The battery life of my new 15" MacBook Pro are definitely highly dependent on how I'm using the computer. If I'm working using Xcode, Adobe products, Slack, and anything else that uses battery, I'm get about 5-6 hours. However, when I'm just web browsing, I can easily get 10-12 hours.
However, if I'm doing the same thing, I get the same battery life.
Consumer Reports simply made a mistake. The computers were most likely improperly configured in some way. For example, maybe they did something that occasionally caused spotlight to reindex the whole computer when they reset their tests. Who knows what actually caused it, but anyone with a knowledge of processors and batteries must realize that the computer was doing something differently between tests.
The battery life of my new 15" MacBook Pro are definitely highly dependent on how I'm using the computer. If I'm working using Xcode, Adobe products, Slack, and anything else that uses battery, I'm get about 5-6 hours. However, when I'm just web browsing, I can easily get 10-12 hours.
However, if I'm doing the same thing, I get the same battery life.
Consumer Reports simply made a mistake. The computers were most likely improperly configured in some way. For example, maybe they did something that occasionally caused spotlight to reindex the whole computer when they reset their tests. Who knows what actually caused it, but anyone with a knowledge of processors and batteries must realize that the computer was doing something differently between tests.
Something smells fishy. You would think Apple would've tested the hell out of the batteries.
I am a subscriber to CR but some of its criteria can be subjective.
1) They test the battery design, but they doesn't mean that a manufacturing flaw can't occur. We just saw that with the iPhone 6 battery exchange.
2) The effect is highly fluctuating battery life, but that's not likely the catalyst. Sure, it could be something with the battery's controller, but I think that's unlikely. I think it's more likely that something with their test was triggering the CPU and/or GPU to work harder. Why it's not consistent is a mystery, which is why it would've been nice to have tests to see peak and average CPU and GPU usage during these tests, as well as isolation of each of their 10 cached and localized websites to help narrow down which activity is utilizing additional power.
Apple should focus more on Mac and release new products each year, as with iOS. Do not forget Mac Pro with Apple Thunderbolt Display.
Not enough people are buying machines like this to make it worthwhile releasing them each year; otherwise, they'd do it.
In 2015 Apple sold more Macs than at any other time in a pre-iOS period. That justifies updating them on the usual upgrade rate. If Apple were still only a Mac manufacturer it would be a very successful company and having millions ploughed into it in R&D. The 'problem' is that iDevices are more interesting for the company and that is where the focus is.
Selling new Macs that are really late 2015 models is absolutely criminal from a purely business perspective.
If they can't keep the Mac business how it should be, perhaps it's time to make it independent and give it some focus of its own, away from the iDevice division.
Well if they're selling Macs in greater numbers then doesn't that mean that folk are happy with the machines they're buying? Otherwise, how are they selling the machines at such allegedly high prices?
That's why I mentioned 2015 and not 2016. It will be interesting to see how this year pans out, come the next earnings call. Apart from real sales, any great business should also be tracking lost sales. That is to say, it is fine to pat yourself on the back and say sales were great but something else to look at those numbers and say they could have been even higher, why weren't they?
Obviously not one single manufacturer in this industry can honestly say that it is acceptable for potential customers to walk into a store just before Christmas, walk up to any of the current models (in this case iMacs), check 'About this Mac', and see: 'iMac. Late 2015'.
It is unforgivable from a purely business perspective but also from the customer's perspective. 2017 is a week away.
". . . unforgivable from a purely business perspective" — what is unforgivable is your arguing from, again, ignorance.
You have no idea what their upgrade plans or technical or personnel constraints are. Period. You are therefore self-generating your own peevish moral outrage with that "unforgivable."
You and others like you here act as if Apple can do anything based on their size or their cash on hand. I'd argue that they are 1) stretched thin with the kind of talent they need to engineer the particular machines they build, and 2), their threshold for updating has become steadily higher. In other words, if they can't push out salient, saltatory improvements, they will merely tweak the platform until they can do another quantum leap, like with these MBPs. These are two reasons why you can't responsibly use that word "unforgivable."
One Word for you: Yikes!
The iMac is a consumer machine. You cannot ever go into the CHRISTMAS quarter, your consumer sales best quarter, pushing last year's machines. No excuses. Period. Never. This isn't the Apple of old that pushed out new hardware at MacWorld Expo in January.
I hope you understand that in this industry, in the internet age, you cannot do that on a consumer level.
Whatever the reason.
The Yikes! Mac is perfect example of what you have to do.
You say 'Jony. Put the book on hold. We're in trouble. We need an iMac tweek' and you do it. You get enough eengineering resources available and you do it.
Personnel? No. If the issue was personnel the problem is far worse than I think.
I think many people look at Apple as a conventional consumer-driven company, chained to the ridiculous tyranny of the holiday season, obligated to offer a new model every year, obligated to have the latest specs across their lines, ready to throw surplus engineers into any breach of schedule.
They don't need to do things this way; they are doing enough business to be spending $10 billion or so on their R&D. Instead of armies of engineers churning out half-assed updates, it seems to me more like they have small teams that move from one platform to another, and from one technology to another. If some lines languish temporarily, no big deal. It's not like they owe you an update that they have to be forgiven for skipping.
But it seems that more users reporting here like the keyboard.
I liked the rest of your post. I snipped it only for brevity.
For the record, if we're tabulating votes here, I do not care for the keyboard in my new MacBook Pro (15). When I tried it out in the store while waiting for mine to be delivered I actually thought I was going to love it. Over the month or so I've been using it I've grown to like it less.
I don't hate it, and there are aspects I actually like more than the old one (less horizontal jiggle), but overall I'd rather have the older one. For me it seems to be an issue of insufficient travel, and maybe the keys being too big with not enough space between them.
I'm loving my new 2016 tMBP 13". Sorry. I don't think this is a failure aside from those that want to find fault in it. I just opened it today at about 2:30 PM and have been setting it up and haven't plugged it in for long (just long enough to check out the USB-C power cord. It's now 11 PM at night and the battery isn't dead yet. I also had to transfer 65 GB of data from iCloud and install apps and of course Spotlight was running too. I've been doing some compiling in Xcode and terminal too so not light work, but not video encoding either. Now I haven't been using it continuously that whole time, but so far it's holding it's own. I want to run the battery down and then charge it fully (it had about 88% charge new) and then give it a fair battery life test.
I'm glad for you. Unfortunately too many instances of battery and graphics issues for me to take the plunge right now. Many users, including CR are reporting erratic battery life. That combined with the new info from the Bloomberg article tells me Gen 2 of this new lineup should be much improved.
Supposedly the latest software update fixed graphics issues. But Apple told Ars Technica there was nothing in this release to improve battery life. So I don't know if that means Apple doesn't think there's an issue (or doesn't think it's software related) or does know but doesn't have a fix yet.
I'd be surprised if they had enough information to fix this as yet.
Maybe they should have taken the same approach as the AirPods and just let the release date lapse without any notice and then say nothing until hey figured out what the problem was and fixed it, then released them suddenly without any warning. Seems to have worked for the AirPods. ;-)
By mid-2017 most of the first generation bugs will be squashed, developers will better utilize Touch Bar, Apple will optimize its internal hardware, Intel will fab a smaller, faster, more powerful chip that can accommodate 32 GB of DDRAM, the graphic chip and drivers will be optimized and next gen, Apple will lower the price, and the discounts will be steeper. That's the early adopter tax. I know, I've been there. Until then I pass on the first generation MBP. My 32 GB 27" Retina iMac and 2010 MBA will tide me over. When Apple optimized the MBP, Consumer Report will likely re-add it to its list.
For myself, I've been wanting a Mac but have not found one that actually meets my needs without paying between 2 to 5 times more than a WIndows laptops for the same functionality.
If you apply the words "same functionality" honestly, I think you'll find that's not actually the case. I say this based on what I found while recently weighing the alternatives myself.
It may be fair to say that you don't need the brightest, widest-colour gamut, lightest-weight pixel-doubling display on the market, but it's disingenuous to refer to a machine without such capability as being "the same." It may be satisfactory for your needs, but it's not "the same." It's less enjoyable to use and isn't capable of providing as much decision-making information as the one in the Mac. The intrinsic value is there whether or not it's worth the cost for your particular use.
