MacBook Pro fails to earn Consumer Reports recommendation for first time

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 164
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member

    sdw2001 said:
    Consumer Reports sucks and ruined its reputation years ago.  They rate several superb products on tests that don't make sense.  It's like measuring how a fish climbs a tree with a lot of their stuff.  
    That's hardly what they did in this case. If anything the test was much less demanding than what many users will do with it.
    And yet it far out performed any PC laptop.  You Apple haters have no honor, you will just lie lie lie
    ??? What are you talking about? @sdw2001 said CR's testing criteria can be irrelevant to how the device is actually used. I said that's not the case with their testing of the new MacBook Pro. Are you saying that's a "lie?"

    Also, CR's decision not to recommend it was based on battery issues, not performance. Are you saying that a defect doesn't matter as long as the machine is fast? If not, what ARE you saying?

    As for me being an "Apple hater," wanna compare your outlay for Apple devices in 2016 to mine? Maybe you should read some of my responses to those who argue that the new MacBook Pro should have retained USB-A ports and have more than 16GB of RAM.

    Once that's out of the way you can sit in on a few shows with me and see how some of the squirrely behaviours of this machine make you want to put your fist through it. Let's see if you consider yourself a "hater" when you spend $5000 and the thing doesn't work.

    I didn't really say that, but let's discuss that issue.  Often, they don't replicate real-world conditions.  That's pretty common knowledge, I would think.  As for what I actually said, I was talking about their credibility and the way they measure products--particularly premium ones as compared to their less-than-special competition.   T

    The best example is the testing of the Rainbow Vacuum they did many years ago.  These machines use water as a filter, and are fantastic (not only did I sell them briefly many years ago, I've owned two).  They are priced at a premium, and get rave reviews among customers.  Even without a HEPA filter, the vacuum trapped 99%+ of particulates.  There was one exception, however.  The vacuum did not do well picking up baby powder.  Baby powder contains lanolin, which is not water soluble.  Guess what CR used to test the products?  Baby powder!  They gave the vacuum a substandard rating as a result.  

    I have seen them do this with many other products over the past 20 years.  Who let's a MacBook download the same thing for 16 hours?  What if the GPU was running the whole time?  The test is not an accurate representation of real-world conditions.  Moreover, CR has been found to be corrupt and incompetent.   This link shows how they "tested" anti-virus and anti-spyware programs without, uh, testing them against viruses or spyware.  They've had problems with suspected bribery/corruption of their reviews (I can't find links, but they had major issues in the early 1990's).  This list of the publication's problems go on and on.  If you[re shopping for a new toaster oven or some other generic appliance, it's a nice resource.  But if you're trying decide between a MacBook and Sony, or a BMW vs. a Hyundai Eqqus, good luck.  It's like trying to review Coke vs. Pepsi.  Many of their reviews contain implicit biases and personal preferences, too.  Basically, it's a worthless publication, especially in the era of user-generated reviews.  
    edited December 2016 pscooter63
  • Reply 102 of 164
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    As "cool" as the new MacBook Pro may be, with it's modern Touch Bar and sleek design — bottom line is that Apple skimped on battery life. A "Pro" machine should have pro batteries.
    1) Apple says it has 1 more hour of battery life than the previous model. A 10% improvement sounds good to me.

    2) Did you not see that CR rates the battery life at nearly half and nearly double what Apple states when completing the same test, hence their inability to recommend the machine. The issue is with the OS, and likely something with Safari, not a replacement of "pro batteries" with "amateur batteries."
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 103 of 164
    I guess Apple just needs to take out more ads in Consumer Reports then. Worked for Toyota. 
    Consumer Reports doesn't take ads. 
    Bull. 

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/about-us/index.htm

    Third paragraph:

    "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."
    singularitycgWerks
  • Reply 104 of 164
    aknabiaknabi Posts: 211member
    sdw2001 said:
    Consumer Reports sucks and ruined its reputation years ago.  They rate several superb products on tests that don't make sense.  It's like measuring how a fish climbs a tree with a lot of their stuff.  
    Right... of course when the recommend/award Apple gear then they're holier than the Bible... Amazing how fanboys do 360s with their heads while in the sand to avoid anything negative about Apple... you do realize in the end it's better for the product (and long term share price) if their biggest fans call them out on it and for them to get off their butts.
    Mikeymikefarjamedsingularitygatorguy
  • Reply 105 of 164
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 1,035member
    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.


