Consumer Reports now recommends MacBook Pro after Apple software fix

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 56
    looks great, but too bad you can't upgrade the ram, and the magsafe and regular ports are gone. a step backward 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 22 of 56
    Apropos of nothing, I'm just wondering how one gets a job doing these battery tests. You'd be paid basically to browse the web, watch videos, etc. for hours until the battery runs out. Sounds like a pretty good gig.
    edited January 2017
  • Reply 23 of 56
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Apropos of nothing, I'm just wondering how one gets a job doing these battery tests. You'd be paid basically to browse the web, watch videos, etc. for hours until the battery runs out. Sounds like a pretty good gig.
    It's a script that pulls that locally cached pages repeatedly, hence the need to disable cacheing when running their test.

    It's not an unsound test, but it's an incomplete way to test the battery life of any modern personal computer. Unfortunately, there may never be a magic variety of scripts to run different tasks that will be useful to all, but running a script that tests a single type of event for a complete test, which is then repeated at least twice, and then runs a script that tests another app for a common usage in the same way, and so on, should be able to give us enough info to figure out how well any computing device will work for us. Too bad macOS doesn't have the same, nifty "which apps have used what percentage of power since the last charge?" option like iOS.
  • Reply 24 of 56
    bulk001 said:
    No. Not after "software fix", after their FRAUD was exposed to everyone.

    CU is not a credible organization.
    You mean CR?
    No, CU is correct. Consumers Union is the nonprofit organization that researches consumer products and publishes Consumer Reports magazine.
  • Reply 25 of 56
    I don't think it's wrong that they disabled caching. They want to test the equivalent of visiting unique sites but instead of programming in a 1000000 websites to visit for the test, you do 1 site with cache off so it's like browsing a different site every time.
    williamlondongatorguysingularitycropr
  • Reply 26 of 56
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    I'm sure the same level of media attention will be garnered by this reversal.  After all, we all know good news about Apple is really good click bait ... /s
  • Reply 27 of 56
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    How about mentioning that baseline apple software of late seems buggier then ever. Do they even test the non standard modes at apple at all? Disabling cache is not that uncommon, I think some blame at apple's software quality control is in order - pony up 500 million and hire more testers, it's a rounding error in a stock buyback for them. 
    You seem to be pretty negative in your posts, why is that?  By the way, as a 33yr mac user I've long since learned underscores are not needed in a Mac OS for long names, are you using Windows XP by any chance?  ;)
    Solichia
  • Reply 28 of 56
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    johnbear said:
    looks great, but too bad you can't upgrade the ram, and the magsafe and regular ports are gone. a step backward 
    The machine isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at Apple's target market. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 56
    lkrupp said:
    The kerfuffle uncovered a bug. Apple admits a bug caused the issue for CR’s testing. The bug was squashed. The new tests caused CR to change its recommendation. We should be happy.
    Exactly right. All the bile being vented over CR is really misplaced.  CR used the same testing parameters on multiple brands, and Apple alone failed. That's good science.  Apple found that the failure was due to "an obscure bug", and they fixed it.  Now CR is being responsible and cooperative by re-testing the Apple product(s) and giving a passing score.  Bravo!  Rather than pretend the bug didn't exist and point fingers, let's be happy that everything has worked out.

    Just because the average user might not have encountered the bug doesn't mean it didn't exist.  And CR found it.  GREAT!  Apple should have found it first.
    gatorguysingularitywilliamlondon
  • Reply 30 of 56
    Not a single one of the people here who describes the test as fraudulent knows a goddamned thing about networking.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 56
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    No. Not after "software fix", after their FRAUD was exposed to everyone.

    Running the machine with a hidden developer setting that is DESIGNED to reduce performance, and then not disclosing that fact, and then claiming an independant test shows the machine under-performs the manufacturers claims is FRAUD.  Possibly Libel/Slander as well.

    CU is not a credible organization.
    And yet the new tests were run with the cache still disabled, and they got over 15 hours of run time on every MBP they tested. So clearly disabling the cache was not the cause of the battery issue. Apple's bug was the cause. Would this still be considered a "non-standard" configuration, sure. But it was not the cause of the erratic battery performance.

    In fact, now we could argue that CRs testing methodology is flawed because it is wildly over-estimating battery life. 18+ hours in one test?!?! That's absurd! But I don't see many people complaining about that result.
    gatorguywilliamlondon
  • Reply 32 of 56
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    NY1822 said:
    Apple did not "fix" any bug....the only evidence we have of what Apple did is in the last line of the article:
    "After we asked Consumer Reports to run the same test using normal user settings, they told us their MacBook Pro systems consistently delivered the expected battery life"

    Consumer reports comment of "with the updated software" could mean "us doing it the correct way this time" NOT "Apple updated their software"
    Wrong. From what I've read elsewhere the new tests with the Apple bug fix were run with the cache still disabled.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 33 of 56
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Soli said:
    Apropos of nothing, I'm just wondering how one gets a job doing these battery tests. You'd be paid basically to browse the web, watch videos, etc. for hours until the battery runs out. Sounds like a pretty good gig.
    It's a script that pulls that locally cached pages repeatedly, hence the need to disable cacheing when running their test.

    It's not an unsound test, but it's an incomplete way to test the battery life of any modern personal computer. Unfortunately, there may never be a magic variety of scripts to run different tasks that will be useful to all, but running a script that tests a single type of event for a complete test, which is then repeated at least twice, and then runs a script that tests another app for a common usage in the same way, and so on, should be able to give us enough info to figure out how well any computing device will work for us. Too bad macOS doesn't have the same, nifty "which apps have used what percentage of power since the last charge?" option like iOS.
    Testing is far more complicated that many people here seem to realize. Sure, you could create a script with 10,000 real world websites to load rather than the static set of in-house sites CR used (was it 10 "fake" sites, if I recall correctly?). That way you could leave the cache enabled. But that would be a completely non-repeatable test as the content of those sites could change from one test to another. And besides, if you cycled through that list of sites one-by-one, you'd be loading new content with every page load...which would be the same effect as disabling the cache!

    Disabling the cache is the simplest way to get repeatable results. The fact that they got very erratic would in no way be explainable from the disabled cache setting...that would increase consistency, not decrease it. In hindsight, with Apple's assistance, yes it's a head-slapper when you tie it back to the developer setting. But at the time of the testing there would probably be little to suggest that the developer setting they used is what was activating the bug it uncovered.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 34 of 56
    CR publishing the non-recommendation was silly because the scenario they were tested in is not an accurate representation of normal use. the bug only hit the battery in such a dramatic fashion due to the disabled cache and atypical repetition/automation. the batteries weren't defective. so because it was the test scenario, and obviously so, the responsible thing to do would have been to work with Apple first, before publishing, not after. instead, by publishing a non-recommendation, they suggested the notebooks had defective batteries. poor journalism. 
    Disagree.  It is not CR's job to 'work with suppliers' for all the defects they uncover during their testing.  They simply test the products as the companies deliver them to consumers and report on that.  It would have been Apple's job to detect this bug and deliver the product without it.  In this case it all worked out well despite the ruffled feathers and misleading attempt by the author to label this 'backpedling.'    

    CR did not recommend a product that wasn't performing well due to a bug.  They *still* would not recommend that product.  Apple changed the product by fixing that bug and CR now recommends it.   CR did their thing right.  Apple did their part right.  Its all good.
    singularitywilliamlondon
  • Reply 35 of 56
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,239member
    bulk001 said:
    How is this a backpedal? CR had an issue with the battery and reported it. The report got Apple's attention and a fix. As the problem doesn't exist any longer they change their recommendation.

    They reported it as a problem with the MacBook Pro, when in fact it was a problem with Safari (which runs on any Mac). That's an important distinction. This was not a MacBook Pro design flaw or battery issue.
    Soliwilliamlondon
  • Reply 36 of 56
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,239member

    kevin kee said:
    What I read here was that CR found a bug in Apple's developer software, Apple fixed the developer software and CR now can recommend MBP for average consumer (who are not developer) to use. Can someone tell me if I were the only one who see something really strange about this?

    Apple found the bug. CR just mis-reported it as a MacBook Pro battery-life problem..
    Soliwilliamlondon
  • Reply 37 of 56
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    bulk001 said:
    How is this a backpedal? CR had an issue with the battery and reported it. The report got Apple's attention and a fix. As the problem doesn't exist any longer they change their recommendation.

    They reported it as a problem with the MacBook Pro, when in fact it was a problem with Safari (which runs on any Mac). That's an important distinction. This was not a MacBook Pro design flaw or battery issue.
    Isn't it Apple's claim that their products are better because they "make the whole widget"? Therefore the whole widget should be subject to testing. Battery life testing has little meaning outside of the context of the software being used.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 38 of 56
    MacPro said:
    How about mentioning that baseline apple software of late seems buggier then ever. Do they even test the non standard modes at apple at all? Disabling cache is not that uncommon, I think some blame at apple's software quality control is in order - pony up 500 million and hire more testers, it's a rounding error in a stock buyback for them. 
    You seem to be pretty negative in your posts, why is that?  By the way, as a 33yr mac user I've long since learned underscores are not needed in a Mac OS for long names, are you using Windows XP by any chance?  ;)
    Umm This account name is old and all user names don't have spaces with the old comment system (don't know about this current comment system).