I've also found that the machines in the range of 1/5 to 1/2 the price of a MacBook Pro still use hard drives for storage. The new MacBook Pro's storage is not only solid state, but it's built with chips that are twice as fast as last years' and tied directly to the PCIe bus rather than through a SATA bottleneck. Not at all "the same."
None of the inexpensive machines I looked at offered quad-core processors. The ones that did were priced closer to the MacBook Pro than they were to the "fraction of the price" machines. Nor did any of them offer Thunderbolt or USB 3.1.
The MacBook Pro may be overkill for your needs and wants, and that's perfectly reasonable, but it's not fair to say that cheap machines offer the same functionality.
You don't have to exhaust all your technology culture in one post to prove that Apple has a battery problem with the new MBPs ;-) Keep it short please...
Noted.
For the record, last year I got teased at work for my verbose emails. I started making them shorter, and wound up sending twice as many. Follow-up details and clarifying misunderstandings. This being a discussion forum, and readers having the option to skip over posts, I happen to think it's better to err on the side of clarity.
For those of you saying that CR doesn't have advertising, then how do you explain the image below? If you think this is fabricated, then go to the web site yourself and click on ad choices at that bottom.
You are aware of the difference between accepting advertising and getting a check for site metrics from an ad network, right? Seems kind of hard to bias reporting when the people writing you checks, like Google, accept ad dollars from literally thousands of vendors, wouldn't ya think? "Hello, Facebook, yeah we're up to our auto review this year so be sure to strong-arm Subaru and we'll give them a swell review". In case you haven't read the reviews for cars, CR was merciless on Subaru. While you ponder that, or look for other reasons for bias, consider how many sites give you the option of turning all that off.
CR does get things wrong on occasion, and I've seen them print retractions and warnings about previous product reviews.
Or, you can read Amazon reviews and Yelp, doh-mattah to me. I trust CR over a public traded company any day of the week.
What you call "site metrics" is your exact browsing history on that site. They don't accept advertising but they sell your browsing habits, your items of interest to advertisers. Every minute detail of your browsing, everthing you click are reported to advertisers. This is just like a hidden camera following you and recording you in the shopping mall. This is worse than displaying ads. You can ignore displayed ads or turn them off with some browser extensions, but you cannot hide your browsing history and your items of interest while you navigate in that site.
Which has nothing to do with Consumer Reports' independence or review integrity, which is what is being questioned.
For those of you saying that CR doesn't have advertising, then how do you explain the image below? If you think this is fabricated, then go to the web site yourself and click on ad choices at that bottom.
You are aware of the difference between accepting advertising and getting a check for site metrics from an ad network, right? Seems kind of hard to bias reporting when the people writing you checks, like Google, accept ad dollars from literally thousands of vendors, wouldn't ya think? "Hello, Facebook, yeah we're up to our auto review this year so be sure to strong-arm Subaru and we'll give them a swell review". In case you haven't read the reviews for cars, CR was merciless on Subaru. While you ponder that, or look for other reasons for bias, consider how many sites give you the option of turning all that off.
CR does get things wrong on occasion, and I've seen them print retractions and warnings about previous product reviews.
Or, you can read Amazon reviews and Yelp, doh-mattah to me. I trust CR over a public traded company any day of the week.
What you call "site metrics" is your exact browsing history on that site. They don't accept advertising but they sell your browsing habits, your items of interest to advertisers. Every minute detail of your browsing, everthing you click are reported to advertisers. This is just like a hidden camera following you and recording you in the shopping mall. This is worse than displaying ads. You can ignore displayed ads or turn them off with some browser extensions, but you cannot hide your browsing history and your items of interest while you navigate in that site.
Which has nothing to do with Consumer Reports' independence or review integrity, which is what is being questioned.
What independence? Are they a statutory institution? A true independence can only be acquired by some form of law, not by self-claiming independent.
They are dependent on clicks and that one is a click-bait article. "CR doesn't recommend" brings always more clicks than "CR recommends" regarding a famous brand.
Apple is not standing still and neither is its customer base. The youngsters starting to use computers professionally today have grown up with narrow travel keyboards and touch sensitive screens, so that is who Apple is catering for. You think that Apple should carry on making keyboards and screens and fitting ports for the middle-aged?
