Alan Browne

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/consumer-reports-no-antenna-gate-for-iphone-4s/2011/11/08/gIQAVz7a0M_story.html>

Thumbs up - but score Galaxy S II, Droid Bionic and other as better
smartphones based on spec and features.

They 'cleared' the antenna (special attention paid) and also did not
note any battery drain issues despite special attention to that as well
due to the recent reports in that area.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Michelle Steiner

In article <uqSdnXiuXr1twSTTnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Thumbs up - but score Galaxy S II, Droid Bionic and other as better
> smartphones based on spec and features.

Although I generally respect Consumer Reports, I take into consideration
that their criteria does not always correspond with mine.

For example, those other phones scored higher because they have a larger
screen and run on 4G networks. The larger screen is not important to me
because the Retina Display on the iPhone gives a clearer display. The
tradeoffs for having 4G with the current 4G technology are a heavier phone,
and shorter battery life because of the added current drain caused by the
need for separate chips for 4G data and for voice.

Also the CU article does not address the multitouch features of the phones,
and Apple's is far more advanced than the Droid phones' multitouch features.

And there is also the infrastructure thats centered on the phone; they
don't discuss that at all.

So, as with cars and computers, you first have to decide what features are
important to you, and go from there.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Doug Anderson

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:

> In article <uqSdnXiuXr1twSTTnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > Thumbs up - but score Galaxy S II, Droid Bionic and other as better
> > smartphones based on spec and features.
>
> Although I generally respect Consumer Reports, I take into consideration
> that their criteria does not always correspond with mine.

Yes, and one has to do that with Consumer Reports. In their best
reports, they are very clear about their criteria, which is really
helpful because then you have the information you need to interpret
the criteria.

For example, they were not so keen on the iPhone 4 because the antenna
issues made it not the best phone for making phone calls!

Typical cell phone usage for me is about one short phone call per day,
so that would not have discouraged me.

I do see where if you are going to spend a lot of time watching video
on your phone, the largest possible screen size is probably more
important than the sharpest image.

Davoud

Alan Browne:
> > Thumbs up - but score Galaxy S II, Droid Bionic and other as better
> > smartphones based on spec and features.

Michelle Steiner:
> Although I generally respect Consumer Reports, I take into consideration
> that their criteria does not always correspond with mine.

They should stick with toasters and vacuum cleaners.

My favorite: The Mazda Miata (many years ago) is small, noisy, and has
limited headroom.

1 & 2, small and noisy: That's why we buy 2-passenger roadsters.

3, headroom. You measured the distance to the end of the Universe, did
you?

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

nospam

In article <michelle-F0F852.13093508112011@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Thumbs up - but score Galaxy S II, Droid Bionic and other as better
> > smartphones based on spec and features.
>
> Although I generally respect Consumer Reports, I take into consideration
> that their criteria does not always correspond with mine.

whenever i read one of their reviews about products with which i am
familiar, i can't help but wonder what the hell were they thinking. i'm
sure that isn't restricted to just those products either. i bet people
who know a lot about washer/dryers or refrigerators would find those
reviews to be bizarre too.

as for the iphone,
<http://gizmodo.com/iphone-4s/>

"Other phones that topped the iPhone 4S include the LG Thrill ($100
on AT&T), which has the ability to capture stills and videos in 3D"

OK, Galaxy, sure‹but the Bionic? And a bloody LG Thrill? The fact
that LTE and god damn 3D screens were weighted enough to oust the
iPhone seems off. Putting a handset whose chief quality is shitty
glasses-free 3D among the best possible phones in the world seems
just as ludicrous as Consumer Reports not recommending its #1 pick.

Your Name

In article <081120111634240169%star@sky.net>, aaa@bbb.ccc wrote:
> Michelle Steiner:
> > Although I generally respect Consumer Reports, I take into consideration
> > that their criteria does not always correspond with mine.
>
> They should stick with toasters and vacuum cleaners.
>
> My favorite: The Mazda Miata (many years ago) is small, noisy, and has
> limited headroom.
>
> 1 & 2, small and noisy: That's why we buy 2-passenger roadsters.
>
> 3, headroom. You measured the distance to the end of the Universe, did
> you?

An intelligent person would realise they meant with the roof up. :-\

salgud

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:33:22 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> In article <081120111634240169%star@sky.net>, aaa@bbb.ccc wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner:
>>> Although I generally respect Consumer Reports, I take into consideration
>>> that their criteria does not always correspond with mine.
>>
>> They should stick with toasters and vacuum cleaners.
>>
>> My favorite: The Mazda Miata (many years ago) is small, noisy, and has
>> limited headroom.
>>
>> 1 & 2, small and noisy: That's why we buy 2-passenger roadsters.
>>
>> 3, headroom. You measured the distance to the end of the Universe, did
>> you?
>
> An intelligent person would realise they meant with the roof up. :-\

Rubbish!

salgud

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:09:35 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <uqSdnXiuXr1twSTTnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Thumbs up - but score Galaxy S II, Droid Bionic and other as better
>> smartphones based on spec and features.
>
> Although I generally respect Consumer Reports, I take into consideration
> that their criteria does not always correspond with mine.
>
> For example, those other phones scored higher because they have a larger
> screen and run on 4G networks. The larger screen is not important to me
> because the Retina Display on the iPhone gives a clearer display. The
> tradeoffs for having 4G with the current 4G technology are a heavier phone,
> and shorter battery life because of the added current drain caused by the
> need for separate chips for 4G data and for voice.
>
> Also the CU article does not address the multitouch features of the phones,
> and Apple's is far more advanced than the Droid phones' multitouch features.
>
> And there is also the infrastructure thats centered on the phone; they
> don't discuss that at all.
>
> So, as with cars and computers, you first have to decide what features are
> important to you, and go from there.

My experience over the years with Consumer Reports is that the more I know
about whatever they're reviewing, the less likely I am to agree with their
recommendation. Not that there's is wrong and mine is right, but the more I
know about something, the more likely I am to have strong preferences based
on brand name, past experiences, and the features that I most desire in
that kind of device. Their criteria are generic, mine, very specific, so
they won't be the same.

Such is the case with cell phones. If you compare a high-end Adroid with an
iPhone feature for feature, with no bias as to which features matter most,
the Androids will win. They have more "features". If you compare based on
your own personal biases, and you're biased toward Apple, or the overall
experience of the device, and you value quality of construction highly, the
Apple will win. It all depends on your priorities.

Certainly, if you value the panache, no contest. And, I admit, I do. I
don't value panache over quality, so I eschew things with a lot of panache
that are poorly made or overpriced, but Apple products are neither. They
are a little more expensive, but more than worth the price. I like them
because they work, they're good looking, and they're "cool".

Ray Laughton

Your Name <yourname@yourisp.com> wrote:

> In article <081120111634240169%star@sky.net>, aaa@bbb.ccc wrote:
> > Michelle Steiner:
> > > Although I generally respect Consumer Reports, I take into consideration
> > > that their criteria does not always correspond with mine.
> >
> > They should stick with toasters and vacuum cleaners.
> >
> > My favorite: The Mazda Miata (many years ago) is small, noisy, and has
> > limited headroom.
> >
> > 1 & 2, small and noisy: That's why we buy 2-passenger roadsters.
> >
> > 3, headroom. You measured the distance to the end of the Universe, did
> > you?
>
> An intelligent person would realise they meant with the roof up. :-\

Or it was a typo and they meant limited legroom..

--

Bert

In news:1kan2e0.hfrcs7ocf5n3N%rlaughton@invalid.com
rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Or it was a typo and they meant limited legroom..

I don't think I've ever had a car with unlimited legroom. Well, maybe my
1951 Ford wagon when the floorboards rusted out.

--
bert@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN