In defense of the journalistic technique!

First of all can you guys disable this "unregistered" business, if they can be bothered to comment they can signup. Or at least why do you allow it?

The non Nokia phones not having Ovi Maps IS a significant argument in my view, it pretty much swayed my decision not to get a Vivaz. Its a symbian and if its not going to run the main app I want to know that!!!! I DONT CARE whether or not whos fault it is, if it doesn't have what I thought it would have its a lacking point!

Anyway I do feel there is a certain bias towards symbian and not so much Nokia, but this site is all about symbian so hard to not be when nothing else is reviewed.

I don't think you can win Steve you cannot please everyone, your point of view has to be taken as it is. Biased or not its up to the reader how they take that information on board.

I am extremely critical of my N86 I downright hate it in comparison to the N82 im not trying to justify my purchase, its a regrettable choice, all the reviews have been all praise but my experience is terrible, yes I am stuck on v2 firmware because Nokia have allowed Orange to control them. I see this as Nokias fault and I blame Nokia for this not Orange, they should not allow themselves to be controlled. If Apple can control they own phones I don't see why Nokia cannot be allowed to.

Hurlley wrote:First of all can you guys disable this "unregistered" business, if they can be bothered to comment they can signup. Or at least why do you allow it?

Why?

I've got enough user names and passwords already without another one.

Why is it allowed? I would guess because websites are all about popularity (NPI) and page rankings and the more you do to discourage visitors the greater the effect on the page ranking and consequently it becomes harder to cover costs.

Also, it's fairly well known that you've not run articles which would irritate some software publishers. I can recall at least on instance where an application was broadcasting an IMEI, unsecurely, and when you were presented with proof you jumped on it.

You jumped, that is, until you talked to the publisher. After that point the 'big news' was forgotten, and oddly enough, ads from that publisher started to appear on your site.

Very odd indeed, don't you think?

"For example, in the case of the Nokia N97 (and Sony Ericsson Satio, to some degree), I delayed my main review until I was sure that the first round of major firmware updates had been completed and that the software was mainly 'all there' - it would have served nobody if I'd jumped down hard on either device on day one and proclaimed that each flagship was a complete and utter crock, when it was clear that Sony Ericsson and Nokia (respectively) were hard at work on addressing the problems."

I'm not a dedicated AAS reader and hadn't considered any bias but I take issue with this. How can you review "what's new, what's interesting and what's actually released" and yet wait for some phones to be patched? The N97 wasn't some hack made in a garage that you got hold of accidentally - it was a released flagship product. Released meaning it had been designed and tested to what should have been very high standards at Nokia. What was released was what they wanted the world - reviewers and users - to have. If you are reviewing what is new then this is it, and the fact that it was abysmal should have gone in that review. Sure, write a follow up later on when the firmware gets sorted but don't pretend to report on whats new in the market and then not do that when you don't like what you see. To me, that is bias.

Hello Steve,

Allow me to focus on a specific issue - your review of the N97 - then let me bring it out to a broader scope.

I completely agree with the notion that the method by which you reviewed the N97 would make it appear that you are biased towards Nokia IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE. Whether or not this translates to an overall bias towards Nokia - well, I'm in no position to judge as I don't get to follow AAS as often as I want.

Allow me to point to a parallel industry that provides reviews: the PC gaming industry.

The PC gaming industry has similar websites that provides reviews - Gamespot, Gamespy, IGN. As with AAS, they provide previews based on beta versions and their official review when the product just comes out. We all now that generally speaking, quite a few PC games get released in a buggy state - but then patches come out that make the gameplay significantly better by removing bugs, etc.