I think the question is more if they should be shifting target markets (or dump their old ones), and what cost that will have on them in the long-run. For a company of their size, they should be able to serve more than one market-segment.
It's like if Ford said, 'hey, look, trucks are outselling cars.... let's slowly phase out cars and focus on trucks. (And, we'll just keep telling them we're still committed to cars... they'll believe it for a while.)'
We know that Apple's interest in Machine Learning is mainly under the hood. They are looking at using AI to prolong battery life, so I'm wondering if what we're seeing is a byproduct of that.
AI would explain a lot, lol. Nice theory. And... they are putting this stuff in 4000 lb cars that might just be 'driving' around on roads with the rest of us. New possible definition for insanity.
Not enough people are buying machines like this to make it worthwhile releasing them each year; otherwise, they'd do it.
No. First, 'not enough' is in context to numbers of items from other product lines. Apple would have been previously thrilled to sell so many. Second, they haven't provided what the target market wants, so the numbers could be higher if they did it right. And, third, it isn't about the numbers. If Apple abandons certain market segments because they aren't the highest in numbers, they'll be making the mistake others have made in the past (which allowed Apple to get where they now are). It would be kind of like Ford deciding to quit racing because they sell more trucks.
Supposedly the latest software update fixed graphics issues. But Apple told Ars Technica there was nothing in this release to improve battery life. So I don't know if that means Apple doesn't think there's an issue (or doesn't think it's software related) or does know but doesn't have a fix yet.
I've read elsewhere from people who have the graphics problem after the update, so that might not be the case.
Yeah, the ratings can seem like they miss the mark sometimes, like the example you cite, but consider that they're intended for a mainstream audience. For the typical schmuck buying a computer for the family, there have undoubtedly been times when a Windows machine was a better choice when all the various considerations are taken into account.
For sure, I agree w/ Consumer Reports on reporting this one (aside from noting it might be a software fix). I'm talking about CU (in a more negative sense) in general over the last decade or so.
re: PC... maybe, but most of my relatives who did buy said PCs ended up spending a lot more over the same time-range as my parents, who took my advice and bought Macs. They also needed a lot more of my help, which would have cost them even more had I not been available. That's why, in part, I thought CU was so wrong in their recommendations on that. IMO, they were the enthusiasts who didn't get the real-world realities of a typical family owning/operating a computer.
Also, I learned quite young, to try and buy quality whenever possible, or strongly consider doing without. That advice has served me well over the years. CU seems to often go for cheap (but, hopefully reliable), over quality. There's a difference.
You must be thinking about some other publication. They don't allow advertising, that's the whole beauty of Consumer Reports. If you don't agree then provide a reference.
You may have missed my comment about NPR. Their beauty is supposedly that they don't take advertising either (and are supposed to be unbiased). But, underwriters, sponsors, etc. have much the same effect. CU has been doing all sorts of partnerships and side-deals in the last decade.
Well if they're selling Macs in greater numbers then doesn't that mean that folk are happy with the machines they're buying? Otherwise, how are they selling the machines at such allegedly high prices?
Nope, they are coasting on past reputation, and new market expansion, via iDevice sales. Their sales and profits will likely climb a bit more no mater what dumb things they do currently. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Keyboard - This was one of my major concerns. ... At first, I didn't like the keyboard. It felt "digital" to me. It has a more solid feel along with the shorter key stroke which is noticeable. However, after having used both laptops side-by-side for a weeks I know prefer the 2016 MBP keyboard over the previous generation.
That's been my experience as well (with previous keyboard transitions). I've cringed a bit as keyboards changed from the old Apple Extended Keybaord (& II), but as I've gotten used to them, I don't think I'd go back. They are way more quiet, and in the end, I think I'm now typing faster. If I stuck with one or the other, who knows... but for practicality, I'm better off with the new.
90% of the laptop owners I know use them almost entirely at their desks. ... But, Apple has designed ALL of their laptops to prioritize high mobility -- by prioritizing thinness and lightness at the expense of functionality & practicality for MOST users.
