I have been mighty critical of Consumer Reports and the way they cover consumer electronics. For some reason, Apple gets the brunt of their bad behavior, but I’m not about to suggest that CR has it in for them. The publication claims to be fair and balanced, mostly based on the fact that it’s run by a non-profit organization that doesn’t accept ads, and buys tested products at retail. So they know they’re not getting a “ringer” designed to work better than the mass-produced version, nor should they be unduly influenced by the companies who make the products they test. At least that’s the theory!

But they don’t seem to have a handle on how to test such consumer electronics gear as personal computers, smartphones, or tablets. When it comes to a PC, CR continually fails the Mac OS from Windows platforms. Yes, they realize the two operating systems exist, and will occasionally mention them with short blurbs about new versions and so forth and so on, but they don’t seem to have ever done a real test to see which one is best from a usability standpoint.

Worse, when they test a Mac against a PC, in almost every case, they will choose lower-end models for the latter, thus amplifying the perceived price difference. Yes, the tested models might be similar in having the same display size for note-books, or in an otherwise matching category, such as all-in-ones. But they never seem to do a comparison that involves configuring systems with identical hardware, and similar software bundles. CR’s efforts to dumb down their content for a general audience end up helping nobody.

It’s one thing, however, to just generalize to a fare-thee-well, and fail to distinguish critical differences. But when faulty testing results in a product that’s criticized for what’s basically a non-existent problem, or normal behavior, you have to wonder about CR’s agenda.

Consider the iPhone 4. It got the highest ratings from CR, compared to all other tested smartphones. But CR won’t recommend this hot-selling gadget because of their erroneous interpretation of the so-called “Death Grip” phenomenon.

Now when someone discovered that, when holding the iPhone 4 in a certain way, in a marginal reception area, you could kill your Internet connection or phone call, the story became viral. Soon lots of people made YouTube videos showing just how their iPhone 4 was impacted, but it went further. Others were able to duplicate a similar phenomenon on almost every other smartphone out there.

It’s not that Apple helped very much. The first response came in the form of a smart aleck remark from Steve Jobs suggesting the user should just hold the phone differently. Media coverage inflated to the point where Apple had to actually hold a press briefing to explain the problem, the state of mobile phone antenna technology, and deliver a reasonable solution.

For several months, Apple offered iPhone 4 customers free cases. At the same time they put up several pages on their site showing how easy it was to duplicate the “Death Grip” on other smartphones, including some of the popular models that CR was testing. But after a few days, the site was taken down. Maybe Apple felt they were giving competitors too much free space.

Worse, the manuals of some of those other smartphones warn of the dire consequences of holding the unit “improperly.” Some phones even have labels affixed to them pointing to the sensitive regions. Despite this, CR claims to have been unable to duplicate the “Death Grip” symptoms on any other smartphone. This has to mean that they are either incompetent, or being deceptive, since it’s so easily done.

Now when the Verizon Wireless version of the iPhone came out, the tech media noticed that Apple had redesigned the antenna to provide a “diversity” effect, meaning that the antenna element that gets the strongest signal has priority. Supposedly this layout might help reduce the “Death Grip,” which appears to be the case.

That is, except for CR’s testers, who still believe there’s a problem that Apple must address, which is why the Verizon iPhone is also not recommended.

A significant reality check comes in the form of an article published at CNNMoney.com, quoting an analysis from AnandTech, which is populated by real antenna experts. Their tests, with graphs included, demonstrated that the “Death Grip” symptoms were far less on the Verizon iPhone, and only a hair worse than on other smartphones.

I’m most concerned about the statement, in this particular article, that CR declined to provide details of their test results. I would think that the world’s largest consumer testing magazine would want to stand behind their work or, if need be, correct mistakes. Instead the CR rep quoted in the article simply claimed the two versions of the iPhone performed “similarly,” which, if you examine AnandTech’s test results, makes no sense.

So whom do you trust? Well, I don’t know if CR has any antenna experts on their testing staff, but AnandTech does. More to the point, it makes little sense to me how CR was unable to duplicate obvious smartphone antenna issues when anyone with two hands, and a camcorder to shoot the results, was able to do so.

