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.
Hands-On With the Reach79 Signal Boosting Case - Does It Work?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This post smells of trolling.
If they paid us for this piece, they didn't really get their money's worth since we basically said it works intermittently. Not a great endorsement.
MacRumors does not do paid product reviews or promotions and we received no compensation for writing this review. The Reach79 case was provided to us for testing purposes, as is common with reviews.
This makes no sense at all. Higher octane does absolutely nothing for a car that runs on 87. If a cars engine has high compression, it requires 91 or 93 or then engine may be damaged.
thanks for the article and going in depth. If you posted that it didn't work then people would say, "where is the evidence". YOu posted details and people say, "you got paid". Yikes....
Got mine and returned same day
I just received mine of Monday. By Monday afternoon, I already sent in the request for a return. Does absolutely nothing. Really, nothing.
Got my RA return auth on Tuesday and its gone so their return policy is good 2 go incase you want to venture out and try it yourself!
I just received mine of Monday. By Monday afternoon, I already sent in the request for a return. Does absolutely nothing. Really, nothing.
Got my RA return auth on Tuesday and its gone so their return policy is good 2 go incase you want to venture out and try it yourself!
And if you don't make that so clear that the majority of those reading are aware that it was given to you by the maker free of charge to review then you are in violation of FTC requirements. Might wanna look into that.
It all depends on where you live and visit. In the boonies Verizon and AT&T are probably better though.
And if you don't make that so clear that the majority of those reading are aware that it was given to you by the maker free of charge to review then you are in violation of FTC requirements. Might wanna look into that.
Trust me. No matter how well they spell out "We're doing this research for your benefit on our own dime," there's going to be someone who skips over that line and throws the same sort of fit you're describing.
Reviewers get products to test out all the time, usually borrowed. There's no legal requirement that says they need to specifically state in every single review they post that they were sent yet another press kit to objectively evaluate.
I've tried these types of cases before. They don't work. Sent everyone of them back for a refund.
After seeing the symbols at the bottom of the case, i first thought that was Klingon writing, then Hebrew, before finally figuring out that is supposed to read "R79"
Still gathering data? BS!
"... but the company is still in the process of gathering that kind of data."
Haha. In any real company, they'd already have internal powerpoint presentations with experimental results that they could quickly hack up for external use. At they very least, they should already know the numbers.
In fact what we have here is a bunch of pseudoscience being used to market snake oil.
"... but the company is still in the process of gathering that kind of data."
Haha. In any real company, they'd already have internal powerpoint presentations with experimental results that they could quickly hack up for external use. At they very least, they should already know the numbers.
In fact what we have here is a bunch of pseudoscience being used to market snake oil.
Occasional boost from 1 bar to 2 bars is fairly significant to a lot of people if it is true. As long as it doesnt reduce signal any significant percentage of the time, it doesnt need to always work if it sometimes turns no connection into a connection.
Hey I get free stuff non-stop for my website. I know that's how it works. From a week to take a new Porsche for a spin to free computers, everyone gets that stuff in exchange for reviews. The problem is meeting your FTC requirements. They do require that the majority of readers be able to tell you received the product for free or didn't pay for it with your own dime. If you aren't doing that, you're in violation and could be open to legal action. How you do that is totally up to you. Some sites do it. Others don't.
The guidelines have been recently revised but they're still crazy grey. They provide little to no guidance on what qualifies as disclosure. Each site must just read them and then do what they believe qualifies though consulting with a lawyer is highly recommended.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/fi...losure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf
Microcell / Femtocell
If your service sucks at just you house, as it does at mine, spend that same money on a microcell/femtocell.
I paid $75 for an AT&T Micro-Cell and it works great. (I haggled them down to 50% off the $150 price - I've heard some get them for free).
If your service sucks at just you house, as it does at mine, spend that same money on a microcell/femtocell.
I paid $75 for an AT&T Micro-Cell and it works great. (I haggled them down to 50% off the $150 price - I've heard some get them for free).
And there is a whole big part of the new requirements that you seem to be missing... The requirement to announce freebies only applies to the average blogger or reviewer - established review sites do not have to - the FTC's logic is that people trust established sites - I think MacRumors falls under this category.
Additionally, it is only required on positive reviews which the FTC see's as potentially sponsored or otherwise influenced by the freebie. As others have stated, this is more of a negative review than anything so they do not have to inform readers about receiving a freebie.
Lastly, as you state, the article does not say how the product was received, and the comments do not explicitly state they received it for free or not - you are making a huge assumption that they received it for free. exactly as you state - readers would have no reason to believe they got it for free unless they say - The FTC guidelines only state you have to put a disclaimer if you received a freebie - you do not have to put any disclaimer saying you did not receive it for free. So a more viable assumption would be that MacRumors paid for the case to review it - or borrowed it (the review does state they were in contact with the case makers - a rep may have been around during the testing and they were merely using the reps case).
No one at Mac Rumors thought of taking two identical iPhones with the same carrier and using one with the case and one without it? That way all you have to do is read the decibel levels from each phone at any given time to see if the case is helping?
Just orient the phones exactly the same when testing. Fairly close together but not blocking.
Maybe you want to try that again and give us the results? It would be cool to see a table of decibel readings for each side by side with a description of location.
Just orient the phones exactly the same when testing. Fairly close together but not blocking.
Maybe you want to try that again and give us the results? It would be cool to see a table of decibel readings for each side by side with a description of location.
... dont we bought this and even the package saids that it has cemicals that might cause cancer
[doublepost=1511759823][/doublepost]Dont buy this even their package states that this has cemicals that cause cancer