Zarkin

StrangeDays said:

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.