I looked for the booth at CES but it appeared to be a nonexistant number... beyond the numbering of anything else in the convention center. However, Gizmodo claimed to have found it and that the product was real. Looks like a CompactFlash card with some pins glued onto it, but hey, that's just me.
My #1 missed tech is the same as the #1 dot-com flop: Webvan. The interface, service, quality of merchandise... everything was top notch. (And of course, for $50 or $75 minimum, delivery was free.) Today's grocery delivery services, at $10 to $15, just aren't worth it. At the same time, my local Safeway is remodeling, with those construction lights on a string dangling through every aisle. It makes my want to commit suicide every Sunday.
PS Bonus points if you ever used CookExpress.com (hand-delivered u-cook-em gourmet meals in a kit), which was "officially" the first major dot-com to go under...
Here's MSN's real map of the Google campus... though you'll have to scroll right about 2 blocks. It's the complex with the little colored shapes in the courtyard... as seen when it was occupied by SGI (which now sublets the space to Google).
Hmm... how about basic hardware issues (like, my keyboard is broken, or i get random spots on my monitor) or OS issues (like, I lost my files, or why is the system slow at times)
You still aren't quite there: These problems can't be fixed via telephone. If your monitor is hosed, you need a new monitor. Telephone support can't be fairly tested with made up issues like "I have spots on my monitor." It has to be something they can legitimately address.
I'm sorry, please send URLs to reference where "their support has dropped catastrophically since then". You get broken links because you're not a subscriber. If you don't provide sources for assertions like this, they're effectively irrelevant.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm saying that IN OUR TESTING, Apple support has fallen dramatically since mid-2004, when both Consumer Reports and Mobile last tested them. Consumer Reports is frankly out of date. Yes, I am a subscriber. They have broken links because their website is busted. Email me if you want the specific linkage.
No, you should a) either have more raters, or specifically lay out your equation for determining your values. A good way some review sites do this is by segmenting their grade by sections (holdtime rating, knowledeability rating, friendliness, etc). That way, I can refigure what is important to me (ie, knowledgeable reps are usually not an issue, if they are professional and actually listen to me).
Good idea (at least the equation part -- having more testers is a resources issue), we'll consider it for next year. We may also do a reader poll to supplement our testing, so we can better see if our results match up with other's experiences.
Howdy, I'm the editor in chief of Mobile Magazine and some of your complaints have a bit of merit, and obviously we'd love to do an even better job of this next year. But keep in mind these issues:
1) It is extrememly hard to "break" a computer in such a way that it is a) fixable via phone and b) something that could conceivably be blamed on the computer and not, say, a third-party application. What problems would you suggest we introduce?
2) Given the simplicity of the problems we presented, we would expect ANY entry-level rep to be able to fix the problem without concern for, say, how our router was configured -- which was irrelevant. Is this valid?
3) You have to create different problems for Apple. There's just no way around it. The Mac problem IS a real problem -- it was based on a problem our art director had only a few months earlier.
4) Remember that a huge part of the equation is time spent on hold, general knowledgeability of the tech, and other qualitative information.
5) Consumer Reports gave Apple its high rating in June 2004 (if I'm reading their website properly... it has some broken pages). Last year we also gave Apple high marks, but their support has dropped catastrophically since then.
Finally, to correct your post: It was 3 calls per vendor, not 1 call with 3 problems. We tried back on different days and at different times.
Rating tech support is a real can of worms. Do you rely on surveys like PC Magazine, which are painfully easy for vendors to manipulate and ballot-stuff? In rating 10 companies, our writer spent some 13 hours on the phone making 30 calls. Should he have spent 130 hours making 300 calls? You'd be shocked how similar the experience you'll find in one call to the next even in just the 3 calls. I have little doubt that the next 7 calls would be just as terrible for our losers.
Is it a perfect system? No, but given our resources, time constraints, and the realities of life, it works extremely well. I stand by the story.
I should have noted that in the last few weeks, casual online searching has revealed that numerous people have the exact same problem -- that the fan on the Maytag is made of cheap plastic and is prone to breaking. So while I understand that CR did not experience a problem (and they obviously don't let fridges run for a year before reporting on them), they should have noted that the parts on this model are substandard.
My point here is not to blame them for my refrigerator problem, just to note that their "independence" does not make them some untouchable pillar of wisdom.
How timely! I bought a Maytag refrigerator based on it being at the top of the Consumer Reports ratings. Guess what broke down two weeks after the end of the one-year warranty? $130 in repair charges later, I now have the assurance of another good year of operation and a 90-day guarantee to back that up.
