Read on Twitter
The bit of this about quirks of review score scales reminds me of stuff @CraigGrannell was saying re: games when I worked on Tap! https://twitter.com/JakeBaldino/status/1273327654624800769
As for accusations of being in company’s pockets, thankfully didn’t experience as much of that as I think @pcpro received when we shared office space. But I certainly did start to pick up a little of that in my time editing Mac|Life and MacFormat.
The reason most Macs and iOS devices score highly? As long as the score is taken with the additional suitable audience of each device in mind, which should be addressed well in the review, most Apple devices these days are good at their job.
A big part of scores then comes down to value for money. Companies like Apple establish their price points well, encouraging upsell and all that. There’s a point for every individual where there’s no point stepping up another level; quantifiable returns aren’t enough.
But I think the Apple mags I worked on at Dennis and Future were all honest enough to say when and why a Hardware model should be skipped, or if you should pay seemingly silly prices to upgrade a component.
Before I got out of that environment, I know I and other writers on those titles were honest about deficient specs. The one that sticks in my mind is the Fusion Drive compromise, specifically after Apple hobbled it with much smaller flash storage than at its 2012 debut.
I felt so strongly about that issue’s impact on performance for all but the lightest of computer users that a notable boxout was devoted to it, warning readers, in one of my final Mac reviews.
Thankfully, despite a few grumbles, those mags’ audiences were polite and engaged.
Thankfully, despite a few grumbles, those mags’ audiences were polite and engaged.