To use a specific example, let's use Hellgate: London (PC Game) to further illustrate my point. Here are snippets of reviews based on the version of the game released on the launch date:

But, for many, the game's issues will be a real deal breaker. If you're on the fence, you might want to watch the game's patch notes to see how many technical glitches, as well as other annoyances, are cleared up. - gamespot.com/pc

More problematic are a couple of nasty bugs including frequent crashes to desktop, slowdown and lag during combat and a weird display bug that makes all the character models on screen disappear, leaving the player as just a disembodied weapon floating in mid-air. GameSpy editor Fargo ran into a reproducible bug where he'd actually lose one of his weapons every time he was dual-wielding and logged off, which, as bugs go, is an inexplicable gamebreaker. - pc.gamespy.com

Based on those reviews, a lot of people who were hyped up based on previews decided to NOT purchase the game and save themselves the trouble. Now, as with most PC games, Hellgate London got patched eventually. Below is an example of a user comment after he played the newly patched Hellgate London:

Now that's a good thing (when I start playing online, that is). The single player patch seemed to fix my game-stopping bugs as well.
I now give people my blessing to buy this game! - http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18872

Here's the question: was it right for these websites to review the product just as it was released, or should they have waited for the patched version and then reviewed it? How would the people have felt if (just for example) gamespot.com warned its readers over a podcast that "Hellgate London seems to be buggy now as it's in a very immature state" and then released a review AFTER the game was patched 4-5 months later and gave it (again, just for example purposes) 9/10 when everyone else gave it a 5 or 6/10 because it was buggy? Wouldn't it appear that in that particular instance, gamespot.com was biased towards Hellgate London and its developer?

Unfortunately that's what happened to you Steve. In my opinion, your decision to wait for the patched version before officially reviewing it has tainted your review and your credibility as a reviewer IN THAT INSTANCE. It was wrong for you (in my opinion) to wait. You could've released an official review of the N97 and bashed it for all its bugs yet praised it for its potential, and THEN release an updated review once it was patched. That would've been impartial.

My 0.02. 😊 My recommendation, moving forward, is to review officially released products AS THEY ARE and then provide updates as new firmware versions are released.

Chad

Steve,
I have followed our advice and reviews since 1993. It has always kept me current. Your comments are the most up to date and most objective over the 17 years from anyone else or any site. I use your reviews to get the functions of a phone or organizer and then look at CNET to see how the phone works in the US. I have never seen anything but useful objectivity from your reviews and comments. The comments that are critical here are absurd and too picky. I want to look at a phone that has the functioning so that I can use it as a tool when I need to not have a computer and I am on the go. I want to have it with the updated firmware. That is what I will buy after you review.
It is basically irrelevant how you get your phones. I think that the information on the screen keyboard and software available is too valuable in your writeups. No one else will review like this. Look for the 17 years, I have gone through 5 Psions (starting with the Psion 3a), 5 Communicators, and now still use a 5800. I know the good parts and the bad. I still use the E90 for pictures and backup. E61 for backup too. After following Steve for all those units, I have not been uphappy. Only a Palm inbetween.
These negative comments have to do with being picky. I want practical, and Steve gives the best practical reviews available. As a physician, with a manufacturing business, these Nokia phones have worked great for me even over the iPhones.
Besides, Steve answers emails on constructive questions and comments.

"he raves about the n8 in the aas podcast which has the same design as the hero. this talking out of both sides of his mouth"

I don't understand this. I was mainly raving about the N8's super-high-end camera functions, real loudspeaker and large OLED screen. The Hero doesn't have ANY of this. The two devices don't even LOOK the same, for goodness sake. Grrrr.....

I'm N97 Mini owner and that makes me biased. And it's truth.
But in my oppinion Steve Litchfield isn't. Why? Because biased reporter CAN'T point out flaws of his item of bias. Steve does that all the time.

Good work mr. Litchfield. And please, continue to write in same manner as You have 'till now.

Sorry for my fawlty english...

If Steve is waiting for new firmware for a device before reviewing, then, for me, this is enough information about the state of a device and a big enough condemnation in itself. Basically if it's not good enough for review then the message is that it's not good enough to buy, there is no need to pick apart the details. I don't see any bias there at all.

I'm programming Smartphones since 2002, well kind off.
They were called Handheld PC 2000 then, but I was programming it 😉
Then there were the first Windows Mobile Smartphones.
And then I bought a Siemens SX1 - I hated it.

In the last couple of years a lot of things were happening.
I'm programming for S60, Windows Mobile, Android and iPhone.
If a friend is asking me what phone do I prefer, I say that it is a Nokia phone.
It is a Smartphone but Nokia don't forget that the device is a PHONE. And thats the real issue with much of the phones out there today.
Cell-Tower-to-Cell-Tower-Handover, a good mic, a good speaker, a good contact menu, a good battery, those are the very first points when I buy a phone.