The problem here is two different target markets. I think Apple *should* still make a laptop for real portable pros. It could be bigger (15" or 17" and have some true GPU power). It's not going to be tiny and thin though.
These laptops are designed for 'pro' business users and maybe some video editors. But, they aren't necessarily designed for other pro, mobile uses. In theory, they can be externally expanded, if Apple ever gets on board with eGPUs and such. The reason they are used at desks, is that most pro uses involve one or two BIG displays. But, many of these people still want the machine with them when they are away from the desk (or they'd buy a Mac Pro).
Re: Windows - it's more about the OS than the machines. Though, this is quickly changing, so might not be the case in another year or two (if trends continue).
Basically, it's a worthless publication, especially in the era of user-generated reviews.
I don't think CU is worthless... you just have to glean some info from the reviews and ratings and apply it to your situation or decide if it's relevant. (Aside from alleged corruption.) While I don't just blindly go by their lists, I often do learn various things that might influence my decision.
"Unconstrained by advertising or other commercial influences, we have exposed landmark public health and safety issues and have strived to be a catalyst for pro-consumer changes in the marketplace."
And, of course, they'd never say it if it weren't true...
touch bar is a gimmick (or in the way when using Xcode and suddenly you brush a button and unexpected stuff happens)
A lot of Apple stuff is getting like that anymore. It's like the designers aren't thinking real-world. And, the software... much of it is headed into dancing-paper-clip-land.
That might be... but it isn't like CU is the only one then. Some percentage of real-world users are also, 'making mistakes' as they are only getting like 4 hours of battery life too (and some of them came from previous MBP models and didn't have that problem).
I've also found that the machines in the range of 1/5 to 1/2 the price of a MacBook Pro still use hard drives for storage. ... The MacBook Pro may be overkill for your needs and wants, and that's perfectly reasonable, but it's not fair to say that cheap machines offer the same functionality.
They don't cost 1/5 to 1/2, but aside from being slightly less well-built, there are some machines I might now pick over a MPB if they didn't only run Windows. They perform better and are out-of-the-box eGPU compatible!
For the record, last year I got teased at work for my verbose emails. I started making them shorter, and wound up sending twice as many. Follow-up details and clarifying misunderstandings. This being a discussion forum, and readers having the option to skip over posts, I happen to think it's better to err on the side of clarity.
No doubt. But, it seems today's people would rather spend a hour exchanging a dozen short emails, than just taking 5 minutes to read a bit longer one. (shrug)
In addition to battery issues, the latest MacBooks have the
WORST keyboards of any laptops available today. There is hardly any key travel
- it is like typing on a virtual screen on an iPad. Imagine, if Yamaha Pianos
reduced the travel of their piano keys - there would be an outrage. Creative
people - including writers using a keyboard - need to feel and touch the keys
to connect with their work. Apple's obsession withy thin-ness is making their
machines unusable. Don't get me started on their removal of the physical home
button on the iPhone. Apple is waging war on tactility - and will lose millions
of customers as a result. People love to touch, feel and experience things. It
is core to being a human being.
This has got to be the most hilarious comment of the day so far.
If you don't the difference between typing on a keyboard and playing a piano then I can't help you.
And I won't get you started on the removal of the physical home button on the iPhone because the button is still there, it just happens to be touch sensitive.
I'm always amazed at people who come here and insist that Apple will lose millions of customers if they don't do this or if they remove that.
The problem with people who spew this argument is that they are invariable talking about themselves, and making the mistake of assuming that everyone wants what they want. It's a very narrow point of view in my opinion.
Apple is not standing still and neither is its customer base. The youngsters starting to use computers professionally today have grown up with narrow travel keyboards and touch sensitive screens, so that is who Apple is catering for. You think that Apple should carry on making keyboards and screens and fitting ports for the middle-aged?
Will Apple lose millions of customers; doubtful. Most of Apple's customers live outside forums and are younger and more adaptable than the whiners who hang around here. They'll lose customers, but they'll gain more.
And of course, in twenty years time, the new old faces will come here and complain how Apple has dumped Thunderbolt 5 ports and gone completely wireless, and now all their twenty-year-old thunderbolt drives, barely large enough to hold a million mega hi-def movies, are now obsolete.
