WHF is biased towards Apple

[admin_exported]

This is a gripe to me. A mag should report objectively and by doing so create an incentive for manufactures to compete on important stuff like sound quality and price. When one of the most important mags has a bias towards a certain brand, this incentive dissapears.

I'm sure I will get scolded for even saying this, so I will provide an example.

I've bought a Samsung Galaxy S, instead of an iPhone 4, mainly for it's audio capabilities (they can both make calls and browse the web). Why?

- Recent Samsung MP3 players get excellent reviews on *other* websites dedicated to mp3 players.

- It supports FLAC, it also supports every other important audio and video codec and format, including H.264 and DivX HD codecs and MKV format.

- It has 16 GB of storage space and a micro SD slot to extend the storage with another 32 GB.

- It has a S-AMOLED screen.

- It's less than half the price of the equivalent iPhone 4 at the moment (mine was €460 without simlock and without contract).

WHF reported on the iPhone 4 unveiling with a minute by minute report. Yet not a word on the Galaxy S, had it been an Apple product I'm pretty sure it would have been mentioned here, yet, because it is not, not a word. In fact, there's quite a few other competitors to the iPhone that don't get mentioned either (HTC and Sony).

Why would manufacturers that are not named Apple even try to compete if objective media don't treat them fairly?

(Oh, I'm not "an Apple hater", I actually like the iPhone 4 a lot and recommend it to friends that don't like to tinker with their computers or phones and have no interest in FLAC. I have learned this is a necessary precaution when even mentioning competing products)

 

[Andy Clough]

If Samsung had had a similar launch event for the Galaxy S we'd have been happy to cover that too. And yes, we do test lots of other non-Apple phones, although I won't claim we've covered them all. Clicky

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Clough:If Samsung had had a similar launch event for the Galaxy S we'd have been happy to cover that too. And yes, we do test lots of other non-Apple phones, although I won't claim we've covered them all. Clicky

Samsung Galaxy S launch in NYC: youtube

But then you'll argue that it wasn't Steve Jobs presenting it, but merely the president of Samsung's mobile division...

 

[John Duncan]

The iPhone 4 is a step back from the iPhone 3 and the iPad is pointless. How's that?

 

[Clare Newsome]

Certainly no pro-Apple bias: just reflecting the market and people's desire for info.

Oh, and Apple is one of the biggest pains to deal with of ANY company i've written about in almost 20 years of tech journalism. Getting samples is like pulling teeth, and they want products back almost before you've had time to take them out of the box. We've bought more Apple products than any other brand in order to bring you proper reviews.

And they haven't spent a penny advertising with us, either, before any of that old nonsense comes out....

 

[Anonymous]

JohnDuncan:The iPhone 4 is a step back from the iPhone 3 and the iPad is pointless. How's that?

That's just another review of Apple products. I would say there's plenty of those on this website.

 

[chebby]

And just who cares about a product launch FOR A PHONE? (Unless you make or sell them.)

It's a phone.

(iPhone 3G owner who thinks his phone is a phone - and indeed a good phone - but still cannot understand the fuss.)

 

[Andy Clough]

KevinOK:
Andy Clough:If Samsung had had a similar launch event for the Galaxy S we'd have been happy to cover that too. And yes, we do test lots of other non-Apple phones, although I won't claim we've covered them all. Clicky

Samsung Galaxy S launch in NYC: youtube

But then you'll argue that it wasn't Steve Jobs presenting it, but merely the president of Samsung's mobile division...

Wasn't made aware of it and Samsung's PR people didn't tell us about it, so we missed it. Shoot me.

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome: Certainly no pro-Apple bias: just reflecting the market and people's desire for info.

Ah yes, but is the mag following people's desire for info or is the mag fueling the hype which is causing people to want more info?

Oh, and Apple is one of the biggest pains to deal with of ANY company i've written about in almost 20 years of tech journalism. Getting samples is like pulling teeth, and they want products back almost before you've had time to take them out of the box. We've bought more Apple products than any other brand in order to bring you proper reviews.

So no reasons to give them more attention than others then. Yet no minute by minute coverage of the Galaxy S launch, which should be considered a competitor.

And they haven't spent a penny advertising with us, either, before any of that old nonsense comes out....

I'm implying no such thing.

 

[chebby]

WHF can't win.

On one hand an active speaker manufacturer who frequently lambasted WHF for not being Apple-centric enough, and not reviewing his speakers with all Apple gear, and now, on the other hand, WHF is apparently too Apple-centric!

We have a PC laptop and a PC tower (both Dell) and an iMac in our house (and I have an iPhone and a Sony-Ericsson of some description as 'backup' phone) and the biggest thing that would make me want to ditch the iMac are Apple fanboys and the embarassing possibility of being associated with them by ownership of the same brand.

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:
WHF can't win.

While I appreciate that a mag sometimes has to make difficult choices, with respect, that's just nonsense. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a big mag to give every manufacturer about equal coverage when they deserve it. Yet it's obvious that Apple gets much more coverage, even when nothing is known about the merits of a product, except for it's brandname (examples are iPad and iPhone 4).

