Consumer Reports Rates eBook Readers

[Fbone]

The Kindle was rated #2 but only 1 point lower than the Nook STR.

[rhadin]

Personally, for many things I follow Consumer Reports' advice. But I look carefully at how a rating was achieved. For example, we had to buy a new refrigerator. We didn't buy the number 1 rated refrigerator, but we bought one within a few points of the highest rated. The one we bought was lower rated, even by other buyers, because it chimes if a door is left open too long. I grant it becomes annoying when after grocery shopping we are trying to rearrange the freezer to accomodate what was bought, but otherwise we appreciate it being there because on occasion a child has not closed the door completely and we were alerted. So we didn't see that as a negative (i.e., we didn't see the inability to turn off the chimes as a negative).

The refrigerator was also downrated by buyers who didn't like its icemaker. As we neither use an icemaker nor have a waterline to hook it up, such criticism didn't matter.

In the end, we are very pleased with the refrigerator. It keeps food as we had hoped and in line with how CR rated the refrigerator.

I am willing to ignore CR's advice when something costs a few hundred dollars but not when it costs a few thousand dollars. CR is far from perfect, but for household appliances, automobiles, and similar type goods, we have found it reliable.

[Andrew H.]

Sort of expanding on Rich's point, CR is a very useful reference for finding out about the features of various products, which does not require you to take the actual rating as gospel. I.e., in its introduction to dishwashers, CR will list and describe the pluses and minuses of various dishwasher features - i.e., soil sensor, adjustable racks, types of filters, stainless steel tubs, various wash cycles, hidden touch panels, etc. Even if you didn't read the ratings this would be helpful because you might notice at the store that the dishwasher you were looking at didn't have a filter or soil sensor (or whatever).

I agree that CR is less helpful for technology, since technology is something I keep up with. But most people probably only buy a dishwasher every 15 years or so and probably haven't followed dishwasher tech in the interim.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by rhadin

CR is far from perfect, but for household appliances, automobiles, and similar type goods, we have found it reliable.

CR is really stands alone as a publication. No advertising, no hidden interests or loyalties, and integrity unmatched by just about any consumer interest organization, public or private.

They do a lot more than product reviews; they have good articles on consumer rights and safety (great article recently on how U.S. banks use outdated credit card security methods), and health issues. A few months ago CS tested popular protein supplements and found high levels of toxic metals in some brands. The study prompted change from manufacturers. It's far from the first time CS has affected an industry for the better.

Reviews of leisure electronics that involve a high degree of subjectivity should be taken with a grain of salt, and a critical eye.

[pwjone1]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

CR is really stands alone as a publication. No advertising, no hidden interests or loyalties, and integrity unmatched by just about any consumer interest organization, public or private.

They do a lot more than product reviews; they have good articles on consumer rights and safety (great article recently on how U.S. banks use outdated credit card security methods), and health issues. A few months ago CS tested popular protein supplements and found high levels of toxic metals in some brands. The study prompted change from manufacturers. It's far from the first time CS has affected an industry for the better.

Reviews of leisure electronics that involve a high degree of subjectivity should be taken with a grain of salt, and a critical eye.

I would have to agree, while I may disagree at times with some of the Consumer Reports ratings (ironically, not so much the eBook ones, as I do think the latest Nook is a tad better than the Kindles (and I own a Kindle)), they are at least reasonably unbiased, and do tend to correct things over time. And certainly their lack of advertising means they can knock a popular product, and not go broke. There are other magazines and news sources that rate products, Wired, NYTimes, PC World, etc., varying degrees of advertiser influence at each. And at times Consumers struggles with the complexity of the marketplace (try and find a matress that's the same at two stores) and of the new products with all the computerization and updates, but even then the articles are informative. The weights Consumers applies may be at times different than mine (I tend to weight reliability higher at times), but they give you the info to figure things out. So I wouldn't take Consumers ratings as gospel, but I think they're well worth the money to read, and a factor in many of my buying decisions. Your best defense against what's essentially massive spending on advertising and lobbying and so forth by the manufacturers is to be an educated consumer.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

CR is really stands alone as a publication. No advertising, no hidden interests or loyalties, and integrity unmatched by just about any consumer interest organization, public or private.

They do a lot more than product reviews; they have good articles on consumer rights and safety (great article recently on how U.S. banks use outdated credit card security methods), and health issues. A few months ago CS tested popular protein supplements and found high levels of toxic metals in some brands. The study prompted change from manufacturers. It's far from the first time CS has affected an industry for the better.

Reviews of leisure electronics that involve a high degree of subjectivity should be taken with a grain of salt, and a critical eye.

Sorry, CR may try to do a good job, but they fall short.

The review of protein suppliments, started with the assumption of 3 full servings a day.

