A better analogy would be that the Lexus didn't come with a cup-holder, but you can purchase an after-market one for $30. It's not a show stopper because there is a workaround. If the iPhone antenna did not improve reception by adding a case, then it would be a show stopper.
The tape trick seems to work for several tech sites. It was even on CNN this morning, so there must be a bit of merit to it, no? I don't have an iPhone 4 to test for myself, but I'll take several anecdotes for now.
It's a support forum. Does the CR article provide a fix? No. They lament that the device is unusable as a phone, even though there are easy fixes (a piece of tape, or a case).
Uh, CR isn't so respected in automotive circles. They are ridiculed for their undying affection for boring, often inferior Japanese econoboxes. Sometimes products are more than just a bunch of test numbers.
Well, CR could have said, "we can't recommend this phone unless you don't mind spending $25 or so on a case that you are most likely already going to buy anyway", if they love it so much. I guess CR has never heard of the term "work around", like using 1/4" of tape over the gap that fixes the problem.
What assholes modded you troll? Your post was organized very well and thoughtful. I think slashdot has jumped the "I don't agree with you so I'll mod you troll" shark.
And yes, Apple can moderate their forums however they want. It isn't censorship, it's good business. If Apple is bringing down bad reviews about its product from other sites it doesn't control, then yes, that's a problem.
I think if five cents worth of tape, or a $10-30 cover that most people buy anyway fixes the reception, than CR should caveat their "cannot recommend" label. That is if the rest of the phone is a good as they say it is.
I have a problem with "best". CR doesn't care what are the "best" because they don't test levels of goodness. They don't test intangibles and they don't test qualitatively, which are the two things that usually determine if one thing is better than another.
I love the "impartial" label when used with CR. Sure, they aren't slaves to the advertisers, but they do, you know, try to sell magazine subscriptions. They aren't public broadcasting (although that would be an intriguing magazine idea).
Yes. However, when it comes to intangibles, I don't give CR any value at all. They don't claim to test the intangibles either, so nothing against them. If you want quantitative with very small doses of qualitative, then CR is your rag. This is why they always recommend boring cars that enthusiast magazines wouldn't spend five minutes talking about.
...that someone who is too stupid to put a battery in the correct way round probably shouldn't be using an electronic device in the first place?
There needs to be an equivalent "Godwin Law" for the slashdot mentality to blame the user for being stupid.
It would be something like, "You are only authorized to operate a computer if you are deemed smart enough by a slashdot member with a 5-digit or lower id". Because only smart people benefit from the use of computers and electronics. Got it.
This is indeed an issue of the device, not the batteries. If all devices that used batteries would use the design concept of affordance, people wouldn't need a graphic to show them which way the batteries go--it would be patently obvious by the design of the battery slot, and they'd only fit in the proper direction.
And why in the hell does the Microsoft system spell checker not know the word affordance?
This is what qualifies as innovation these days in Redmond? They keep cranking out new (old) versions of Office, killed the Kin, offer a new (old) Xbox, and the Zune is still a non-factor. If they spent their time working on real innovation instead of 7th grade electronics projects, they might actually make some nice stuff.
Finding a minor flaw in something cannot, by rational logic, be categorized in the same breath as somebody being "not pleased" with it. Of all the things I own that are quite pleasing, all of them have minor flaws, for example.
Again, if the summary said "the majority of users found a problem" with the App story, then yes, that would be a factual statement, with varying levels of "problems". But it doesn't say that. It says the majority of people are "unhappy campers" and that "a majority aren't pleased". That is not a logical conclusion.
I'm not trying to defend Apple iStuff here at all. I'm merely pointing out the biased logic presented in the summary and in the article.
Just because a company dominates a segment doesn't imply monopoly or anti-competitive behavior. Maybe Apple has a 70% "multimedia" share because they have a 25 year track record of being the better multimedia-capable OS?
Slashdot Mirror
A better analogy would be that the Lexus didn't come with a cup-holder, but you can purchase an after-market one for $30. It's not a show stopper because there is a workaround. If the iPhone antenna did not improve reception by adding a case, then it would be a show stopper.
The tape trick seems to work for several tech sites. It was even on CNN this morning, so there must be a bit of merit to it, no? I don't have an iPhone 4 to test for myself, but I'll take several anecdotes for now.
1. Wow, that's pretty dickish.
2. No, the place to address it is on a non-apple site so it doesn't get taken down.
The problem with your analogy is that you stayed out of the store. These negative posts are inside the store.
