reviewers who know what the heck they're talking about, and the internet for long-term and real life use reviews from thousands of actual customers.
I've never found their single-test technology or appliance reviews all that insightful, in any category, and have thankfully always found much better reviews elsewhere. They're good to look at, just for brand information, but for specific models? Forget about it.
The iPhone 4 debacle was, quite simply, a desperate attempt at getting some attention to a dying business model of single expert reviews. Luckily, those days are behind us, and have been for many years. I'm sure it had very little impact, as will this new report on the 4S. I don't think they have an anti-Apple bias. They've always rated Apple products pretty highly, though they've never liked Apple's prices. This was, I'm quite certain, an editorial decision made for business and attention-seeking reasons. The bias was in wanting to get mentioned on TV and blogs a lot, and nothing more.
Consumer Reports will hopefully be around for many more years, and their own current efforts at pooling consumer data online may help them to achieve relevance again, but anyone relying solely on their reviews for information is a fool. A good starting point, yes, and a place to find a comprehensive list of models to see what's out there, but best taken with a grain of salt and always double-checked from the real experts and real consumers.
Again, this from a lifetime subscriber. Consumer Reports just isn't relevant anymore.
Last edited: