Why Do You Believe Consumer Reports?

Just this week, Consumer Reports posted an online review covering the iPad 2, and a small number of also-rans in the tablet PC world. This report was meant as an upgrade to an article that appeared in the May 2011 newsstand issue, which was prepared before the iPad 2 was available to evaluate.

The conclusion was predictable. The iPad 2 gets an “excellent” rating in nearly every category. Curiously, the original iPad was placed in a tie with the Motorola Xoom, though heaven knows why. Well, at least CR didn’t find any bogus antenna issue with which to downgrade Apple’s iconic gadget, but they aren’t entitled to much more credit than that, simply because they still haven’t a clue how to properly review products of this sort.

They have, for example, an ephemeral “ease of use” category, but they don’t really explain the criteria for such ratings. If they were really paying attention, it would seem highly questionable for the Xoom to rate very highly because, if you consider what you can do with this gadget, it barely rates a xero — make that a zero.

You see, you can rate CPU and graphics performance, and whether the interface is snappy or not. You can certainly judge the features, such as onboard cameras, or, in the case of the original iPad, the lack thereof. You might also look at accessory ports, such as an SD card slot, or an HDMI port, neither of which Apple incorporates, even though they offer convenient and relatively low-cost adapters for both.

But none of this matters if there are no apps to run. Apple has over 65,000 specifically designed to run on an iPad. In contrast, the Motorola Xoom, which uses Android 3.0, or Honeycomb, has a few dozen.

As a result, the argument is over. Your usability options on a Xoom, or any other Android-based tablet, are extremely limited, unless you want to stick with regular smartphone apps, which look horrible when blown up to the full size of the display.

Other Android tablets, using older versions of the OS, are in worse shape. Those products are dead ends, because they weren’t designed with tablets in mind, and new apps will never be compatible. That’s their fault for not paying attention to Google. This, along with the growing and irritating fragmentation issue, are the reasons that Google is asserting greater control over the ways licensees can fiddle with the interface and bundled software. Indeed, they are also holding off on releasing the source code, with no definite date as to when it might be available.

Unfortunately, CR doesn’t grok any of this. They seem utterly unable to judge these products on the basis of real usability, which means having enough apps to actually afford a choice of what to do beyond email, Internet access, and access to your favorite social network. Indeed, one of the reasons that the Mac was denigrated early on was the myth that very few applications were available for that platform. In that case, it wasn’t true for the most part, except for certain vertical applications for business consumers that were only available on Windows.

When it comes to an Android 3.0 tablet, the situation is dreadful, utterly dreadful. Worse, app developers aren’t going to have much of an incentive to build apps for the Xoom and its ilk, simply because the iPad has swamped the marketplace. Developers who want to make money know which platform is best.

Understand that CR’s editors are entitled to their opinions, and they even entitled to publish highly flawed reviews that fail to address the needs of the end user. Rather, I’m concerned why the media, tech, mainstream and elsewhere, largely accepts CR’s word as gospel. The vast, vast majority of articles about their reviews are not critical. They never consider whether or not the magazine is using poorly conceived testing methods.

I can see where manufacturers might avoid public criticism, simply because it will sound like sour grapes. Indeed, when it comes to auto testing, CR has it right when handling tests revealed certain vehicles nearly tipping over or swerving out of control in extreme handling tests. While CR was once sued by an auto maker over this issue, more recently Toyota promptly responded to a reported handling flaw by rejiggering the onboard software so the electronic stability control would kick in faster. But you wonder why they never noticed during the product design phase.

When it comes to consumer electronics gear, Apple didn’t suffer in any noticeable way because the two flavors of the iPhone 4 weren’t recommended, based on that alleged “Death Grip.” Certainly, if there was an ounce of evidence that sales might be hurt, I’m quite sure Apple would have gotten ahold of CR in order to set them straight. Certainly what CR reports flies in the face of Apple’s tests, once posted online, and still mirrored all over the globe, not to mention blogs populated with antenna experts, and all those people who posted YouTube videos demonstrating that antenna sensitivity issues can be duplicated on many smartphones. I’m most troubled, however, that CR doesn’t seem to know about warning labels, and those cautions in user manuals about the unsavory impact of holding a mobile handset the wrong way.

Or maybe their test team doesn’t believe in reading manuals. While I realize consumers don’t either, a magazine that prides itself on thorough and balanced product testing ought to know better.

My wife works at a University where just about every student assistant has an iPhone. And they have ALL bitched about this little gap on the edge of the phone that if you happen to put your fingers across the call gets dropped.

Read the article... and the reports of people who WORK with cell phone radios and antennas who could not duplicate the so called problem. I have an iPhone4 and could not duplicate the problem using PROPER test equipment in proper testing labs, unlike the junk that CU used. They found that the iPhone4 starts out with a better ability to receive signals and finishes with a better ability to receive signals than other phones even after attenuation... The drop is a percentage of the starting signal... and that was something the clueless testers at Consumers Reports had no awareness of.

I have over 25 friends with an iPhone4... and none of us could duplicate the problem, and we tried, hard, and only one had a problem with dropped calls greater than she had with her iPhone 3Gs... and she lives in the boonies where the AT&T signal is pretty spotty. All of us have BETTER reception with our iPhone4s than we had with our previous phones. The facts are different than what was being reported... which was a load of FUD being orchestrated by Google to promote sales of the Android phones.

It is very strange that the REST OF THE WORLD MARKETS could not duplicate the antennagate issues when the unchanged iPhone4 was released there. Once those facts came out, the FUD essentially stopped! In fact, the antennagate issue dropped out of site and Apple discontinued its free bumper program the started to counter the bad publicity that was being pushed so heavily in the press. In the rest of the world, they did NOT SEE THE DROPPED CALL issue at all. So where was the antenna problem??? IT SIMPLY DID NOT EXIST!

The issue was solely limited to AT&T and it's poor quality network in certain markets... mostly in cities where NIMBYS had prevented the buildout of new cell towers... particularly New York, San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago, and other metro areas, where the heavy data usage of the iPhone 3G network demand overwhelmed the system's ability to carry the sheer numbers of people wanting to use to system.

The specialists in cell phone testing all tweaked Consumers Reports, pointing out that they did not know what they were doing in their "tests" and also pointed out that they did not even use proper test equipment... using the iPhone's own five bar signal strength meter as their "sophisticated" test equipment to show how strong the signal it was receiving was. The did not test real world calls at all... just squirted signals at it... Nor did they test ANY OTHER of the cell phones in their samples for signal attenuation, just the iPhone. Why? Was their an agenda?

Yet another person who has clearly never used a Xoom before. The “lack of apps” battlecry is particularly amusing, considering I own one and haven’t found an app I need and can’t get. Macunists sound a lot like democrats - repeat a lie over and over until people believe it.

These are not stats being "lied about" by Mac proponents. Are those apps TABLET optimized or are they merely Android phone apps size doubled to improperly fit on your Xoom screen? Surveys done on multiple non-Apple oriented sites that have found fewer than 70 apps for Android tablets. Tell us what kind of Apps you are using?

One Month Later, Android Tablet Platform Has 50 Apps

By Mike Isaac March 30, 2011 | 7:12 pm | Categories: Tablets and E-Readers
Motorola’s Xoom tablet is the first promising alternative to Apple’s iPad, but the sickly condition of Android’s tablet app ecosystem may end up stalling the platform’s progress.
One month after its launch, the Xoom currently has about 50 native apps available for Android 3.0 Honeycomb, Google’s version of Android optimized for tablets.
That’s pitiful compared with the iPad, which was released last year with approximately 1,000 native apps on launch day. The Xoom debuted with a paltry 15 Honeycomb-native apps available for download in its catalog.
50 apps is a pretty small number, and the actual total may be even smaller. The official Android online market, as well as other online message forums for Android enthusiasts, place the number of Xoom apps somewhere close to 50. But this number hardly seems accurate, as it includes existing Android applications which have been re-sized to take advantage of the tablet’s larger screen. The number of apps with interfaces made specifically for the tablet is probably diminutive.
Still, it’s unclear why more developers haven’t taken the short cut and re-sized their apps for Honeycomb. It could be that developers aren’t sold on the idea of re-sizing their apps to fit more screen real estate, as opposed to “building a true tablet experience that takes advantage of the new platform’s possibilities,” iOS developer Justin Williams told Wired.com in an interview.
And even if developers wanted to create such a “true tablet experience,” they’re hard-pressed to do it without the source code for Honeycomb, which Google is currently keeping a tight reign over. The big device manufacturers working on Honeycomb-powered hardware — like HTC, Motorola and Samsung — all have early access to the code, but only after licensing agreements were made with Google. Smaller developers don’t have this luxury.
“Apple was wise to have the tools out there months in advance of launch,” Williams said, “as compared to Google who made them available only a short time before.”
To be fair, the Xoom is currently the only Android tablet on the market running Android 3.0. Once the glut of Honeycomb-running hardware devices arrives — like the June release of LePad from Chinese electronics manufacturer Lenovo, which was delayed specifically to ensure the tablet will run Honeycomb — we could reasonably expect to see more tablet-optimized applications available. Samsung’s redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1 will also run Honeycomb, and will also launch this summer.
“Google needs more hardware,” says Williams, “and they need to get developers excited about building tablet experiences, not just larger screened phone apps.”

Hmmmm, 50, to over 70,000 for the iPad. Not much of a comparison, is it?

However, another NON-Apple source, Mobility Feedsa site specializing in analyzing mobile devices and mobile trends, found that Android 3.0 Honeycomb had only 14 native applications in those 50.

Almost no tablet-specific apps developed for Android Honeycomb

Second Gear’s developer Justin Williams, following a new check, has revealed the little progress made by Google's Android 3.0, codenamed Honeycomb, application catalog in the month since its launch.
Only fourteen applications are truly native.
A total of fifty include both native applications and phone applications meaning resizing for a larger screen.
The report includes Google’s applications and might miss certain titles, but there is no simple way to separate tablet optimized applications and tablet-only ones by applying a filter on Android Market.
Among the fully native titles, there are a few ports of their Apple iPad versions, like Pulse, CNN or USA Today.
The situation reflects an ongoing problem with application support on Android 3.0 and confirms a hastened launch schedule.
Google released the beta SDK only a month before the Motorola Xoom was shipped, while the final version was released only two days before the date of the launch.
Excepting certain developers with special access rights, most have only had less than two months to start and make ready their first applications for the Android tablet.
The lack of devices itself has reduced the accessibility to the hardware.
A second wave would not ship until the LG Optimus Pad arrives in Japan these days, while the decision of Samsung to rework its Galaxy Tab 10.1 following the iPad 2’s release would push it to not earlier than June.
Apple was more careful with its tablet plan and allowed developers to have two months lead time.
The App Store started with 1,000 iPad-native applications and has about 65,000 s of the first-year anniversary of the design.
A more flexible development has been the key factor for inroads into enterprise and catering to niches such as music production.

Then there's this. Electronista is reporting that Deutsche Bank, using Google's own Android usage statistics released at the end of March, has concluded that the Xoom Tablet has sold only 100,000 units in the five weeks it has been on the market since being released February 24th.

Analyst rough estimate has just 100,000 Xooms shipped so far

by Electronista staff
Updated 11:35 am EDT, Wed April 6, 2011
Deutsche Bank guesses just 100,000 Xooms shipped
Analysts at Deutsche Bank have put a potential number on talk of possibly slow Xoom sales in a new research note. Extrapolating from data in Google's Platform Versions chart, it estimated that about 100,000 of Motorola's tablet had shipped between the February 24 debut and the end of March. The prediction also likely included a small number of hacked installs on other devices.
Motorola has never publicly discussed its Xoom shipment figures and might not quantify them until its next quarterly results, if at all.
The figure is likely to be off of the actual count without more concrete data at hand. It might still reflect a relatively tepid adoption and is supported in the abstract by Google's Android figures, which put 3.0 at just 0.2 percent and well under the 2.5 percent using a Nexus S or Nexus One with Android 2.3.
Low Xoom adoption has been blamed partly on the limited launch. The February 24 release was limited to just the 3G edition for Verizon, putting the minimum asking price at $800. Wi-Fi versions only began showing in late March, and international releases are only just beginning with launches for Canada this week and other countries soon. Apple shipped the iPad 2 to about 25 countries two weeks after the US and starts at $500 for a Wi-Fi version and $630 for 3G.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.