"Several people have started threads on Apple's support site but had them deleted, iFixit said." if that is true then that is shocking behaviour by Apple's forum team. Is there any evidence like screenshots?
We didn’t have any problems finding forum threads about it.
That sounds like something manipulative.
That's the first thought that came into my head: The way paid trolls are now using social media postings to push an agenda makes any post on any forum suspect. Most social media sites now screen for fake accounts and take them out when they find them.
"Several people have started threads on Apple's support site but had them deleted, iFixit said." if that is true then that is shocking behaviour by Apple's forum team. Is there any evidence like screenshots?
We didn’t have any problems finding forum threads about it.
That sounds like something manipulative.
That's the first thought that came into my head: The way paid trolls are now using social media postings to push an agenda makes any post on any forum suspect. Most social media sites now screen for fake accounts and take them out when they find them.
Nah, I don’t think they’re bad, but clickbaits & excitement rules, you know.
I think iFixit should put their money where their mouth is and get into the hardware business and just build the devices they and their customers want - problem solved!
"Service data collected over more than 25 Apple-authorized locations and Genius Bars by AppleInsider doesn't suggest that there is any increase in display-related failures in the 2015 MacBook Pro and earlier, versus the 2016 re-design and newer. However, a display cable rupture as postulated by iFixit in any model new or old isn't specifically identified in the data beyond a repair involving the display but not a de-lamination of the Retina Display coating.
The service data doesn't prove that there isn't a problem, as the redesign in 2016 may have swapped one failure mode for another."
In other words, the available data suggest that failure rate for the screens on old and new MacBooks are about the same. Macfixit theorizing notwithstanding.
Also the article mentions opening screens more than 40°. Don't you need to open the screen close to 90° just to use it? So what does 40° have to do with anything?
"Several people have started threads on Apple's support site but had them deleted, iFixit said." if that is true then that is shocking behaviour by Apple's forum team. Is there any evidence like screenshots?
History learns that that indicates that there is indeed an issue.
Who made up the term ‘stage light effect’? That’s not a real thing. ‘Stage’ lights can create any ‘effect’ you want in the right combination.
Whats happening is more like how you’d see a theatre curtain lit with what are called footlights, which light the stage from the floor. But no one who goes to the theatre would call that a ‘stage light effect’ because it isn’t.
Would have been nice to explain what a ‘stage light effect’ is if you’re going to make up your own terms. (And just putting them in square quotes doesn’t relieve you of the obligation to define them.)
Maybe you’ve caught me on a bad day but there’s been a lot of sloppy writing here of late and it’s kind of making me just want to go somewhere else where I don’t have to re-read sentences or do my own research to understand what the hell you’re talking about.
"Several people have started threads on Apple's support site but had them deleted, iFixit said." if that is true then that is shocking behaviour by Apple's forum team. Is there any evidence like screenshots?
We didn’t have any problems finding forum threads about it.
Yeah, but did you find the deleted ones? One statement does not disprove the other :-)
Not so sure it’s shocking behaviour in any event, those threads might have violated other site standards, like ad hominem (which is forbidden here too but not heavily policed).
I wasn't trying to disprove iFixit's statement. Maybe there were deleted threads, and at this point that would be impossible to prove or disprove given the alleged deletion of them. However, there are also threads about it that haven't been deleted, so Apple clearly isn't nuking them all.
You misquoted iFixit. What they actually said was, “There are also multiple people who claim to have started threads on Apple’s support site only to have them deleted.”
iFixit says they ‘claim’ to have ‘started threads’ NOT that ‘several people HAVE started threads.’ There’s an important distinction: iFixit is not saying that they know anyone has started a thread which was subsequently deleted. They are saying that ‘several people have claimed to have started threads’ which may be an interesting comment on the situation but it is no way represented as ‘people HAVE started threads and they’ve been deleted.’
Misreporting it by suggesting that iFixit made claims that support threads had been deleted is disingenuous. Surely you see the problem here?
In any case, you don’t need to disprove their statement because they provided a link to a forum where people absolutely did claim to have started threads which were subsequently deleted.
What you SHOULD do is report their statement accurately.
Who made up the term ‘stage light effect’? That’s not a real thing. ‘Stage’ lights can create any ‘effect’ you want in the right combination.
Whats happening is more like how you’d see a theatre curtain lit with what are called footlights, which light the stage from the floor. But no one who goes to the theatre would call that a ‘stage light effect’ because it isn’t.
Would have been nice to explain what a ‘stage light effect’ is if you’re going to make up your own terms. (And just putting them in square quotes doesn’t relieve you of the obligation to define them.)
Maybe you’ve caught me on a bad day but there’s been a lot of sloppy writing here of late and it’s kind of making me just want to go somewhere else where I don’t have to re-read sentences or do my own research to understand what the hell you’re talking about.
You can thank iFixit for inventing that one. Take it up with them. While you're at it, take up the whole *-gate thing with them too. Watergate had nothing to do with water, it was the name of the hotel.
And, regarding your second comment, I'm not even sure what you're on about. We aren't accusing iFixit of anything. The article rightly points out what iFixit said -- but that's a red herring to the whole story anyway. The part I'm curious about, is why iFixit decided to stoke the fires for an issue that there are clearly threads about on the Apple community-driven support forums.
There will always be a certain level of research required, or single clicks on embedded stories with more information, or every story will be 30 paragraphs long. While I admit that the story may have benefitted from a discussion of what iFixit meant by "stage lighting," we disagree with the characterization of the issue, like you did. The real issue isn't the backlight alteration, it's a display cable tearing inducing problems at what appears to be the same low rates as the previous models.
AFAIK, the last MacBook Pro that had a replaceable display cable was the non-Retina 2012 MacBook Pro. It also doesn't appear that it is a widespread problem.
Do we have any numbers regarding the occurrence of this problem, even approximate?
AFAIK, the last MacBook Pro that had a replaceable display cable was the non-Retina 2012 MacBook Pro. It also doesn't appear that it is a widespread problem.
Do we have any numbers regarding the occurrence of this problem, even approximate?
This specific problem with a tearing display cable? No. It isn't broken out in the service data. The three categories that we have data on are non-impact display failure, display failure from a drop or impact, and retina display coating de-lamination. A widespread problem would see a higher rate of failure, and more machines coming in for service, and the data doesn't support either.
This specific problem with a tearing display cable? No. It isn't broken out in the service data.
Is it a question of time for this to happen? I mean to gain access to such data. Sorry for the pedantic questions but I am not familiar with all that. And I will likely be asked to recommend some laptop model for work. I was thinking about a Macbook Pro but all this may make me reconsider my recommendation.
Perhaps I have seen this. It was a Macbook Pro, 2014 model, with a strange effect around the screen (fortunately on the black area around, not on the usable part). I would describe it like it was peeled off under the glass. Is that the de-lamination you write about?
This specific problem with a tearing display cable? No. It isn't broken out in the service data.
Is it a question of time for this to happen? I mean to gain access to such data. Sorry for the pedantic questions but I am not familiar with all that. And I will likely be asked to recommend some laptop model for work. I was thinking about a Macbook Pro but all this may make me reconsider my recommendation.
Perhaps I have seen this. It was a Macbook Pro, 2014 model, with a strange effect around the screen (fortunately on the black area around, not on the usable part). I would describe it like it was peeled off under the glass. Is that the de-lamination you write about?
Well, here's what I've got. For the former, the 2016 model with this cable design has been around for two and a half years. In that timeframe, the displays are failing from all causes, minus the display de-lamination, at the same rate as they have been since 2012. This doesn't suggest a massive problem with the cable design. This all said, I have no idea what's going to happen in five years.
In regards to the latter, that peeling is precisely it.
Who made up the term ‘stage light effect’? That’s not a real thing. ‘Stage’ lights can create any ‘effect’ you want in the right combination.
Whats happening is more like how you’d see a theatre curtain lit with what are called footlights, which light the stage from the floor. But no one who goes to the theatre would call that a ‘stage light effect’ because it isn’t.
Would have been nice to explain what a ‘stage light effect’ is if you’re going to make up your own terms. (And just putting them in square quotes doesn’t relieve you of the obligation to define them.)
Maybe you’ve caught me on a bad day but there’s been a lot of sloppy writing here of late and it’s kind of making me just want to go somewhere else where I don’t have to re-read sentences or do my own research to understand what the hell you’re talking about.
You can thank iFixit for inventing that one. Take it up with them. While you're at it, take up the whole *-gate thing with them too. Watergate had nothing to do with water, it was the name of the hotel.
And, regarding your second comment, I'm not even sure what you're on about. We aren't accusing iFixit of anything. The article rightly points out what iFixit said -- but that's a red herring to the whole story anyway. The part I'm curious about, is why iFixit decided to stoke the fires for an issue that there are clearly threads about on the Apple community-driven support forums.
There will always be a certain level of research required, or single clicks on embedded stories with more information, or every story will be 30 paragraphs long. While I admit that the story may have benefitted from a discussion of what iFixit meant by "stage lighting," we disagree with the characterization of the issue, like you did. The real issue isn't the backlight alteration, it's a display cable tearing inducing problems at what appears to be the same low rates as the previous models.
“The article points out what iFixit said”. No, you misquoted them. You said they wrote something they didn’t. It’s not that hard—read what you SAID they wrote, and then read what they ACTUALLY wrote.
The "problem" is that the fix requires replacing the display, not a simple cable replacement (like previous displays, I guess?).
AFAIK, the last MacBook Pro that had a replaceable display cable was the non-Retina 2012 MacBook Pro. It also doesn't appear that it is a widespread problem.