A lot of Smartphone reviewer only review the SMART part of the device but not the PHONE.
Why? This is easy to answer -> Page-Hits

Only allaboutsymbian can afford to do a complete review of the device because they already have a good page-rank. I like your very detailled reviews.

I have an Android device here which is having a poor mic, when a handover is happening the call is disrupted for 2-5s or it is stopped completely.

I have an iphone here(for programming purposes), I think in terms of form factor it is a bit to clunky. I have seen a lot of iphones lying on the table in front of their owners. I used the iphone for some weeks, I know now why they are doing this. It is not to say - "Hey look at me have an iphone" - it is because it's uncomfortable to have the iphone in the pocket of your trowsers.

Windows Mobile - I don't really want to talk about Windows Mobile when I'm talking about a phone.

I mean look at your transflective Display review - it is outstanding.
Since three years I'm talking about Laptops with transflective screens - I would buy it even if there is a price-premium of 500$. But what are they doing - transflective displays is almost completely of the shelfes - you are the only guys in town who have the cojones to point at this - all other sites don't even remember that there was this superior technology.

It's not on your scope.....
I would love to see you guys with your knowledege testing other Smartphones - standalone - not this comparisons. Or a comparison Windows Mobile Phone against Android phone.
I know it is not your scope....

-raleigh- wrote:@Rafe

I read it again and still claim that it is misleading. Please do not take it personally, it is just a remark concerning this specific article.

In contrast to what you said in two places in the article, the results were really bad, not "encouraging", and what is even more depressive from investor point of view, the outlook is somewhat gloom.

In my opinion the issue may be addressed the next time by comparing opinions provided by the CEO with opinions by some outsiders. For example, there are people around who believe that Kallasvuo is just a bad CEO and things will go in a wrong direction regardless of all r&d effort and even if you disagree with this view, why not quote the critics? Below is a an article, which summarizes some arguments against current Nokia management in view of Q1 results.

Read the article again - the encouraging is in reference to smartphone segment sales and market share, which were both up. This is the area (unsurprising) that AAS and its audience is focused on. The other encouraging referred to Nokia Maps, which has had 10 million downloads - that is a good result.

But thank you for the feedback - I have taken it on board. As I mentioned before there's a lot of interpretation on this - and perhaps I should have been clearer what I was talking about specifically.

The recent view on OPK's performance as CEO is largely a matter of opinion and has been driven by stock market performance (see previous comments). The market has clearly judged him negatively.

Whether this is fair or not is a matter for debate. Personally I think there have been execution problems, but at the same time this is not something that is going to be solved over night. In other words a little more time is needed - if Symian^3, Symbian^4, Qt, MeeGo, Solutions and everything they represent in product roadmaps and strategy do not move things in a positive direction there would definitely be reason to be very concerned. Until that time (i.e. while still on the older technology enablers) Nokia can not, realistically, make significant changes. Crunch time will becoming next summer in my estimation.

slitchfield wrote:"he raves about the n8 in the aas podcast which has the same design as the hero. this talking out of both sides of his mouth"

I don't understand this. I was mainly raving about the N8's super-high-end camera functions, real loudspeaker and large OLED screen. The Hero doesn't have ANY of this. The two devices don't even LOOK the same, for goodness sake. Grrrr.....

Sorry Steve I think you missed my point. I agree that hardware on the n8 is much better than the hero. The talking out of both sides of your mouth comment was in regards to how both Nokia and HTC now have phones with the antennae located at the very bottom of the phone ( n8, new hero, e71 and e72) but you only make negative comments about this placement when discussing android phones. How could it be a poor placement for android phones, enough so that you can say so in your new hero review and again when you chose to show the video clip of tim telling the guys the hero has poor rf and yet nothing is ever said about potential issues with Nokia s decision to put the antennae in the same spots? I have owned the e71 a couple of times and also the e72 and I had to sell them because they could not hold a signal at my house where cell signals are weak.

If you don't get what I am talking about then you might want to watch the videos again.