    As for negativity - I have had Macs forever because they were heads and tails better then the PCs (Win 95-XP), and the associated crappy hardware. I want apple to stay ahead and lead, and some constructive criticism at this point I think is required to keep them honest through the Cook era (however long it lasts - hopefully short!).

    It's just a fact - compare Apple's 2008 product line price/performance vs PCs to 2017 product line price/performance vs PCs and other phone vendors.

    In 2008 I bought a 8 core mac pro for $2689. I also bought a MacBook (subsequently renamed MacBook Pro) maxed out 2.4 Ghz for $1692
    Not to mention the first iPad on the first day 4/3/2010 for $499

    Fast forward to now: 
    If I want a top of the line 8 core Skylake or Kaby Lake processor for a Mac Pro - it doesn't exist. If I get the 3 year old version 8 core it is $5499 for an non upgradable 256 GB SSD. So I really have to get a 1TB SSD, which is $6099 !!!! Thats an extra $3410 not to mention I need an extra thunderbolt 2 storage - at $1599 - so now It's $7698 to get the same thing! $5k more! Computers are cheaper now then 9 years ago. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see something is WAY WAY wrong with the apple of 2017 vs 2008. The real cost for a skylake one should be $2000 tops since you have to buy half the computer as add ones, for 3 year old technology should be $1300.

    The Macbook is similar but again a maxed out 13" MacBook pro is now $1999 vs $1692 in 2008, it should be cheaper - PCs are cheaper now vs 2008. The real cost should be no more then $1300 in 2017 for this MacBook Pro.

    The Second Gen Macbook Airs were reasonably priced at $799/$999 and sold like hot cakes. They had lots of ports were small and were great computers. I have the replacement - the new Macbook - great (but slower) computer but at $1299/$1599 ? And only one port? I now have a laptop bag of dongles I am always misplacing and need the USB dongle almost every time I use it. And I like most I really don't like the new keyboard - but live with it.

    If we the Apple faithful don't keep Apple honest - who is? I am just comparing Apple to Apple and it is not the same company. We have the right to call a spade a spade and not get belittled for it.

    As a post mortum, my VMware was running too slowly  on my 8 core mac pro so instead of buying a new Mac I bought a Dell small form factor desktop - precision T3420, i7 skylake 16GB RAM latest Nvidia graphics card for - wait for it - $680. I put in the fasted SSD available 1TB Samsung SM961 NVMe for $600. It boots win10 in 1 second - no joke. I still use my mac as my daily driver, but if Apple doesn't come to it's senses I will not replace this loaded mac pro. Money does not grow on trees and I would rather have a nice family trip to Hawaii ($5k) then make Tim Cook more cash he can waste with buybacks (Steve would never waste cash on buy backs!)

    Apple faithful aren't blind sheep - we supported apple because they have a better products and overall value. Our future support must be earned not taken for granted.
    Naiyaswilliamlondon
  • Reply 39 of 56
    Marco @ CSUSMarco @ CSUS Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    Well, this is from a personal experience: I purchased a 2TB 4GB Top of the line GPU, 16GB machine for our department here. In one day while installing software I had to recharge the battery twice as it only lasted about 3.5 -4 hours each time. Upon calling Apple they logged in via icloud screen share and concluded correctly that the battery was in fact only lasting about 3.5 hours as they actually watched as every 2-3 min it would drain 1%. They asked me to return it as a DOA device. I think they do have a problem with batteries (as many other apple threads show) and I think CR simply exacerbated the problem with their browser tests. It will be interesting to see if Apple ever admit publicly that they have an issue with some macbook pro batteries.
    edited January 2017 williamlondon
  • Reply 40 of 56
    dcgoodcgoo Posts: 280member
    bulk001 said:
    No. Not after "software fix", after their FRAUD was exposed to everyone.

    Running the machine with a hidden developer setting that is DESIGNED to reduce performance, and then not disclosing that fact, and then claiming an independant test shows the machine under-performs the manufacturers claims is FRAUD.  Possibly Libel/Slander as well.

    CU is not a credible organization.
    You mean CR? As the setting was due to an actual bug, no matter how rare, I doubt there will be a libel or slander suit. Glad that Apple fixed it. Now if they could get more RAM in there I'd be happy. Maybe next year. 
    No. He means CU.  They are the organization that publishes CR
Sign In or Register to comment.