Unfortunately, far too many members of the media take CR at face value. Maybe if journalists started asking them the tough questions, they’d realize they have to change their ways, and fix the serious, persistent problems with their test methodology.

I wonder if Apple wasn’t somehow responsible, but, in the days before Apple’s Wednesday media event, rumors arose that Steve Jobs would return to the stage as host. When he appeared, still quite thin but spry, he got a standing ovation from the usually calm and collected cadre of reporters who were invited to the highly-anticipated iPad 2 rollout.

While the initial speculation had it that the iPad 2 would be, at best, a modest upgrade, Apple again amazed the critics. The iPad 2 was introduced as a dramatically new design, with an Apple A5 1GHz dual-core processor promising up to twice the CPU performance, plus graphics that are said to be nine times speedier than the original version. The new case is a third thinner than the previous model, even thinner than the iPhone 4 by about half a millimeter. It also weighs almost two-tenths of a pound less, and comes with the standard aluminum case, with a front surround that’s either black or white, and I hope Apple will actually be able to ship the latter from Day One.

And, yes, there are both front and rear-facing cameras. The specs list the front as VGA, the rear promises HD-quality video. Clearly Apple isn’t anticipating the latter’s suitability for regular snapshots.

One notable disappointment is the fact that there are separate AT&T and Verizon Wireless versions of the 3G model. I had hoped Apple would have considered a “world” iPad, presaging a similar approach on the next iPhone. Well, maybe next year.

The iPad 2’s model lineup is essentially the same as the previous version, with prices starting at $499 for the 16GB Wi-Fi entry-level configuration. It will ship starting March 11th, which also largely defeats speculation that the product would be substantially delayed. The rollout will begin in the U.S., and expand to 26 more countries starting March 25th, which means that they expect to have enough stock on hand to satisfy the initial demand.

In response to the offerings from competitors of HDMI output, Apple’s HD option requires a $39 adapter that attaches to the dock connector. That means they don’t have to add an extra port to the unit, which, I suppose, might upset Apple’s design sensibilities. Another accessory, Smart Cover, is a tour-de-force as cases go, attaching to the iPad 2 with magnets. Smart Covers automatically awakens the iPad from sleep when it’s opened, and protects just the top of the unit, incorporating a micro-fiber lining designed to clean the screen.

In response to a video displaying the capabilities of Smart Cover, Macworld’s Dan Moren, who was covering the event for the magazine, pronounced it, “one of the strangest Apple videos I’ve ever seen.” They’re priced at $39 for polyurethane, and $69 for leather, and each version will be available in several colors.

As far as the early predictions went, the iPad 2’s screen appears to be essentially the same as the one in the previous version, as far as specs go. A Retina Display alternative will have to wait for a future upgrade, I suppose. The current feeling around the industry is that flat panels offering all those extra pixels are still too expensive. There’s also no SD card slot.

The expectation that the existing iPad will be continued at a lower price doesn’t seem to be in the cards either, since Apple wiped all evidence of the previous model from their online store.

Apple also gave a brief display of iOS 4.3, arriving March 11th for existing mobile devices in addition to the iPad 2. This update will not just offer improvements in AirPlay, and an iTunes home sharing feature, but Safari’s JavaScript performance will be doubled, according to Apple, because of the use of the WebKit Nitro JavaScript engine. There will also be support for a personal hotspot. But whether you can take advantage of it depends on carrier support. At least you’ll be able to pick and choose.

In other developments, a greatly enhanced upgrade to iMovie was demonstrated by developer Randy Ubillos, Apple’s chief architect for their video apps. Supporting both the iPad and the iPhone 4, the  new version of iMovie includes audio editing and other enhancements that bring it closer in features to the desktop version. Of course, there’s a way to go, but it becomes ever more clear by the moment that Apple expects you to create and not just consume on the iPad.

Indeed, that impression was buttressed by the introduction of GarageBand for the iPad, which will debut on the App Store for $5 on March 11. It is similar in concept and compatible with the Mac version, promising up to eight-track recording and mixing, AAC support, sampling, plus a standard repertoire of more than 250 audio loops. Your projects are also compatible with those on the Mac version. I imagine that, as iPad processor power and built-in memory are enhanced in future versions, more tracks will be supported, and, perhaps the same number as the desktop version. But not yet.