I agree with your earlier post that it's pretty daft to publish a minute by minute report on the unveiling of a phone. I am not at all advocating that WHF should do this for competing phones as well. However, if WHF chooses to do so for Apple products, and doesn't even mention it's most important competitors, this hurts competition on the merits.

 

[chebby]

Why not go and read phone mags? I am sure such a stupid thing exists.

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:Why not go and read phone mags? I am sure such a stupid thing exists.

Because I'm interested in portable music players and like to have one that can also make calls, browse the internet and has GPS navigation. These devices now exist and for the portable music / video playing part they have a place in WHF. A phone mag will not cover that aspect as well as WHF could.

 

[Andy Clough]

"I agree with your earlier post that it's pretty daft to publish a minute by minute report on the unveiling of a phone."

Well, just one fact: the third most-read News story on the website this month is... the Apple iPhone 4 press launch. So clearly a lot of people ARE interested in Apple, but I do realise other types of mobile phone are available.

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Clough:
"I agree with your earlier post that it's pretty daft to publish a minute by minute report on the unveiling of a phone."

Well, just one fact: the third most-read News story on the website this month is... the Apple iPhone 4 press launch. So clearly a lot of people ARE interested in Apple, but I do realise other types of mobile phone are available.

Yes Andy, Clare posted the same argument. I'm not saying people aren't interested in Apple, nor am I implying that Apple doesn't deserve attention or mention on WHF. I am saying that Apple's competitors should be mentioned as well when their products have equal merit. The fact that the public does not know about them might have a lot to do with the fact that media do not cover them don't you think?

 

[Andy Clough]

Sounds like some of the other phone companies need better PR then! Mind you, Apple could have learnt a thing or two in that department recently.

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Clough:Sounds like some of the other phone companies need better PR then!

Yes quite right mr Clough. One of the many things that Apple excels at. This does have merit because without Apple's marketing wizzardry some tech products would never have become be as cool and advanced as they are today.

I would still expect a mag like WHF to look out for competing products and not be caught up by marketing.

 

[plastic penguin]

Yet another "let's have a pop at WHFI S&V? mag" thread. Ridiculous.

. Why bother to post on here if it's negative?

 

[lazar1980]

plastic penguin:
Why bother to post on here if it's negative?

Any colour you like as long as it`s black?

 

[plastic penguin]

lazar1980:plastic penguin:

Why bother to post on here if it's negative?

Any colour you like as long as it`s black?

 

[Zarn_Smith]

Is that constantine? Looking as rough as usual if it is.

 

[Anonymous]

plastic penguin:
Yet another "let's have a pop at WHFI S&V? mag" thread. Ridiculous.

. Why bother to post on here if it's negative?

Oh I'm sorry, wasn't aware I'm not allowed to critize a product I pay for (WHF mag).

I think I substantiated my critism well enough to have a non negative debate about it, which is what ensued with WHF staff and which I am happy about.

BTW, talk about a negative post...

 

[Clare Newsome]

We regularly cover - and praise - companies with no or barely-existent marketing/PR. Take Rega (regular winner of Awards) or more latterly, EB Acoustics.

We pick up info on products at shows, from chatting to retailers, and if the manufacturer themselves picks up the phone/emails us about their products. Oh, and from discussions on these very Forums - we've tested several products we first heard of here.

But Samsung, with its multitude of PR agencies, didn't keep us in the loop re its latest smartphone, and with a gazillion other products competing for our attention (especially now, with Awards entries flooding into our stockroom, often on an exclusive basis) it wasn't on our radar. Sorry!

(Talking of Samsung's multiple agencies, I got a phone call yesterday from Freud Communications - one of those agencies - asking if we'd like to test one of the company's latest C9000 TVs. I pointed out that we'd already - exclusively - tested it, with the review already published some weeks ago. Left hand right hand...)

 

[Andrew Everard]

Click

click

click

click

etc...

http://tinyurl.com/39qqbgn

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:
We regularly cover - and praise - companies with no or barely-existent marketing/PR. Take Rega (regular winner of Awards) or more latterly, EB Acoustics.

We pick up info on products at shows, from chatting to retailers, and if the manufacturer themselves picks up the phone/emails us about their products. Oh, and from discussions on these very Forums - we've tested several products we first heard of here.

But Samsung, with its multitude of PR agencies, didn't keep us in the loop re its latest smartphone, and with a gazillion other products competing for our attention (especially now, with Awards entries flooding into our stockroom, often on an exclusive basis) it wasn't on our radar. Sorry!

(Talking of Samsung's multiple agencies, I got a phone call yesterday from Freud Communications - one of those agencies - asking if we'd like to test one of the company's latest C9000 TVs. I pointed out that we'd already - exclusively - tested it, with the review already published some weeks ago. Left hand right hand...)

Thanks Clare, yes WHF reviews niche products and less known brands and I applaud you for it. But whenever Apple makes something it gets a rather unwarranted amount of attention. It's not just this particular Samsung, it's also HTC's Desire and many FLAC music players that can compete with or even best Apple's products. Yet none of them get the kind of coverage that Apple products receive.

Most recent examples are the coverage of the iPhone 4 and iPad, there's no getting around the fact that this is because they are Apple products. The iPad would not have made it to WHF if it were made by any other brand than Apple, let alone get the kind of coverage that most products can only dream about.