I have never felt the AAS team were biased, except for the obvious bias of a Symbian based website.

The one thing you are guilty of though is absolute overkill in the use of "ecosystem"! I am pretty sure that over 90% of all the published articles on AAS include at least one reference to one ecosystem of another.

PLEASE BAN THE ECOSYSTEM FROM AAS!

Oops .. rant over haha

Unregistered wrote:Sorry Steve I think you missed my point. I agree that hardware on the n8 is much better than the hero. The talking out of both sides of your mouth comment was in regards to how both Nokia and HTC now have phones with the antennae located at the very bottom of the phone ( n8, new hero, e71 and e72) but you only make negative comments about this placement when discussing android phones. How could it be a poor placement for android phones, enough so that you can say so in your new hero review and again when you chose to show the video clip of tim telling the guys the hero has poor rf and yet nothing is ever said about potential issues with Nokia s decision to put the antennae in the same spots? I have owned the e71 a couple of times and also the e72 and I had to sell them because they could not hold a signal at my house where cell signals are weak.

If you don't get what I am talking about then you might want to watch the videos again.

There's a big difference between a currently available phone which DOES have reception problems caused by its antenna placement and a recently announced phone which MIGHT have the same problem... or are you expecting AAS to start reviewing phones before they actually get to use them...?

PaulyLaw wrote:I have never felt the AAS team were biased, except for the obvious bias of a Symbian based website.

The one thing you are guilty of though is absolute overkill in the use of "ecosystem"! I am pretty sure that over 90% of all the published articles on AAS include at least one reference to one ecosystem of another.

PLEASE BAN THE ECOSYSTEM FROM AAS!

Oops .. rant over haha

'Ecosystem' is rapidly being phased out in favour of 'data points'

buster wrote:There's a big difference between a currently available phone which DOES have reception problems caused by its antenna placement and a recently announced phone which MIGHT have the same problem... or are you expecting AAS to start reviewing phones before they actually get to use them...?

agreed, but i also mentioned two eseries phones that HAVE rf issues and steve fails to mention the poor rf and placement of antennae and if you watch steves phonesshow review of the hero he doesnt say that the new hero has poor rf (as far as i can remember) but he points out that the placement is poor and he doesnt like the idea of holding the phone where the antennae are located, which again he fails to point out as a negative when discussing the n8.

my point is that he points out negatives on competing devices but doesnt mention it as a negative when reviewing nokias. the proof is in the videos and podcasts which i enjoy watching and listening to, but because i watch and listen to them all i pick up on these little points. i am sure it is not malicious, its just a slight bias. watch the videos and listen to the audio and tell me that i am wrong.

I like AAS reviews, this is why I read (and watch) them. Period.

abruenin wrote:I like AAS reviews, this is why I read (and watch) them. Period.

Nice of you to let us all know.

For me, things went South with Steve's N97 review. That phone was and remains a dog to this day. Nokia even admitted that there were issues with a supposed "flagship" phone. The fact that Steve continued to hype the phone well after everyone saw it was a pitiful attempt at a smart phone, and the fact that so many people were returning them, and this problem and that problem and then finally 6 months later Nokia offers an upgrade that took the phone from God awful to basically awful, made me loose all respect for his reviews. I rarely read anything he writes with regards to reviewing phones. The very fact that he had to come out and post a thread to state that "he ain't that bad" is proof positive that what many are saying is true.

So be it. As far as I am concerned, AAS is not a credible source of info but that's okay. They don't have to be.

I'll certainly bear in mind the various data points about the use of the word ecosystems in future articles. 😊

On the serious side - I have taken on board all points about the N97. I also understand the ideal situation is to re-review a device on a major update, but this is not always practical (we will try to tell you what's in an update and when it happens). I'm considering a more formal editorial and review policy, but I think people do need to appreciate that opinion is always going to play a big role and that the benefit of hindsight is not to under estimated.

The N97 is an interesting issue, but what people might not remember is the N95 was in much the same situation as the N97 (in terms of both software and hardware flaws in the early review and retail units) - and the N95 went on to become one of Nokia's best loved devices. I think it would be very hard to see a big difference and correctly call the outcome at that early stage. I would also contend that the N97 in its current form (updated software, hardware fixes) is not the dog some people think it is - perception versus reality applies, to an extent, here.