And I recall one HIGH level of metal (all metals are toxic to some degree) was taht 3 serviing gave you 15.1 micrograms, and the recommended limit was 15 micrograms per day. Sorry but the analytical limit of accuracy is not anywhere close to call 15.1 significantly higher than 15. In fact, the 90% confidence interval will show that you are not sure it it actually higher or lower than the recommended limit.

And lets not talk about the scientific background for setting that recommended limit.

CR is just as sensational as any other publication. Maybe even more so, as they have to convince more people to buy their product as they don't get advertiser support.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

CR is just as sensational as any other publication. Maybe even more so, as they have to convince more people to buy their product as they don't get advertiser support.

You realize CS is the publication of a non-profit organization, right? So that statement is a bit lol-worthy. CS didn't earn their reputation with sensationalism.

And I recall one HIGH level of metal (all metals are toxic to some degree) was taht 3 serviing gave you 15.1 micrograms, and the recommended limit was 15 micrograms per day. Sorry but the analytical limit of accuracy is not anywhere close to call 15.1 significantly higher than 15.

They tested levels of arsenic in at least one supplement that were 16.9 micrograms. That's a tad more than .1 over the 15mcg limit.

[MechR]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Ans this is why the Kobo Touch was not included:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...eader-of-2011/

Aw, that's bull**** What good is a report missing the Nook Touch's most direct competitor?

Excuse my Kobo-user persecution complex.

[pwjone1]

Originally Posted by MechR

Aw, that's bull**** What good is a report missing the Nook Touch's most direct competitor?

Excuse my Kobo-user persecution complex.

Frequently when there's a product update or missed publishing deadline, Consumers Reports will publish something later or update it online (or both). The online Consumer Reports has listed the Kobo eReader touch edition slotted in below the B&N Nook Color and ahead of the B&N Nook 3G and Wifi variants, and so the Kobo really didn't do all that poorly. Now granted, that puts it below the B&N Simple Touch, various Kindles, and the Sony PRS-950, but most of the ones above the Kobo have newer display technology, longer battery life, in some cases bigger displays, etc., and the Kobo technically comes out best at its price point, at least in ad-free models.

And I have to say, this all seems to me reasonably accurate, while I often might quibble with ratings on products I'm familiar with or have experience (professional or otherwise), Consumers Reports seems to have gotten eReaders about right. And there's a lot of them now, all sorts of different features, trade-offs, etc. They do seem to take the Kindles down a notch, for File Support, which agrees then with some of the discussions here (the whole ePub vs Amazon thing). I do wish that the eReader makers would bury the hatchet and support each others' formats, the format wars seem so VHS vs Beta disruptive to the marketplace. Now, I might not have dropped Kindles for it, just seems to me different sides of the same coin, but the features and trade-offs are all at least listed in Consumers Reports, that then allows you to make your own trade-offs. And you can be reasonably certain that CR, because they take no advertising, wasn't worried about rating something low costing it advertising revenue. I've seen just that happen in other magazines that tried to rate products. Advertising influence is pervasive, as a publisher it's hard to ignore, knock a product from a big advertiser, lose revenue. I've seen some web sites pop up that show a lot of skill and in depth knowledge on a particular area, they might because of passion or focus build more expertise than CR, but frequently they then lose it as they end up in advertising or recommendation deals, human nature is to do what benefits you financially. If you want unbiased ratings, best to just stay with resources like CR that don't sip from the well.

And what about the accusation that CR is controversial to make more magazine sales? Well, mostly, I'd say not. Most of the time, CR is pretty boring, if it didn't have info on products you were considering buying, you'd probably not by it. Not sure there's anything too controversial about eReaders, anyway. But let us look at the most recent CR controversy, you can read about it at NYT:

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011...sumer-reports/

Essentially, they took the Honda Civic down a couple of notches. Certainly that got a lot of press. I think that's partly because for so many years Honda had been at or near the top of the heap, so for a lot of years, Honda sold a lot of Civics because CR rated them highly. Now, I own a Honda, I like them, would I agree? Maybe not, but Honda has gotten more expensive, it's at the top of the segment price wise, and to some degree they and VW have stripped down models to try and compete on price, and it appears both got somewhat caught out. The competition (Korean and domestic) has gotten better, at the price points. I know this somewhat from rentals. But at least CR rates all the various models, and subject to some interpretation, lays it all out there for you to see. Agree or disagree, different criteria or whatever, that's something that not a lot of other places do for you.