Eh, sort of. It's not officially separately replaceable. Heat guns are involved, and there's a high probability of broken glass.
"Several people have started threads on Apple's support site but had them deleted, iFixit said." if that is true then that is shocking behaviour by Apple's forum team. Is there any evidence like screenshots?
We didn’t have any problems finding forum threads about it.
People posted complaints on Ifixit answers area with their frustrations their entries where being removed.
More than half the problem could have been solved if Apple offered both with and without touch bar Macbook Pros People
love MAC laptops but lately in the name of design changes, has gotten
less of value. Hope, that changes in 2019 Macbook Pros release with
Intel's Sunny Cove 10nm processors and Apple back to basics for Macbook
Pro design.
They do offer a 13" without the TB, just no 15"
Apple's fixation on thinness is the real issue here. Sure! Some folks want a thin system so sell them that in one series. But there are Pro's that want a tank of a system to use in the field.
Think of it this way ... You wouldn't take race car into the amazon forest you'd take a jeep. The 'Pro' moniker at one point meant a durable system, thats no more! I can handle a thicker and even heaver system if its durable and offers what I need for ports. MagSafe, 2xUSB-A 4xUSB-C, Ethernet, older keyboard and having the i9 CPU not throttled or cooking my legs. Having expandable RAM and storage would also go a long way too.
More than half the problem could have been solved if Apple offered both with and without touch bar Macbook Pros People
love MAC laptops but lately in the name of design changes, has gotten
less of value. Hope, that changes in 2019 Macbook Pros release with
Intel's Sunny Cove 10nm processors and Apple back to basics for Macbook
Pro design.
They do offer a 13" without the TB, just no 15"
Apple's fixation on thinness is the real issue here. Sure! Some folks want a thin system so sell them that in one series. But there are Pro's that want a tank of a system to use in the field.
Think of it this way ... You wouldn't take race car into the amazon forest you'd take a jeep. The 'Pro' moniker at one point meant a durable system, thats no more! I can handle a thicker and even heaver system if its durable and offers what I need for ports. MagSafe, 2xUSB-A 4xUSB-C, Ethernet, older keyboard and having the i9 CPU not throttled or cooking my legs. Having expandable RAM and storage would also go a long way too.
At least on the bolded point, to date, the 2016 - 2018 so far gave a better overall reliability in corresponding years of availability than the 2012-2015. We've talked about this before when we published keyboard failure rates, and we'll be talking more on this next week.
Comments
The service data doesn't prove that there isn't a problem, as the redesign in 2016 may have swapped one failure mode for another."
In other words, the available data suggest that failure rate for the screens on old and new MacBooks are about the same. Macfixit theorizing notwithstanding.
Also the article mentions opening screens more than 40°. Don't you need to open the screen close to 90° just to use it? So what does 40° have to do with anything?
Whats happening is more like how you’d see a theatre curtain lit with what are called footlights, which light the stage from the floor. But no one who goes to the theatre would call that a ‘stage light effect’ because it isn’t.
Would have been nice to explain what a ‘stage light effect’ is if you’re going to make up your own terms. (And just putting them in square quotes doesn’t relieve you of the obligation to define them.)
Maybe you’ve caught me on a bad day but there’s been a lot of sloppy writing here of late and it’s kind of making me just want to go somewhere else where I don’t have to re-read sentences or do my own research to understand what the hell you’re talking about.
iFixit says they ‘claim’ to have ‘started threads’ NOT that ‘several people HAVE started threads.’ There’s an important distinction: iFixit is not saying that they know anyone has started a thread which was subsequently deleted. They are saying that ‘several people have claimed to have started threads’ which may be an interesting comment on the situation but it is no way represented as ‘people HAVE started threads and they’ve been deleted.’
Misreporting it by suggesting that iFixit made claims that support threads had been deleted is disingenuous. Surely you see the problem here?
In any case, you don’t need to disprove their statement because they provided a link to a forum where people absolutely did claim to have started threads which were subsequently deleted.
What you SHOULD do is report their statement accurately.
And, regarding your second comment, I'm not even sure what you're on about. We aren't accusing iFixit of anything. The article rightly points out what iFixit said -- but that's a red herring to the whole story anyway. The part I'm curious about, is why iFixit decided to stoke the fires for an issue that there are clearly threads about on the Apple community-driven support forums.
There will always be a certain level of research required, or single clicks on embedded stories with more information, or every story will be 30 paragraphs long. While I admit that the story may have benefitted from a discussion of what iFixit meant by "stage lighting," we disagree with the characterization of the issue, like you did. The real issue isn't the backlight alteration, it's a display cable tearing inducing problems at what appears to be the same low rates as the previous models.
Perhaps I have seen this. It was a Macbook Pro, 2014 model, with a strange effect around the screen (fortunately on the black area around, not on the usable part). I would describe it like it was peeled off under the glass. Is that the de-lamination you write about?
In regards to the latter, that peeling is precisely it.