Rafe wrote:
The N97 is an interesting issue, but what people might not remember is the N95 was in much the same situation as the N97 (in terms of both software and hardware flaws in the early review and retail units) - and the N95 went on to become one of Nokia's best loved devices. I think it would be very hard to see a big difference and correctly call the outcome at that early stage. I would also contend that the N97 in its current form (updated software, hardware fixes) is not the dog some people think it is - perception versus reality applies, to an extent, here.

To compare the N97's launch state with the N95's launch state is incredibly insulting and is a blatant attempt at trying to excuse it. Fact is, whatever the device, the launch state of the N97 wasn't acceptable at all and when people are paying good money for it, they don't need sites that sit around not reviewing it till it "gets better", they need sites telling them that it's rubbish, has serious problems and to not get it till those problems are sorted.

To be a good reviewer, it not only means praising the best stuff, it also means criticising when the need is there. There is no point in only focusing the good stuff, especially when with a product the negative clearly outweighs the positives. You have to have a balance, because if you don't, you will end up being accused of bias, which is exactly what is happening here. In the case of the N97, for example, a full and comprehensive review at the time of launch detailing exactly why you should NOT buy it was what was needed, not a few words on a podcast praising some of the good things and a wait till the firmware improved it. By waiting, you've simply let your followers go and buy it and subsequently discover they have bought a complete dud, when they could've bought an alternative from the same manufacturer. It does no one any favours.

Don't be afraid to properly criticise when it is needed. That's what a reviewer is supposed to do.

testman wrote:Nope. The N95 was nothing like the N97 when it first came out. I had the N97 and I still have the N95. I bought both the moment T-Mobile had them on sale. I can categorically state that the N95 was perfectly fine, with only a small number of bugs that were corrected in later firmware releases. The N97 was a dog when I first got it, with stupid bugs that utterly trumped any bugs that were in the N95 when it first came out (deleting what you have typed bugs, freezing, inconsistent menus, terrible GPS feature, inability to set the OS to ask you first when an app connects to the net, camera lens that would spontaneously scratch itself, poor memory management leaving you with no way to install apps to the main memory without fear of running out of memory... and there were plenty more besides). The N95's launch state wasn't anything as bad, with bugs mainly confined to it ignoring some of your key taps occasionally (something that I think also happened with the N97), GPS that took an age to lock on (although once it did it worked perfectly fine) and that was about it. Minor stuff by comparison.

To compare the N97's launch state with the N95's launch state is incredibly insulting and is a blatant attempt at trying to excuse it. Fact is, whatever the device, the launch state of the N97 wasn't acceptable at all and when people are paying good money for it, they don't need sites that sit around not reviewing it till it "gets better", they need sites telling them that it's rubbish, has serious problems and to not get it till those problems are sorted.

To be a good reviewer, it not only means praising the best stuff, it also means criticising when the need is there. There is no point in only focusing the good stuff, especially when with a product the negative clearly outweighs the positives. You have to have a balance, because if you don't, you will end up being accused of bias, which is exactly what is happening here. In the case of the N97, for example, a full and comprehensive review at the time of launch detailing exactly why you should NOT buy it was what was needed, not a few words on a podcast praising some of the good things and a wait till the firmware improved it. By waiting, you've simply let your followers go and buy it and subsequently discover they have bought a complete dud, when they could've bought an alternative from the same manufacturer. It does no one any favours.

Don't be afraid to properly criticise when it is needed. That's what a reviewer is supposed to do.

Great post and right on the mark. Trust me, I do not even bother to read a review anymore by Steve or Rafe. Biased or not, I just don't trust their reviews.

Still trying to make a point, or no one will trust your reviews?
Steve is very informative and his reviews are solid for how the systems work and how it compares to other phones. Leave it alone. You made your minor point and it is irrelevant. Maybe someday someone will trust you to actually review something.

