iPhone X reviews are expected to receive the largest audience, so Apple's strategy of starving time probably makes the reviewers be more favorable.
I've also known a reviewer who got into Apple's "Shadow Ban" list for a negative review. In his case, Apple product reviews always garnered the largest audience, thereby impacting his bottom line.
"Shadow Ban" seems like you're saying tech reviewers are entitled to being able to review Apple devices before they're released. But that's not true. Apple always seeds a limited number of devices (rather than giving one to anyone who claims to be a journalist), and it's their prerogative to give the devices to the reviewers of their choice.
While that's true, for the user, a review by a reviewer who is afraid to state his opinion or mention any negative in order to be invited again, is quite useless.
It's hardly black and white. Some would argue that a review by a reviewer who got to use a hot new phone for free cannot be fair in the first place. It's one of the reasons Consumer Reports buys all of the things they test for full price at retail.
The key part is not if they have to pay or not, but if the conditions of getting the phone or not can possibly be affected by the previous reviews.
A reviewer who gets to use a phone for free provided by Apple understands that Apple might not "gift" the next phone if they don't like the review.
A reviewer who gets to use a phone for free provided by their employer doesn't care about what Apple thinks, since Consumer Reports can and will buy the next phone for testing anyway under the same conditions as always.
Right, but people can and do use a company's legal actions to make moral judgements on them. If a web hosting company chose to give hosting space to a hate-group, people would be upset too.
It's disappointing that Apple feels like they can bully people into only giving them favorable reviews.
Is there ANY evidence Apple is bullying anyone? Being selective and choosing new channels isn’t bullying — it’s smart marketing. Why would any company seed a review device to a hostile outlet? That’s just stupid. All the people that want to write negative reviews shall have their opportunity.
People are “mad” because they were looking forward to cashing in on web traffic. Apple doesn’t owe anyone a preview unit.
>Why would any company seed a review device to a hostile outlet? That’s just stupid. All the people that want to write negative reviews shall have their opportunity.
I don't know whether choosing to highlight the flaws in a product is honest or hostile. In any case, Apple is within their rights, and so are others to express their opinion. Relax! Nobody is taking your toys away!
I've seen reviewers say negative things about Apple products within the context of a review and still get future devices.
I don't know what reviewer the parent was talking about, but if Apple thought their review was unfair, I see no problem with Apple deciding not to give that reviewer any more devices.
"Bullying" would be "you can't say anything negative". As I already said, I've seen reviewers say negative things and still get devices. There's a difference between saying negative things in a review, and writing an unfair review.
You can still be a bully even if you do it 5% of the time. Its not all black, doesn't mean its white, and the reality is always grey. I'll concede that maybe at times, the reviewers are unfair, and at times Apple is unfair. We can judge it ourselves on a case by case basis. You can just as easily rush to point out "the person is within their rights to say this" just as "apple is within their rights to withold devices". I don't particularly feel the need to defend Apple (or any other giant corporation). They have people they pay for that.
I've also known a reviewer who got into Apple's "Shadow Ban" list for a negative review. In his case, Apple product reviews always garnered the largest audience, thereby impacting his bottom line.