Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Reports Refuses To Recommend Microsoft Surface Book 2 (betanews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Earlier in the year, the review group said that problems with reliability meant that it was impossible for it to recommend any Microsoft laptop or tablet. Now Consumer Reports says that this extends to the Surface Book 2, meaning that the device will not be recommended. Microsoft is likely to be similarly disappointed with Consumer Reports' statement about the Surface Book 2. Speaking to Benzinga, Consumer Reports' spokesperson James McQueen said: "We will evaluate the performance of the Microsoft Surface Book 2 once we get it into our labs next month for testing, but we will not be able to recommend it. Our decision to withhold our recommendation of all Microsoft laptops and tablets is still in effect."
They didn't change anything. Their stance is "We don't recommend Microsoft Hardware" (or there about). There is no change, and they announced they haven't changed. This is a non-story about a non-story.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
As long as they explain their reasoning, I think not recommending it at this time is a good alternative to waiting for a year's worth of repair data before publishing the review.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Not really. If Toyota releases a mid-range commuter car you can assume it will be reliable due to the company's history and that the vehicle is based on established technology. Likewise, if Ford releases a fuel-cell sports car, you can assume it will be less reliable.
Microsoft has a history of making shoddy hardware, and the fact that they've upgraded the latest model doesn't mean they get to start with a completely clean slate.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Not quite. They had specific reasons to not recommend Microsoft hardware, mainly it was reliability. Reliability is something that can change from product to product, especially when your previous product was panned.
Continuing with that same basis without actually testing a product is just setting fire to their credibility.
The real story here is that an organization that does professional reviews is unwilling to give a product an opportunity to convince them their preconceived notions regarding it are wrong.
An honest reviewer must always be willing to dismiss their preconceived notions regarding a product should the real thing either exceed or fail to live up to them. They need to be able to set aside their petty tribalism, their personal preferences, and any rumors they may have heard about the product, instead judging it based purely on what it actually is.
Pre-announcing your decision before you even have the product in your hands is a way of indicating that you're unwilling to do that. That you won't allow yourself to be convinced. That you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself. Why would anyone trust that reviewer?