I have to agree with testman, the N97 was an absolute debacle and to not review at release was an absolute disgrace. It's also quite insincere to justify this stance by comparing the n97 to the N95 as my understanding of the N95 is that it performed all of the functions that Nokia marketed after a few firmware updates, whereas the N97 does still not reliably perform the functions that Nokia marketed it with. Sure you can disable most of these features to make it run with a fair amount of stability but is that a reasonable thing to expect of a device that was sold for a premium and almost 12 months on and several firmware updates later still can't perform as marketed.

I like the concept of the N97 (hence my purchase) but Nokia just absolutely stuffed up the implementation with cost cutting, poor design, and the utter lack of quality control and the continued support of this rubbish device does Nokia no good. In the end it's fine for AAS to have a bias for Nokia but please don't get all upset when people point this bias out, it's just childish.

He made his point about 5 times. Enough already. Steve, for many years has reviewed these phones with information I cannot get anywhere else. It is helpful and leave it at that. He takes a lot of time to know the phones. Yes, the N97 didn't work well, but I looked carefully at AAS and it was reviewed and stated enough for a concern, even early. I was looking at it too. I contacted Steve and he readily told me his concern. I like the AAS and will continue to read. I think childish is criticizing over and over on a site that is really helpful.

I think the point people are making about bias has to do specifically with "access journalism." The fact that you rely on these companies' PR reps to send you these devices means that you cannot say too much bad about them, because if you do you risk being cut off from PR people and from advertisers. Compare it to "Consumer Reports," which says "We accept no advertising and pay for all the products we test. We are not beholden to any commercial interest."

However, I don't know why you claim to be journalists at all. This is a fansite. People should not expect objectivity and people should not take it too seriously.

Sorry I should have been clearer here. I was not saying the N95 and N97 are exactly the same. With hindsight I can definitely say the N97 was worse. However with the review N95 I had (which to be fair was prototype-ish - just ahead of retail units) there were some significant issues including software software stability, memory out errors, gritty slider and camera slider mechanism and an under performing GPS. What was different about the N95 was that it was a big leap forward and people were more forgiving as a result (including I suspect us - though the context of the smartphone world was very different). It wasn't until the N95 8GB came out (about six months later IIRC) that the N95 got into a really good state. Not the same as the N97 mini, but you can draw a comparison...

The point I was trying to making is that looking back I honestly do not think I could have spotted, with 100% confidence, a difference at the initial release point. Maybe I'm being too kind to the N97 though... and certainly I have taken on board the feedback about reviewing timings etc. For those that feel we have let them down or done a poor job I can only say that we will try to better in the future. I appreciate all feedback and, as ever, please do email me if you further concerns or want to contact me directly.

One of the devices that has come out since then is the X6 - and in the review we pointed out the issues and Ewan effectively recommended for people to wait for the first firmware update before buying. This I think is the sort of thing people want us to do?

Access journalism is a fair point and one that effects nearly every technology reviewer. This applies just as much to traditional media as online. However I think the idea that PR cut people off if they say something negative is very much overplayed (though this does vary from company to company).

I also think you rather underestimate the integrity of the reviewers. Ultimately if people think a reviewer had no credibility they would stop reading.. and the publication dies... Or put another way - you either write honestly or you do not - your audience will soon pick up on that. (But note honesty does not mean complete objectivity - something that's probably impossible to do perfectly given the need to encompass multiple view points and layers).

I would not describe All About Symbian as a fan site; that's certainly not the aim. Of course there is a Symbian flavour - that's the nature of the site.

I would also say the reviewers writing here are more knowledgeable about Nokia / Symbian etc. products that majority of tech reviewers writing about them. That doesn't automatically make them better, but there are plenty of articles on this site which go into detail you will not find elsewhere and may be helpful in making your decision.

I would always suggest that people should read any review / opinion with an appreciation of its context - from whatever source it comes from. But people are entitled to their own opinions on this.

I like this site and generally enjoy your views on Symbian phones but I wouldn't ever say it was an objective view. The reason why I say this is because you are basically entirely dependent on a successful Symbian ecosystem for your own success and will therefore always, consciously and unconsciously, try to show Symbian in a positive light. That is human nature and we all do it. Even skilled journalists. It's like a religious person saying they can be objective about the veracity of the bible. I say come out as Symbian supporters and fly the flag proudly instead of making these ridiculous assertions about your objectivity.