80s_Apple_Guy

gregg thurman said:

The thought just occurred to me that these manufacturers are in production, so instead of using 59 selling days (from launch to end of quarter), I should have used, at minimum, 90 component production days for the quarter.  That lowers average units produced to yield 10,000,00 iPhone Xs sold in the December quarter to ~110,000.  And that's a static average.  I can't believe that competent manufacturers won't be able to significantly improve production efficiencies over a three to four month period.

This report, like virtually all supply constraint reports, doesn't stand the test of closer scrutiny.

sog35 said:

blastdoor said:

Apple appears to be cutting off its niches to spite its cost structure. 

The iPad Mini might not be a huge seller, but my impression is that kids (and perhaps small-handed people of all ages) really like the iPad Mini. 

For a company that has used "ecosystem" as the metaphor for its business model, they might want to think more carefully about the unintended consequences of mass extinctions. 

they can use an iPhone Plus then.

or next year the 6+ inch iPhone X1 Plus

You completely miss the point. They are two different product categories that are mostly dissimilar. I have several iPad minis and an iPhone 7. The screen on the mini is much larger than even the iPhone + and a different aspect ratio. 

However, the biggest problem is the iPhone is a much more expensive option with a smaller screen and a required monthly fee. If all a person wants is a portable tablet the mini cannot be beat for many. Many choose a mini or nothing from Apple. Why drive people away when it's no big deal for them to continue the line. It's not always the profit first, second and to infinity. Sometimes you take a little less to keep customers happy. 

Rayz2016 said:

9secondkox2 said:

taniwha said:

9secondkox2 said:

You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested. 

that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible. 

Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests. 

"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??

You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science. 

Well, yes.

There seem to be a few people around here who think that because CR is testing for consumers, then there is no need for explanation or rigour because a user wouldn't be do that either. That's okay, but then a user would also not constantly download unspecified web pages from a private server until the battery was drained, so let's not use "but we are looking for something a user might experience" as an excuse for not doing your job properly. There is science and methodology in testing, whether you are doing if for consumers or not. 

I read consumer testing when I was looking for a new microwave oven. 

"We experienced a failure in our test unit, so we bought two more from different outlets and tested them again. Sadly, one of those units failed after eight days, and the other failed two days later. We cannot recommend this brand based on this test."

I would hope that having seen such bizarre results, CR would have gone back and tested other non-Apple laptops to make sure those were still giving expected results.

Many years ago, a couple of us were involved in testing a huge change to a web-based procurement system. We had a test rig that we use for regression testing, and when we ran the new software through it, it told us that none of the changes had caused a problem, and that the whole system was running just as it should. Yup, everything was hunky-dory; you're safe to go live.

My colleague and I looked at each other, looked at the project managers patting themselves on the back for having made such a large-scale change run flawlessly, and then we told them that we were going to take the test rig apart.

Why?

Because it was unlikely that such a massive change to such an old code base wouldn't cause a problem somewhere.

We took the test logs apart, and when that didn't show up any problems, we started on the build scripts. As it turned out, the problem was a simple labelling mistake: the build hadn't actually included the new code, so it was just testing against the old code base. (On reflection, we should have spotted this sooner, but we assumed that we were looking at a complicated problem and so it must have a complicated answer). Once we corrected the mistake and ran the regression test again, it failed so badly that the whole upgrade was cancelled and the code base was never touched again. (And again, if they could abandon the project after less than a half an hour's discussion, I have to ask if it was ever needed in the first place).

The point is that we looked at the initial result, and common sense told us this was unlikely, so we looked into the possibility that the problem was with the testing.

Now, I'm not saying that CR's methodology was wrong, or that if it is down to their test cases they should change it to cater for Apple (if other laptops can run the pages without widely fluctuations battery drainage then so should Apple kit). What I am saying that in face of such bizarre results, I would have worked with Apple to understand what was happening, before risking the reputation of the CR publication by making a recommendation based on a faulty test. I would have said: "Look Phil; these results don't make any sense. Get someone to look them over and if we don't get a reply from you in the next few days then we're going to give you a duff recommendation."

They probably suspect that the problem is being caused by Safari (indeed, they alluded to this), but that wouldn't make such a great headline as this is something that can be fixed with an update before the headline made any real impact. (And yes, they make money from page hits, so this will influence how they write their headlines).

Agree or disagree with their testing methods, however as they do the same test to all laptops including all prior MacBook Pro's, which they recommended (i bet no one here was complaining about those results) the results have validity. They are seeing different behaviour with these MacBook Pro's than prior models and other laptops. As they're using the same test there must be a reason for the difference.  It's either hardware or software. 

sog35 said:

80s_Apple_Guy said:

Even worse they just announced no new content. Ever.  Free or paid. Makes the $9.99 seem even more of a ripoff 

Go show me another Mario game that cost $10?  Portable Mario games cost $40.

$10 for a 24 level game is outstanding. 

The quality of this game is top notch.

$10 for a Mario game is a bargain.

maestro64 said:

80s_Apple_Guy said:

Even worse they just announced no new content. Ever.  Free or paid. Makes the $9.99 seem even more of a ripoff 

I was about to say, here we go another person from the entitlement generations who think everything should be free they should keep getting more and more without paying, but then I saw your username and I would think you came from the generation which understand you have to have to pay to get something.

When you buy a new car and they top the tank off before you leave the lot do you also expect to keep going back and get more free gas. 

I have no problem paying for games or other apps I like. The issue to me is more the statement that there will never be any new content. There's a reason this game has such a relatively low rating for the most popular game.  Never adding new content will not improve the game or that rating