The latest issue of Consumer Reports arrived in the mail earlier
this week. This month has buying guides for the holidays, a great
tool for anyone who has plans to give tools, computers, or other
electronics as gifts this holiday season.
I love Consumer Reports (CR). As someone concerned with
efficiency - "The Efficient Mac User", remember? - I find
the information offered in CR to be both helpful and
interesting.
But in the year that I've read CR regularly, I've noticed a
major flaw in its reporting: CR just doesn't get Macs.
Anyone who has read their reviews of computer systems (and they
offer them several times a year) knows what I mean. There is no
side-by-side comparison of Macs to Windows PCs, and they often
categorize Macs in ways that I don't exactly understand or agree
with.
This is a problem any time, but for a holiday buying guide this
seems especially egregious.
Have no fear, Low End Mac readers - the Efficient Mac User is on
the job! For those of you who will be shopping for a new computer
this holiday season, I'll offer a supplement to the CR guide that
gives a more complete and Mac-friendly perspective.
Computer Stores
CR gave the highest computer store ratings to Apple for
manufacturer direct purchasing. And they do get props for including
Apple computers along with the other major brands when addressing
all possible venues (manufacturer direct, retail website/catalog,
retail store, TV shopping network), as opposed to separating Apple
computers out like they often do (see the discussion of Ratings
Charts below).
However, they failed to mention Apple Stores under the "Retail
Stores" section of their ratings. CR readers aren't told that
Apple's retail stores offer the same prices as their website - and
many of the same bargains and close-out deals as well.
CR also neglects to mention that Apple retail stores offer full
custom configuration options and keep a stock of their inventory so
you can walk out with the computer you purchased. (Some
brand-oriented retail stores don't keep inventory on-hand
locally.)
Also, the Apple Stores offer incredible service at their Genius
Bars, where trained technicians do everything from answering
questions to full-service technical repairs. None of the retail
stores mentioned in CR scored as highly as Apple's manufacturer
direct service, although it is a safe bet that Apple's retail
stores would have.
Multimedia Computers
CR again gets props
for acknowledging the newest G5
iMac as something worth considering for multimedia
functionality, although their publication date prevented them from
considering it substantially in this issue (I see that as Apple's
fault, not CR's).
They also highlight the fact that the Macintosh platform is a
legitimate alternative to Windows PCs, which surprised me a bit
considering CR's downplay of the Mac in past issues.
But then they began to show their unfamiliarity with the Mac,
claiming that viruses and spyware were "less likely to target Macs
than Windows PCs" by an estimated 1000-to-1 ratio. This number,
unexplained by CR, implies that there are active spyware and virus
threats on the Mac platform and that (given that there are more
than 100,000 known viruses for Windows PCs) there may be as many as
100 viruses to contend with. In fact, there are currently none for
Mac OS X.
Top Picks
In consideration of computers beyond multimedia capability, CR
is consistent with one thing in this issue and all others: They
regularly report that Macs have substantially fewer problems than
other manufacturers' machines, and they always show Apple at the
top of the ratings for technical support. They even go as far as
recommending only Apple computers as the picks for best reliability
and support in both the desktop and laptop categories.
Computer Ratings Charts
But when it comes to rating computers themselves, CR's approach
confuses and frustrates me. This is probably the section I am most
concerned about, as the ratings charts in CR are probably the most
heavily relied-upon sections in each issue.
A reader may not read every paragraph, but they will likely look
over the ratings charts. And what will they find? Confusion.
Misinformation. Unclear comparison.
Let's assume a holiday shopper - say, someone like my mom, who
knows how to use computers but doesn't know much about computers.
She doesn't really care whether she's using Windows or the
Macintosh platform as long as she can reliably get her work
done.
Where might such a shopper go to find out what computer to buy
her son for Christmas? If you guessed Consumer Reports,
you'd be right.
Would she find the information that she needs to make an
informed decision?
Probably not.
The Mac Ghetto
CR assumes that readers know whether they want a Windows PC or a
Macintosh and therefore divides computers into those categories.
This division implies that readers don't know which manufacturer's
computer works with which platform and leads to difficult
comparisons, at best.
Further, CR divides Windows PCs into subcategories, but not
Macs. For desktop computers, Windows machines are divided into
"budget" (defined as "relatively low-cost systems for most general
uses, including photo editing") and "workhorse" (defined as "have
additional memory and storage for more intensive uses, such as 3D
games and video editing"), while Macintosh models are not divided
at all - the one category is said to include "both budget- and
workhorse-class models".
