hucom2000

So the 50 billion of (partly/mostly additional) consumer debt is now a thing to brag about?

So are 1.5 billion in excessive interest rates?

Apple is great in portraying itself as the „good guy“ or „victim“. Excellent press department.

I’m not saying they are the bad guy in this context. However, given the ludicrous amounts of cash they are accumulating (with margins most other businesses can only dream of), I do wonder if 30% are necessary or greedy.

It would be interesting to see calculations of what it actually costs Apple to render these services to app makers - but of course we‘ll never ever get that...

I agree: unless Siri can handle SIMPLE follow-up questions (retain context), it's way too annoying to bother. For years now Siri keeps misspelling my wife's name too. I must have typed (and corrected!) it 200+ times in messages, emails, etc. Nope, doesn't take that into account. Keeps spelling it wrong when I dictate. Sometimes I really wonder if anyone at Apple is using their own technology...? They are all too busy counting the money they make on overpriced products. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple. I have run on Apple for 30 years and I'm not planning on switching anytime soon. But this is getting ridiculous. If I pay such hefty sums for their stuff, I expect the best, nothing short.

kevin kee said:

I believe what I see, and I see a consistent 10 hours battery daily use with my new MBP. This is the results that matter for average consumer I believe. As for CR, I don't care how they did their test, but I care that instead of contacting Apple for a questionable results they see, they went and published this to the media, resulting in a high profile media publication that is unfair to Apple.

As one of the people who actually had these issues and returned the laptop because of it... YOUR post feels somewhat unfair... 10 hours consistently? Are you just letting your laptop sit in a corner?

StrangeDays said:

lorin schultz said:

3. According to APPLE, not CR, the problem is the result of a BUG, not the testing methodology per se. The testing method merely exposed it. How long would it have gone on unnoticed and unfixed if the test hadn't uncovered it? It may not have affected me or you, but obviously some people would suffer from it. This is a positive outcome.

Actually I think Apple blamed both the methodology and the bug. See their statement:

“We learned that when testing battery life on Mac notebooks, Consumer Reports uses a hidden Safari setting for developing web sites which turns off the browser cache. This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage. Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug..."

Note that they use the word "also triggered" the obscure bug. "Also", not "subsequently" triggered the bug. Right or wrong, they seem to be saying both conditions are responsible for the results.

That's interesting. Maybe THAT's how Apple arrived at these unrealistic runtimes of "up to 10 hours" in their own testing: by visiting the same pre-programmed websites over and over again, allowing the usage of cache? That would be a typical "lab test" for marketing and not real life, where we visit a multitude of different websites that require constant loading of content.