Last Active
  • Reported 2016 MacBook Pro graphics issues likely caused by third-party software [u]

    mobius said:
    Other reports claim it may be related to File Vault 2. Couple that with your own mention of the Photos app, I'm not sure there's a strong enough case to be made (yet) to say it's "likely third party software" at fault.

    It does seem troubling that such an issue could strike these new models so soon after release, and especially after similar graphics problems had impacted some MBP 2011-13 models.

    One wonders just how much emphasis goes on Q and A these days. Perhaps they need to spend a bit more time and money on that. Otherwise it's going to cause damage to Apple's reputation at a time when patience is already wearing thin with many pro users.

    "In a serious case chronicled by a MacRumorsforum member Jan Becker, a new 15-inch MacBook Pro configured with an optional AMD Radeon Pro 460 GPU encountered trouble and ultimately crashed while transcoding video in Adobe Premiere Pro. Becker consequently took the machine into an Apple store for replacement."

    "The incident did not go unnoticed by Apple. Becker said he received a call from the company's headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., where a team of engineers asked him to help replicate the glitch over the phone and requested access to the affected laptop for further investigation."


    All part of that "Q and A" you thought smart to bring up. 

    Apple's is from cradle to grave. Good on them. 

    Yes, except if the patient is dead for 4 years it's probably a little late to consider revival. Many MBP's produced in 2011 had graphics problems related to hardware failure. It took Apple 4 years to offer a solution. Do you think the people who owned these defective units simply suspended their use of a laptop during this time? Or do you think they paid out of pocket for a repair? Or, and this is the one that really hurts, do you think they purchased another laptop?

    If they chose solution one, they simply lost time. Which is money if you're a professional using the MBP to accomplish work. You, at best, waited a week or so for your MBP to be repaired and returned.

    If you were on a project where you were time constrained and needed, as many do, to be up and running ASAP you probably backed up your material and went to the Apple store and purchased another MBP. Money that won't be returned now or ever.

    Four years later Apple offers to fix your broken MBP. Are you smiling and thinking 'cradle to grave'.  Or are thinking,  "Who cares I couldn't wait four weeks much less 4 years so I replaced/repaired on my own.  The lack of timeliness in your solution makes it barely qualify as a solution?" Hmm?

    All part of the 'cradle to grave' you thought smart to bring up. 

    If they would fix it if the customer paid, why did it take them 4 years to offer to fix it at their expense?

  • Apple ordered to pay $302.4M in damages to VirnetX in patent retrial

    fallenjt said:
    Apple will appeal to a higher court. This is BS to let companies file non-practice patents to make money on deep pocket corporations like Apple....Patent Trolls need to get tossed and banned from suing.
    Well who would've thought that the very first post would be like this.

    After appleinsider calls VirnetX a non-practicing entity, we should've expected a chorus full of "hell yeahs" to follow.

    How about this for a non-practicing entity. How about we all march over to the app store and look at "The Gabriel Collaboration Suite". Oh yeah, take a CLOSE look at the dev. 
    VirnetX?? It can't be. They're  'non-practicing entity'. Either that or appleinsider has non-practicing authors and/or editors, right?
  • Apple ordered to pay $302.4M in damages to VirnetX in patent retrial

    foggyhill said:
    East Texas, home of sack shit Juries... This will be appealed, off course.
    If you had bothered to read and understaned, you would know that this case has already been appealed. And that the decision of the original "sack shit" jury decision has already been upheld on several key points.