Seasoned Mac users may therefore assume that the list would
include the latest G5 tower, right? They would be mistaken.
Unfair Comparisons
The only desktop Macs evaluated in the chart are the iMac G5,
the eMac, and the Mac mini. These are three very good
Macs, I'll grant you, but hardly a cross-section of the Apple line.
In fact, in the Apple world all of these would fall into a category
of "consumer/budget" machines, while nothing in the
"professional/workhorse" category is mentioned. (If you think I'm
being unfair about the categories, know that the specs on the
Windows "workhorse" machines were roughly equivalent to the
2.5 GHz Power Mac G5
Quad.)
While it's doubtful my mom would be searching for a machine of
this caliber, it is likely that she might look over the test
results, capacity, and features sections of the ratings and think
that Apple's offerings don't approach those of Windows PCs. Thus
the iMac (which is CR's best guess of Apple's workhorse machines),
when compared here to true workhorse Windows machines, is not given
a fair comparison.
Furthermore, the desktop ratings charts actually mislead
consumers when comparing machines, especially Apple's. For example,
the two models pictured are an eMachines budget desktop and a Mac
mini - neither of which come with any type of display. But some of
the Windows systems come with a display bundled into the package
(including the priciest of the workhorse models), but no mention is
given anywhere about whether a display is included in the price
shown.
This further disadvantages the Mac line, since both the eMac and
the iMac include displays. At the same time, CR felt it necessary
to highlight the fact that keyboard and mouse were not included
with the Mac mini, adding (according to their figures) another $78
to the cost of that little gem.
Why CR points to the exclusion of inexpensive input devices but
ignores the inclusion of more costly computer displays is beyond
explanation.
Laptops
The laptop section is even worse. Many of the same traits are at
play here: Mac laptops get their own category, while Windows
laptops get four!
The Windows machines are divided into the following categories:
budget, multimedia (defined as having "enhanced sound and video
components for home entertainment"), slim and light (defined as
"lightweight systems for travelers or students"), and
workhorse.
CR lists only two Mac laptops, which they say, unsurprisingly,
includes "both budget- and workhorse-class models": the 14" iBook, and the 15" PowerBook. In truth, Apple's laptop
line includes five different machines, each of which satisfies a
particular niche.
CR doesn't mention the 12" iBook, which at $999 would have been
quite competitive in their budget category alongside the 14" iBook.
The 12" iBook and the 12"
PowerBook (retailing for $1,499) would both outscore most of
the machines in the slim and light category, where the CR pick is
slower and more expensive than the PowerBook.
As far as I can tell, the distinctive features of a multimedia
laptop are a large screen, a fast processor, and a DVD drive.
Apple's 17" PowerBook meets
these criteria and exceeds the capabilities of the two models CR
features. With Apple's 1680 x 1050 pixel display, the PowerBook
would blow away CR's Toshiba pick - weighing in at more than 3
pounds less to boot.
Even with the 15" PowerBook, CR missed some important data,
using old numbers for processor speed and display resolution. (In
truth, however, even the PowerBook specs they provide make it quite
competitive with the other workhorse models described.)
I know that CR can't list every model by every manufacturer in
their charts. However, if Dell, HP/Compaq, and Toshiba can be in
almost every category, Apple ought to get a fair shake, as
well.
Final Thoughts
One more note on Apple products: CR's gift-buying guide did name
the iPod nano as the top choice among MP3 players, and they did
have some notes about the Motorola ROKR phone. However, since that
issue went to press Cingular has begun offering the ROKR at US$149
(when accompanied by a two-year contract), down from US$249. Also,
Motorola has announced that a new version of the slick and popular
Razr phone (the Razr V3i) will have iTunes capability.
Consumer Reports is not hostile to Apple products or
Macintosh computers, but they are not fair in their computer
evaluations either. The attention given to Macs in the ratings
charts is insufficient and doesn't serve the reader by offering a
clear comparison.
I hope I've offered a sufficient supplement to CR's ratings for
the holiday shopper. 
Link: How Consumer
Reports could compare Macs fairly, 2005.11.23. Using
Consumer Reports' own data and chart design, an example of
how they could realistically compare Macs and Windows
PCs.