It's a support forum. Does the CR article provide a fix? No. They lament that the device is unusable as a phone, even though there are easy fixes (a piece of tape, or a case).
Uh, CR isn't so respected in automotive circles. They are ridiculed for their undying affection for boring, often inferior Japanese econoboxes. Sometimes products are more than just a bunch of test numbers.
Well, CR could have said, "we can't recommend this phone unless you don't mind spending $25 or so on a case that you are most likely already going to buy anyway", if they love it so much. I guess CR has never heard of the term "work around", like using 1/4" of tape over the gap that fixes the problem.
What assholes modded you troll? Your post was organized very well and thoughtful. I think slashdot has jumped the "I don't agree with you so I'll mod you troll" shark.
And yes, Apple can moderate their forums however they want. It isn't censorship, it's good business. If Apple is bringing down bad reviews about its product from other sites it doesn't control, then yes, that's a problem.
I think if five cents worth of tape, or a $10-30 cover that most people buy anyway fixes the reception, than CR should caveat their "cannot recommend" label. That is if the rest of the phone is a good as they say it is.
I have a problem with "best". CR doesn't care what are the "best" because they don't test levels of goodness. They don't test intangibles and they don't test qualitatively, which are the two things that usually determine if one thing is better than another.
I love the "impartial" label when used with CR. Sure, they aren't slaves to the advertisers, but they do, you know, try to sell magazine subscriptions. They aren't public broadcasting (although that would be an intriguing magazine idea).
Yes. However, when it comes to intangibles, I don't give CR any value at all. They don't claim to test the intangibles either, so nothing against them. If you want quantitative with very small doses of qualitative, then CR is your rag. This is why they always recommend boring cars that enthusiast magazines wouldn't spend five minutes talking about.
I am not really sure what your price expectations are for the fastest videocard ever made...
My price expectation is that this thing will cost $150 in 18 months, just like every expensive video card that came before it.
Who cares? Maybe the millions of potential customers, for starters.
...that someone who is too stupid to put a battery in the correct way round probably shouldn't be using an electronic device in the first place?
There needs to be an equivalent "Godwin Law" for the slashdot mentality to blame the user for being stupid.
It would be something like, "You are only authorized to operate a computer if you are deemed smart enough by a slashdot member with a 5-digit or lower id". Because only smart people benefit from the use of computers and electronics. Got it.
This is indeed an issue of the device, not the batteries. If all devices that used batteries would use the design concept of affordance, people wouldn't need a graphic to show them which way the batteries go--it would be patently obvious by the design of the battery slot, and they'd only fit in the proper direction.
And why in the hell does the Microsoft system spell checker not know the word affordance?
...for version 1.1 thanks.
This is slashdot. Aren't you supposed to wait for the open-source version?
This is what qualifies as innovation these days in Redmond? They keep cranking out new (old) versions of Office, killed the Kin, offer a new (old) Xbox, and the Zune is still a non-factor. If they spent their time working on real innovation instead of 7th grade electronics projects, they might actually make some nice stuff.
However, as oft occurs with slashdotters, they will not admit a mistake, a misstep or that they were flat out wrong.
FTFY.
Again, you can make a case that "it's a minor problem" does not necessarily equate to unhappiness.
I think I'll just leave it at this.
Corporations are not subject to the conjecture of random slashdot guy, sorry.
Until Apple is charged with, and convicted of antitrust violations, they aren't monopolistic.
Or he could shave his head.
Leave Brittney alone!
Or frame someone by slipping them water from every country on the terrorist watchlist.
Small detail, but it still peeves me:
Countries aren't on the terrorist watch list, people are.
Countries are on the State Sponsors of Terror list.
Finding a minor flaw in something cannot, by rational logic, be categorized in the same breath as somebody being "not pleased" with it. Of all the things I own that are quite pleasing, all of them have minor flaws, for example.
Again, if the summary said "the majority of users found a problem" with the App story, then yes, that would be a factual statement, with varying levels of "problems". But it doesn't say that. It says the majority of people are "unhappy campers" and that "a majority aren't pleased". That is not a logical conclusion.
I'm not trying to defend Apple iStuff here at all. I'm merely pointing out the biased logic presented in the summary and in the article.
Just because a company dominates a segment doesn't imply monopoly or anti-competitive behavior. Maybe Apple has a 70% "multimedia" share because they have a 25 year track record of being the better multimedia-capable OS?