So ultimately, as consumers, we have to all decide, who are we going to believe? I know it's hard to do, we all want to believe news sources that agree with what we think as individuals. It's nice to get an affirmation that we're right. Makes us feel good. But I submit that we should instead seek out sources that we disagree with. Listen to why they arrived at different conclusions. See what their reasoning and trade-offs were. If then our reasoning still holds up to external and differing opinions, then fine. If we learn a little something, so much the better. If we are adaptive and keep an open mind, hopefully we then make the ultimately "right" decisions, and really that's for the best.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

You realize CS is the publication of a non-profit organization, right? So that statement is a bit lol-worthy. CS didn't earn their reputation with sensationalism.

They tested levels of arsenic in at least one supplement that were 16.9 micrograms. That's a tad more than .1 over the 15mcg limit.

Why? A non-profit can be just as sensational as a profit organization. Especially when they are selling a product.

Yes, one was higher, I was indicating a specific result that they showed, and that was NOT statitically significant. And even 16.9 is probably not statistically significant over 15, depending on the method of analysis.

And what will 16.9 mcg gram per day do to you?

For reference, the OSHA limit for arsenic exposure is 0.5 MILLIgrams per cubic meter of air. You can be exposed to this for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week for your entire working lifetime. The NIOSH ceiling limit is 0.00mg/m3 for 15 minutes. You breath about 0.5L per breath under normal conditions, and breath 12 - 20 times per minute. So at 0.5L and an average of 16 times per minute, you breath 8L per minute, 480 L per hour and 3840L per 8 hour day. One cubic meter = 1000L, so yo breath 3.84 m3, or 1.92 mg (1920 mcg) per day at the OSHA limit.

These limits are for inorganic arsenic. Organic arsenic is 500 times less harmful than inorganic. Which form was in the supplement?

The World Health Organization recommends a limit of 0.01 mg/L (10ppb) of arsenic in drinking water.

So if you drink 4L of water per day, that meets the WHO guidelines, you get 0.04 milligrams of arsenic. And you are worried about an extra 1.9 micrograms?

Oh, and finally, the limits that they talk about are PROPOSED USP limits, not established limits. And what were they based on? If the WHO allows you to get 0.03 mg (30 mcg) of aresnic from the 3L of water you used to mix up your 3 protein supplelments, is an extra 1.9 mcg significnat?

And did you know that arsenic has and is used as a medicine?

In addition to its presence as a poison, for centuries arsenic was used medicinally. It has been used for over 2,400 years as a part of traditional Chinese medicine. In the western world, Arsenic was used extensively to treat syphilis before penicillin was introduced. It was eventually replaced as a therapeutic agent by sulfa drugs and then by antibiotics. Arsenic was also an ingredient in many tonics (or "patent medicines").

[rhadin]

It seems to me, Pinecone, that the best resolution to the problem you have with Consumer Reports is for you simply to ignore it. For many of us, the advice that CR provides is helpful. I don't recall the last time I was able to personally test 5 different brands of dishwashers in my kitchen over an extended period of time or the last time I was able to test all of the major ereaders side by side in my home for a month.

It seems, Pinecone, that the problem is simply that CR doesn't agree with your analysis of [insert product here] and unlike you, I do not have faith it the review written by PorkyPig or any other anonymous online reviewer who happens to have Internet access and a keyboard. Unlike so many of the reviewers in whom you wish to place faith, CR doesn't hide behind anonymity and does layout how it conducts its tests sufficiently for my evaluation.

Anyway, Pinecone, as I said at the beginning, the problem is readily solved -- you ignore CR reviews and I will consider them. We'll both be happy with our ultimate purchase choices.

[lestatar]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Only Amazon readers (and perhaps soon iBook readers) who can't figure out Calibre are caged in a closed system. I have way more books than that in .lit and .pdb, but I am quite able to convert them to epub.

I will buy whatever machine seems the best for my needs.

The only reason this review doesn't matter is because Consumer Reports hasn't written consistently accurate reviews since the early eighties and it just can't coast on the reputation of what it once was after being so lacklustre for so long.

^ This. Exactly right IMO, on all counts. Well-said!

[Dulin's Books]

all respect to Ectaco( i have carried a couple of their models) and Aluratek for putting out decent ebook readers- the PocketBook 360 is the best 5 inch model on the market. especially in the new Plus version. Yes the Sony is very nice and its aluminum shell counts for allot but the 360 is the better reader- more formats supported, more languages supported, more ways to sort your books, more ways to personalize the experience for you etc etc and the cover is brilliant.

[teadonkey]

I like Consumer Reports.

I also like the Nook Touch the more I see it, but when I played with one at a B&N I had trouble navigating it. And I'm not in the market for a new eReader, at all. I hope to use my Kindle for a few more years, or I won't be pleased with it as a good purchase.

[Pinecone]

Well, if every CR article about something that I know about has errors, then do I assume that ONLY those are wrong?

And they DO sensationalize. They do not use good science in their reviews where I know about the subjest.

And finally, I DO ignore their reviews.