Consumer Reports appears to still be ranting about the reception issues on the iPhone 4, this time they’re targeting the Verizon iPhone 4 and excluding it from their list of recommended smartphones.

For that reason, we are not including the Verizon iPhone 4 in our list of recommended smart phones, despite its high ranking in our Ratings. Although Apple no longer offers a free case to buyers of the iPhone 4, as it did for a time after the problem was first discovered on the AT&T version, the company has said in the past that it will consider requests for a free case from customers who buy the phone and subsequently experience reception problems.

Consumer Reports helped set off Antennagate when the AT&T iPhone 4 was originally released. After their initial review of the iPhone 4, Consumer Reports claimed they couldn’t recommend the iPhone 4 due to the antenna issues.

I don’t know about any of you but the reception problems didn’t ever affect me personally. Maybe because I always use cases or bumpers. (Who doesn’t put a case on a phone as expensive as the iPhone?) I guess I’m not quite sure why Consumer Reports is still ranting about the issues. Millions of iPhones later, people still want them. All phones have signal attenuation issues when held, not just the iPhone. Is it just me or is Consumer Reports making mountains out of mole hills? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

Consumer Reports

BusinessWeek has an article up on Apple and Google considering app-sharing tools and — hold on, let’s deconstruct:

People like apps. “Tell a friend” buttons or, you know, actually physically showing someone a great app is difficult and far too real-world-contract requiring. However, Apple has iPhone 3.0 on the way, and with it — someone thinks they could enable something that might somehow enable and incentivize app sharing. And Google is considering enabling the same type of “recommendations”. Maybe.

Okay. Rewind.

Apps make a lot of money. Apps could make more money if not just the store or developers were selling them, but if users could push them to (at?) each other as well. Sound familiar? To the 5 of you reading who once owned Zunes, it probably does. Welcome to the Social. Just please don’t use the term “squirt”.

The theory is this. I love me some Peggle. I use a variation on iPhone 3.0′s P2P (peer-to-peer) connection technology to “share” Peggle with Leanna and Chris, who will then gobble it up, have tons of fun, and curse me for their loss of sleep time, likely in that order.

It’s not a crazy idea, even if Microsoft was already on to it years ago. iPhone 3.0 will already let you invite friends to join in multiplayer games. That could, theoretically, be extended to offer purchases for the game if they don’t already have it. Likewise, the BT-range limit could be extended to WiFi network or even cell provider (Oh, hi, AT&T infrastructure!)

To further promote the recommendations/sharing, Apple could — again theoretically — offer referral fees if/when the recommended/shared app is eventually converted into a sale. (Of course, the App Store, even under 3.0, doesn’t offer demos, so that would likely need to change first).

It’s an interesting idea at re-intermediating software sales. Microsoft is already “squirting” among Zune users, which makes sense given their very different, subscription-focused model. But the question is, with Apple being Apple, is it something they would do? Is it something they should?

And don’t be squirting no fart apps in our general directions! (Sorry, had to be said!)

[Thanks to the Reptile for the tip!]