You know he was trying to prove a point. Of-course he knows the difference between playing the piano and typing on a keyboard.
As a new owner of the Macbook Pro, I fully agree the new keyboard is absolutely horrible, even after 3 weeks of use. It's noisy, the lack of travel is super annoying and the Touch Bar is nothing more than a gimmick (because you type blindly and don't look at a keyboard, and now miss actual function keys).
Well, I have no idea what he was trying to prove by comparing the reduction of travel on a piano to the reduction of travel on a laptop. They are used for completely different activities (believe it or not).
In addition to battery issues, the latest MacBooks have the
WORST keyboards of any laptops available today. There is hardly any key travel
- it is like typing on a virtual screen on an iPad. Imagine, if Yamaha Pianos
reduced the travel of their piano keys - there would be an outrage. Creative
people - including writers using a keyboard - need to feel and touch the keys
to connect with their work. Apple's obsession withy thin-ness is making their
machines unusable. Don't get me started on their removal of the physical home
button on the iPhone. Apple is waging war on tactility - and will lose millions
of customers as a result. People love to touch, feel and experience things. It
is core to being a human being.
This has got to be the most hilarious comment of the day so far.
If you don't the difference between typing on a keyboard and playing a piano then I can't help you.
And I won't get you started on the removal of the physical home button on the iPhone because the button is still there, it just happens to be touch sensitive.
I'm always amazed at people who come here and insist that Apple will lose millions of customers if they don't do this or if they remove that.
The problem with people who spew this argument is that they are invariable talking about themselves, and making the mistake of assuming that everyone wants what they want. It's a very narrow point of view in my opinion.
Apple is not standing still and neither is its customer base. The youngsters starting to use computers professionally today have grown up with narrow travel keyboards and touch sensitive screens, so that is who Apple is catering for. You think that Apple should carry on making keyboards and screens and fitting ports for the middle-aged?
Will Apple lose millions of customers; doubtful. Most of Apple's customers live outside forums and are younger and more adaptable than the whiners who hang around here. They'll lose customers, but they'll gain more.
And of course, in twenty years time, the new old faces will come here and complain how Apple has dumped Thunderbolt 5 ports and gone completely wireless, and now all their twenty-year-old thunderbolt drives, barely large enough to hold a million mega hi-def movies, are now obsolete.
You know he was trying to prove a point. Of-course he knows the difference between playing the piano and typing on a keyboard.
As a new owner of the Macbook Pro, I fully agree the new keyboard is absolutely horrible, even after 3 weeks of use. It's noisy, the lack of travel is super annoying and the Touch Bar is nothing more than a gimmick (because you type blindly and don't look at a keyboard, and now miss actual function keys).
I too have a new Macbook Pro 15" with touchbar. I don't think the touchbar is a gimmick at all. I use it often. To each is own I guess, I also like the keyboard. Just because you dont like something, doesn't mean its horrible. Well, except polka music is horrible.
I think every new advancement and innovation by Apple has been met by certain people saying it's a gimmick, it's useless, etc.
The problem is that some people think that Apple builds machines just for them. I probably wouldn't have much use for the touch bar either since I tend to plug laptops into a monitor and use a separate keyboard, but does that mean the toucher is useless, or just not useful for me?
Comments
However, if I'm doing the same thing, I get the same battery life.
Consumer Reports simply made a mistake. The computers were most likely improperly configured in some way. For example, maybe they did something that occasionally caused spotlight to reindex the whole computer when they reset their tests. Who knows what actually caused it, but anyone with a knowledge of processors and batteries must realize that the computer was doing something differently between tests.
I am a subscriber to CR but some of its criteria can be subjective.
2) The effect is highly fluctuating battery life, but that's not likely the catalyst. Sure, it could be something with the battery's controller, but I think that's unlikely. I think it's more likely that something with their test was triggering the CPU and/or GPU to work harder. Why it's not consistent is a mystery, which is why it would've been nice to have tests to see peak and average CPU and GPU usage during these tests, as well as isolation of each of their 10 cached and localized websites to help narrow down which activity is utilizing additional power.