Just because you don't pay for the product doesn't automatically make your review any better, more accurate, or more honest than those who use vendors. Full disclosure: I don't pay to see the movies we review at filmcritic.com, and Mobile magazine (www.mobilemagazine.com) is a traditional computer magazine that relies on advertising and product loans from vendors. (Would YOU rather pay $40 a year for your subscription or $10?) And yet Mobile is one of the toughest critics on the market (Iomega won't return our calls) and I personally have one of the harshest average critics' ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.
Magazines and websites that provide preferential treatment to advertisers and graft-givers are an epic problem, but it is one which should be self-correcting. If you believe a site is lying to you, simply stop visiting that site. It's not that hard to tell who's in the pocket of hardware companies or -- in the case of movie gossip sites -- who's been co-opted by the studios. Just don't support them.
By that rationale, one could argue that Solitaire teaches logic skills, that playing Quake teaches hand-eye coordination, that shopping teaches money management, and that gambling teaches lessons in probability. Sure, there's value in all of these things (and in the socialization picked up by smoking), but ultimately that's not what you're getting paid to do all day -- ESPECIALLY at the IRS!
Exactly -- this is one of those proof of concept patents that might eventually turn into something that actually shows up in a commercial product in a wildly different form. But no one would buy crippled cameras like these -- it's like flamebait from the patent office. Ignore it.
You know, cell phones are allowed on busses, trains, subways, and just about every other form of public transportation -- and I've never noticed a problem of the level people continue to be worried about. In fact, I've found that the roar of the engines drowns out any (non-baby-originated) conversation farther than one seat away anyway.
One Miss America finalist about 10-15 years ago was asked this question in the all-important interview segment. Obviously unprepared, she spent the first 45 seconds of her 1-minute response repeating the question and exclaiming that nuclear waste was an important issue before finally stating with complete confidence, "We should shoot it into the sun, or bury it under the ocean."
Slashdot Mirror
You know perfectly well that this IS my job, Neil.
the last guy with this problem got similar responses
I looked for the booth at CES but it appeared to be a nonexistant number... beyond the numbering of anything else in the convention center. However, Gizmodo claimed to have found it and that the product was real. Looks like a CompactFlash card with some pins glued onto it, but hey, that's just me.
linky
Ha -- "Linux" itself lacks an obvious pronunciation -- which is still commonly messed up.
I find this story 83% Interesting and 9% Funny.
My #1 missed tech is the same as the #1 dot-com flop: Webvan. The interface, service, quality of merchandise... everything was top notch. (And of course, for $50 or $75 minimum, delivery was free.) Today's grocery delivery services, at $10 to $15, just aren't worth it. At the same time, my local Safeway is remodeling, with those construction lights on a string dangling through every aisle. It makes my want to commit suicide every Sunday.
PS Bonus points if you ever used CookExpress.com (hand-delivered u-cook-em gourmet meals in a kit), which was "officially" the first major dot-com to go under...
Here's MSN's real map of the Google campus... though you'll have to scroll right about 2 blocks. It's the complex with the little colored shapes in the courtyard... as seen when it was occupied by SGI (which now sublets the space to Google).
Google won't be competing with Paypal but with the US Dollar by introducing an entirely new currency. Googlebucks, anyone?
Hmm... how about basic hardware issues (like, my keyboard is broken, or i get random spots on my monitor) or OS issues (like, I lost my files, or why is the system slow at times)
You still aren't quite there: These problems can't be fixed via telephone. If your monitor is hosed, you need a new monitor. Telephone support can't be fairly tested with made up issues like "I have spots on my monitor." It has to be something they can legitimately address.
I'm sorry, please send URLs to reference where "their support has dropped catastrophically since then". You get broken links because you're not a subscriber. If you don't provide sources for assertions like this, they're effectively irrelevant.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm saying that IN OUR TESTING, Apple support has fallen dramatically since mid-2004, when both Consumer Reports and Mobile last tested them. Consumer Reports is frankly out of date. Yes, I am a subscriber. They have broken links because their website is busted. Email me if you want the specific linkage.
No, you should a) either have more raters, or specifically lay out your equation for determining your values. A good way some review sites do this is by segmenting their grade by sections (holdtime rating, knowledeability rating, friendliness, etc). That way, I can refigure what is important to me (ie, knowledgeable reps are usually not an issue, if they are professional and actually listen to me).
Good idea (at least the equation part -- having more testers is a resources issue), we'll consider it for next year. We may also do a reader poll to supplement our testing, so we can better see if our results match up with other's experiences.