    SpamSandwichcgWerks
  • Reply 106 of 164
    aknabiaknabi Posts: 211member
    They deserve it. The current MBP is a failure. 1. Terrible battery life. 2. Touch Bar is a gimmick. 3. Terrible graphics (worse than last gen) 4. macOS is buggier than before. 5. Overpriced as hell. Was thinking of getting a 15 inch. Not worth it. Will keep using my 2012 13 inch with SSD.
    Very good call (I'm sure other members with AAPL stock or religion will bash you)... I had a 13", but needed a pro machine (was lugging my Mac Pro back and forth)... got a maxed out 15 for development and hate the keyboard (to flat and lots of typos at high speed), touch bar is a gimmick (or in the way when using Xcode and suddenly you brush a button and unexpected stuff happens). And other devs who upgraded from the '14 15" are asking if we can return theirs and they'll go back to the '14 with the hope that Apple gets their act together in a year (unlikely... I expect 2). In the meantime I'm back to lugging the MP back and forth and use the 15 for traveling (though I still have my 12", and 13").
  • Reply 107 of 164
    As I mentioned above, I was very skeptical before I bought it, but needed a new laptop as my previous laptop was 7 years old.  I think the new machine is great.  And the keyboard, which I dreaded, is wonderful.  Really accurate, and my typing has improved with less effort.  The short key travel is nice.

    I do understand that some may find the keyboard hard to adjust.  Just for me, I went the other way.  Think it is wonderful

    CR may be right about the battery, but not sure.  I am concerned that CR's opinion will affect sales.  

    Any comment on the sales effect from anyone?
  • Reply 108 of 164
    aknabiaknabi Posts: 211member
    anome said:
    Interesting that the 15" model seems to have greatly exceeded the listed battery life at best, and come in about normal at worst. (8 hours vs 10 hours in Apple's idealised tests seems about right.)

    The 3 hour mark in the 13" is cause for concern, but I'd want more information before making a judgment. If people are genuinely seeing consistent results like that, then there's definitely something wrong. What it is requires a lot more information, and probably further testing from Apple. If you have a notebook that is consistently behaving like that, I'd get it to Apple. I've heard they will replace it so they can run tests of the faulty unit. Of course, they should anyway since you haven't had it that long.

    I'm not sure how to take Consumer Reports these days, anyway. They seem to be rather fickle, given past actions around removing recommendations for things based on what I see as rather petty complaints. (I don't class this instance as petty, but I seem to recall them pulling a recommendation they had previously given for an iPhone model for something minor.)
    the problem is not CR in this case..... this battery issue has been observed from day one of the release. Even Phill alluded to it when he tried to explain away the reason for 16 gig ram limit.
    Bullshit. The reason for the 16 GB RAM limit is technical, and your dismissiveness of it comes only because you are technicalogically illiterate.

    Consumer Reports has had a political agenda against Apple for several years and they have no creditability.... at least with people who understand what the LP in LPDDR mean.
    Until they recommend or love Apple... then you'll claim they're the gold standard of testing... they don't have any political agenda for/against Apple... though it seems you clearly have a religious one... (yeah the guys at Consumer reports were on a jihad over DDR4 inclusion... is weed legal where you live?) Oh... and if you're going call someone illiterate you shouldn't totally butcher the spelling of "technologically"...
    farjamedsingularity
  • Reply 109 of 164
    aknabiaknabi Posts: 211member
    Rayz2016 said:
    appex said:
    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.
    Given the way Apple is going pretty soon they won't have enough people buying any of their machines to make it worthwhile to release anything each year... they can then focus on Watch Bands (I'm sure Angela Ahrendts would consider that the perfect Apple roadmap)
    avon b7pscooter63singularitycgWerks
  • Reply 110 of 164
    cgWerks said:
    But I thought according to some people on here Google's Chrome is a battery hog compared to Safari?
    Safari, for me (since macOS Sierra) has been pretty buggy... so while Chrome is a hog, a bad Safari might be worse? Anyway, I agree that this is most likely a software issue, and hopefully they pointed that out. But, I think I'd wait a bit before going with any of these, or just get the 2015 model at this point. Between this and GPU issues, it's pretty much a 1.0 kind of situation, I guess.
    One weird quirk that I've had since upgrading, is that when I am on google maps, it causes my fans to run full blast, and drain my battery. No idea why.
  • Reply 111 of 164
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,624member
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    HRayz2016 said:
    appex said:
    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.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 112 of 164
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    linkman said:
    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.