They don't need to do things this way; they are doing enough business to be spending $10 billion or so on their R&D. Instead of armies of engineers churning out half-assed updates, it seems to me more like they have small teams that move from one platform to another, and from one technology to another. If some lines languish temporarily, no big deal. It's not like they owe you an update that they have to be forgiven for skipping.
I liked the rest of your post. I snipped it only for brevity.
For the record, if we're tabulating votes here, I do not care for the keyboard in my new MacBook Pro (15). When I tried it out in the store while waiting for mine to be delivered I actually thought I was going to love it. Over the month or so I've been using it I've grown to like it less.
I don't hate it, and there are aspects I actually like more than the old one (less horizontal jiggle), but overall I'd rather have the older one. For me it seems to be an issue of insufficient travel, and maybe the keys being too big with not enough space between them.
If you apply the words "same functionality" honestly, I think you'll find that's not actually the case. I say this based on what I found while recently weighing the alternatives myself.
It may be fair to say that you don't need the brightest, widest-colour gamut, lightest-weight pixel-doubling display on the market, but it's disingenuous to refer to a machine without such capability as being "the same." It may be satisfactory for your needs, but it's not "the same." It's less enjoyable to use and isn't capable of providing as much decision-making information as the one in the Mac. The intrinsic value is there whether or not it's worth the cost for your particular use.
I've also found that the machines in the range of 1/5 to 1/2 the price of a MacBook Pro still use hard drives for storage. The new MacBook Pro's storage is not only solid state, but it's built with chips that are twice as fast as last years' and tied directly to the PCIe bus rather than through a SATA bottleneck. Not at all "the same."
None of the inexpensive machines I looked at offered quad-core processors. The ones that did were priced closer to the MacBook Pro than they were to the "fraction of the price" machines. Nor did any of them offer Thunderbolt or USB 3.1.
The MacBook Pro may be overkill for your needs and wants, and that's perfectly reasonable, but it's not fair to say that cheap machines offer the same functionality.
Noted.
For the record, last year I got teased at work for my verbose emails. I started making them shorter, and wound up sending twice as many. Follow-up details and clarifying misunderstandings. This being a discussion forum, and readers having the option to skip over posts, I happen to think it's better to err on the side of clarity.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.
They are dependent on clicks and that one is a click-bait article. "CR doesn't recommend" brings always more clicks than "CR recommends" regarding a famous brand.
AI would explain a lot, lol. Nice theory. And... they are putting this stuff in 4000 lb cars that might just be 'driving' around on roads with the rest of us. New possible definition for insanity.
No. First, 'not enough' is in context to numbers of items from other product lines. Apple would have been previously thrilled to sell so many. Second, they haven't provided what the target market wants, so the numbers could be higher if they did it right. And, third, it isn't about the numbers. If Apple abandons certain market segments because they aren't the highest in numbers, they'll be making the mistake others have made in the past (which allowed Apple to get where they now are). It would be kind of like Ford deciding to quit racing because they sell more trucks.
I've read elsewhere from people who have the graphics problem after the update, so that might not be the case.
You may have missed my comment about NPR. Their beauty is supposedly that they don't take advertising either (and are supposed to be unbiased). But, underwriters, sponsors, etc. have much the same effect. CU has been doing all sorts of partnerships and side-deals in the last decade.
Nope, they are coasting on past reputation, and new market expansion, via iDevice sales. Their sales and profits will likely climb a bit more no mater what dumb things they do currently. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
That's been my experience as well (with previous keyboard transitions). I've cringed a bit as keyboards changed from the old Apple Extended Keybaord (& II), but as I've gotten used to them, I don't think I'd go back. They are way more quiet, and in the end, I think I'm now typing faster. If I stuck with one or the other, who knows... but for practicality, I'm better off with the new.
And, of course, they'd never say it if it weren't true...
A lot of Apple stuff is getting like that anymore. It's like the designers aren't thinking real-world. And, the software... much of it is headed into dancing-paper-clip-land.
They don't cost 1/5 to 1/2, but aside from being slightly less well-built, there are some machines I might now pick over a MPB if they didn't only run Windows. They perform better and are out-of-the-box eGPU compatible!
No doubt. But, it seems today's people would rather spend a hour exchanging a dozen short emails, than just taking 5 minutes to read a bit longer one. (shrug)