Howdy, I'm the editor in chief of Mobile Magazine and some of your complaints have a bit of merit, and obviously we'd love to do an even better job of this next year. But keep in mind these issues:
1) It is extrememly hard to "break" a computer in such a way that it is a) fixable via phone and b) something that could conceivably be blamed on the computer and not, say, a third-party application. What problems would you suggest we introduce?
2) Given the simplicity of the problems we presented, we would expect ANY entry-level rep to be able to fix the problem without concern for, say, how our router was configured -- which was irrelevant. Is this valid?
3) You have to create different problems for Apple. There's just no way around it. The Mac problem IS a real problem -- it was based on a problem our art director had only a few months earlier.
4) Remember that a huge part of the equation is time spent on hold, general knowledgeability of the tech, and other qualitative information.
5) Consumer Reports gave Apple its high rating in June 2004 (if I'm reading their website properly... it has some broken pages). Last year we also gave Apple high marks, but their support has dropped catastrophically since then.
Finally, to correct your post: It was 3 calls per vendor, not 1 call with 3 problems. We tried back on different days and at different times.
Rating tech support is a real can of worms. Do you rely on surveys like PC Magazine, which are painfully easy for vendors to manipulate and ballot-stuff? In rating 10 companies, our writer spent some 13 hours on the phone making 30 calls. Should he have spent 130 hours making 300 calls? You'd be shocked how similar the experience you'll find in one call to the next even in just the 3 calls. I have little doubt that the next 7 calls would be just as terrible for our losers.
Is it a perfect system? No, but given our resources, time constraints, and the realities of life, it works extremely well. I stand by the story.
CN
"Someone at Time is OLD!" LOL
I should have noted that in the last few weeks, casual online searching has revealed that numerous people have the exact same problem -- that the fan on the Maytag is made of cheap plastic and is prone to breaking. So while I understand that CR did not experience a problem (and they obviously don't let fridges run for a year before reporting on them), they should have noted that the parts on this model are substandard.
My point here is not to blame them for my refrigerator problem, just to note that their "independence" does not make them some untouchable pillar of wisdom.
How timely! I bought a Maytag refrigerator based on it being at the top of the Consumer Reports ratings. Guess what broke down two weeks after the end of the one-year warranty? $130 in repair charges later, I now have the assurance of another good year of operation and a 90-day guarantee to back that up.
Just because you don't pay for the product doesn't automatically make your review any better, more accurate, or more honest than those who use vendors. Full disclosure: I don't pay to see the movies we review at filmcritic.com, and Mobile magazine (www.mobilemagazine.com) is a traditional computer magazine that relies on advertising and product loans from vendors. (Would YOU rather pay $40 a year for your subscription or $10?) And yet Mobile is one of the toughest critics on the market (Iomega won't return our calls) and I personally have one of the harshest average critics' ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.
Magazines and websites that provide preferential treatment to advertisers and graft-givers are an epic problem, but it is one which should be self-correcting. If you believe a site is lying to you, simply stop visiting that site. It's not that hard to tell who's in the pocket of hardware companies or -- in the case of movie gossip sites -- who's been co-opted by the studios. Just don't support them.
Christopher Null
Editor in Chief
Mobile PC
By that rationale, one could argue that Solitaire teaches logic skills, that playing Quake teaches hand-eye coordination, that shopping teaches money management, and that gambling teaches lessons in probability. Sure, there's value in all of these things (and in the socialization picked up by smoking), but ultimately that's not what you're getting paid to do all day -- ESPECIALLY at the IRS!
CN, anti-smoking crusader
I had a feeling you were going to post this.
Can I pay them to STOP making Star Trek crap?
Try this one on... Asshat parker
Exactly -- this is one of those proof of concept patents that might eventually turn into something that actually shows up in a commercial product in a wildly different form. But no one would buy crippled cameras like these -- it's like flamebait from the patent office. Ignore it.
No need to settle for 2nd best. Educate your paranoia! The correct quote is:
"Shall we play a game?"
One word: iPod.
You know, cell phones are allowed on busses, trains, subways, and just about every other form of public transportation -- and I've never noticed a problem of the level people continue to be worried about. In fact, I've found that the roar of the engines drowns out any (non-baby-originated) conversation farther than one seat away anyway.
One Miss America finalist about 10-15 years ago was asked this question in the all-important interview segment. Obviously unprepared, she spent the first 45 seconds of her 1-minute response repeating the question and exclaiming that nuclear waste was an important issue before finally stating with complete confidence, "We should shoot it into the sun, or bury it under the ocean."
Lovin' it.
no way, dude!