    First off, I'll say that I frequently find Consumer Report's reviews on technology in general less than ideal and despite their claims (and hopefully attempts,) I think they do have some biases. Still, they have rated Apple laptops highly in the past so you can hardly claim they are biased against apple. 

    As to the 'Your advertising choices' screen, I can confirm that it exists, but I can also confirm that I have NEVER seen an ad in Consumer Reports for anything, neither in the magazine nor on their web site. That doesn't mean they haven't accepted money from a company, but as far as paid ads go I expect someone claiming that they have them to show me an actual ad. They do use flash for videos on their web site as well as have links to social networking sites (Google, Facebook, etc), and I suspect the screen above is related to that, but I would be interested to see their response to it. I would note that unlike many companies, they are exceptionally transparent in their billing and other web practices (i.e. I get an e-mail before they automatically renew my subscription saying they will be renewing and charging my card. How many sites do that?)

    I also found the following review on their web site. It is hardly biased against apple (it actually sounds more biased towards them) and lists the 15" MacBook Pro as recommended... hmm...
  • Reply 113 of 164
    cgWerks said:

    Also, the thing about CR, is that when you're looking at ratings and reviews, you have to have YOUR values in mind, vs THEIR values, which might not always align. [...] Heck, they used to highly prefer Windows systems over Macs, back when Macs really were quite excellent.

    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.

    Like value per dollar. Sure, a BMW or Mercedes is a "better" car than, say, a Jeep. But maybe the BMW costs twice as much as the Jeep. Is it twice as good?  Maybe the Jeep has more room for groceries, is more fuel efficient, is cheaper to maintain, and offers usability features that matter to families, like seats that are easy to move out of the way. Which vehicle represents a better cost/benefit proposal and overall usability to the average buyer?

    They may also have factored in things like the availability of the most commonly used software, ease of access to and cost of support, relative cost of repairs, and any number of other things that may not influence an enthusiast but probably matter to the "average" buyer.

    In this particular case, their tests, which were not of the "how well a fish climbs a tree" variety that @@sdw2001 mentioned, demonstrated pretty clearly that some kind of power management problem exists. Under those circumstances I don't think they SHOULD have recommended the new MacBook Pro. Maybe Apple will identify and fix the problem, but as of today, the rating is reasonable.
    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...
  • Reply 114 of 164
    As "cool" as the new MacBook Pro may be, with it's modern Touch Bar and sleek design — bottom line is that Apple skimped on battery life. A "Pro" machine should have pro batteries.
    A "Pro" machine should have no battery at all. Batteries are for dull dark amateur crowd who live tethered to the wall sockets...
  • Reply 115 of 164
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    HRayz2016 said:
    appex said:
    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." 
    pscooter63
  • Reply 116 of 164
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    aknabi said:
    sdw2001 said:
    Consumer Reports sucks and ruined its reputation years ago.  They rate several superb products on tests that don't make sense.  It's like measuring how a fish climbs a tree with a lot of their stuff.  
    Right... of course when the recommend/award Apple gear then they're holier than the Bible... Amazing how fanboys do 360s with their heads while in the sand to avoid anything negative about Apple... you do realize in the end it's better for the product (and long term share price) if their biggest fans call them out on it and for them to get off their butts.

    Sir, you don't even know who I am.  I don't rely on CR for almost anything, especially reviews of Apple products.  It seems to me that you've invented a hypothetical consumer that you can knock down as a strawman.  I've been around her since the "Pismo" Powerbook was introduced, and have done my fair share of Apple-bashing.  

    I've also avoided CR since the mid-90's, at least.  The problems with that publication are not something to take lightly.  Their testing method and results for these MBP's doesn't make sense in the real world.  Frankly, I'm not surprised.  
  • Reply 117 of 164
    welshdog said:
    djkfisher said:
    Understand that Consumer Reports is all about advertising money. You cant believe anything.
    You surely must be thinking of Consumer's Digest, which is paid by companies to give products good ratings.  Consumer Reports on the other hand takes no money from any companies and regardless of what Internet haters say, has an excellent reputation.  The car magazines in particular have fueled a legion of haters in the automotive world by offering baseless criticism of CR.
    I've seldom found CR's criteria for product testing to be a reliable indicator of real-world product quality and their car reviews are severely lacking.
  • Reply 118 of 164
    linkman said:
    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.
    lorin schultzgatorguy
  • Reply 119 of 164
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,624member
    flaneur said:
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    HRayz2016 said:
    appex said:
    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.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 120 of 164
    linkman said:
    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.
    edited December 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.