Towards the end of the presentation, Jobs announced that the 1.3 pound iPad 2 “blows my mind.” I expect customers will agree, and the makers of would-be iPad killers will rush back to the drawing boards.

The oh-so-common perception is that Apple is the luxury consumer electronics company, and only the well heeled are able to buy their iconic gadgets. However, despite the global financial meltdown of recent years, the company continues to earn record revenues and profits. People can’t stay away from iPads, iPhones, Macs, and so on and so forth.

Moreover, loads of news stories with a potential Apple angle are given Class-A treatment. Whether it’s the state of health of Steve Jobs, or whether or not a future iPad or iPhone will somehow be delayed, Apple can’t stay out of the headlines. You can’t say that about BMW, the luxury car maker with whom Apple is often compared.

When it comes to pricing, I think Apple gets a bad rap. The iPod, for example, can be had for as little as $49. Yes, there are cheaper digital media players, but it’s not as if they can match Apple’s superb hardware and software integration. That’s surely worth a paying a tiny bit extra, even if your budget is challenged.

But when it comes to Macs, the critics are probably right about high prices, though with certain qualifications. Yes, the Mac mini, at $699, might be pricey as tiny desktop computers go, but when you legitimately compare all of the hardware components, the operating system and the software bundle, suddenly a Mac doesn’t seem so costly. On the high end of the ledger, as I’ve said before, a Mac Pro workstation can often be priced lower than a Dell or HP minitower with a similar configuration.

Certainly such publications as Consumer Reports subtly convey the “Mac is expensive” meme simply by comparing them with cheaper Windows PCs in their product reviews. CR is also clueless about operating system differences, and, in the case of the iPhone 4 and its alleged antenna deficiencies, downright wrong.

But the most interesting recent development when it comes to Apple’s products was expressed in a statement from COO Tim Cook, in a meeting with an industry analyst. The telltale phrase is that Apple doesn’t want its products to be meant “just for the rich.”

This statement comes ahead of the expected announcement of the iPad 2. Certainly the first iPad is already cheaper than competing tablet computers. In order to get the price of those other tablets to be somewhat lower than the iPad, you have to sign a data contract with a wireless carrier. So, in the end, you actually end up paying far more than you might have otherwise expected.

I’ll avoid any comments about what Apple is going to introduce this week, so as not to risk having this column rendered obsolete within hours after it’s posted. Instead, I’ll consider the wider issue of Apple’s retail price policies.

When the iPad was first announced, the media expected starting prices in the range of $799 to $999, but Apple promised they’d be aggressive, and they were. Within a few years, assuming the savings realized by economies of scale and the lower cost of parts, you might see a full-fledged iPad for $299 or even less. This is a mass market product, and Apple doesn’t want to put up obstacles that will prevent people from buying one.

There is also that persistent rumor that a cheaper iPhone is in the works. Some have suggested smaller, although that might cause problems for developers accustomed to designing apps for a specific screen size, not to mention customers having to navigate across tinier touchscreens. On the other hand, don’t forget that Apple can still provide a 2009 iPhone 3GS, in the base 8GB configuration, for a subsidized price of $49. Using less-expensive, less-powerful components may make it possible to deliver different variations of the iPhone 5 to meet a variety of price points. Not that $199 is expensive as smartphones go, but when you’re competing against gear that may be provided free with the same two-year contract, it’s clear Apple has plenty of room to maneuver and push more iPhones out the door.

One way to make products cheaper, without sacrificing quality or features, is to pay less for the raw materials. Apple has already announced the decision to spend $3.9 billion on certain unmentioned components. With tens of billions of dollars still in the bank, they can readily corner the market for a variety of parts, thus taking advantage of lower prices. Those savings can be passed on to you, the customer, without seriously hurting Apple’s historically high profit margins.

I wouldn’t presume to guess just where Apple plans to take aggressive pricing. It’s very possible that, as Macs continue to grow ahead of the PC industry as a whole, your next Mac will also cost less. Maybe not this year, and certainly the new MacBook Pro family is no cheaper than last year’s model, but perhaps in the next year or two.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see a $499 Mac mini all over again? And, according to published reports, Mac OS X Lion will, at the standard price (expected to be $129) include the Server version, which formerly sold for $499 all by itself. Don’t forget that Mac OS X, sans a bundled Server install, is already much less expensive than Windows, at least for end-users rather than OEMs who buy them by the millions. Take that Microsoft!

Just the other day, I read the first test results from Macworld for the latest members of the MacBook Pro family. The top-of-the-line $2,499 17-inch MacBook Pro scores some 53% faster than its predecessor from 2010. By any definition of faster, this is a huge improvement, and one that often requires two or three product refreshes to attain. What’s more, the benchmarks were done on standard configurations. There are even faster processors available as options, along with solid state drives to provide immense boosts in disk-related tasks.

True, the speed improvement on other MacBook Pros weren’t quite as extreme, but it all goes to demonstrate the prowess of the first release of Intel’s Sandy Bridge processor family. It doesn’t hurt that those high-end MacBook Pros are the first Apple note-books to sport quad-core processors, which counts for a fair amount of the speed bump. It’s quite likely that the next generation iMacs might not improve quite so much, simply because the high-end configurations already include quad-core from last year’s processor families.

Indeed, the speed enhancements from the extra cores are fairly modest right now, simply because so few apps really take advantage of any more than the first core. But with a smart OS, and Mac OS X is doing better and better in this respect, tasks can still be cleverly allocated so more of the cores on that processor are doing their share of the number crunching.

No doubt a near-future Mac mini will also be upgraded with Sandy Bridge processors. Imagine a quad-core mini?

But the real change in recent years is the fact that more and more content creation can be done even on a relatively affordable Mac with excellent performance. Sure, there are still advantages with the Mac Pro when it comes to expandability, and the ability to run the very fastest RAID drives available, along with extra graphics cards and other components. But Apple has also become a great equalizer. When powerful RAID-based storage devices appear to support the new Thunderbolt protocol first introduced on the MacBook Pro, you can bet that the need of a Mac Pro will be lessened severely, and I have little doubt that the iMac will soon get Thunderbolt as well, and, perhaps, the Mac mini. The best way to make this peripheral port successful is to make sure that no Macs are left out.

I know I’ve taken advantage of the less-costly solutions on the Mac platform in the past couple of years. It all began when, in late 2009, I sold off a Mac Pro with a 30-inch display, and acquired a 27-inch iMac with the fastest optional quad-core Intel i7 available at the time. I got $300 change for my efforts, after buying that iMac, which I used to pay some bills.

What I discovered was that nothing I did seemed any slower. While I’m not engaged in 3D graphics creation, I certainly do my share of audio editing, and none of the apps I used, including Bias Peak Pro — my favored post-production tool — ran any slower than before. At the time, Macworld’s own benchmarks showed that top-of-the-line iMac to perform slightly better than a 2009 Mac Pro.

Even today, the performance advantages of buying a workstation that can easily cost upwards of $5,000 for many configurations are nowhere near as significant as they used to be. Yes, I understand that a small cadre of Mac users will still bask in the additional capabilities of a Mac Pro. No doubt Apple will continue to build this product, even though sales can’t be much higher than the tens of thousands each quarter nowadays. Along with the arrival of Thunderbolt, you’ll most likely be seeing processors with six or more cores in consumer Macs before long. I do see a day when there will be little or no need for a Mac Pro, and I know some of you will resist that prospect.

Indeed, the time will arrive in the next few years where any Mac will be a luxury that will be mostly used by business customers with very demanding needs. To be sure, I certainly can’t imagine myself writing these columns, or longer manuscripts on an iPad. But for many of you, the iPad will become your chosen personal computer, since it does so many things so well even this early in its lifecycle.

When it comes to overall performance, I’ve always wondered how many processor cores and terabytes of storage you need to read and write email, surf the Internet, play games, listen to music, and watch movies. Certainly no word processor, even one as humongously bloated as Microsoft Word, should require the vast amounts of processor power that are the norm in personal computers these days.

Right now, I understand why one of my colleagues, author Kirk McElhearn, dumped his Mac Pro and switched to a Mac mini some time back. He hasn’t regretted the decision, and I expect more and more of you might follow the move to more affordable Macs in the near future. That is until, you fully adopt the iPad instead.