Consumer Reports Reverses Course, Recommends MacBook Pro Following New Testing After Apple Bug Fix

[Tompkinson]

(...) a heavily compromised, overpriced workstation that no Pro I know or heard of has enjoyed working with.

I know 6 who are very happy with it (video editors and photographers) and 2 who you returned it (video editors using Adobe software)
It's expensive, but if you make your living with these machines and need a new MBP - you'll obviously have the investment returned quickly.
I have not bought one, was hoping for 32 GB Ram. Will wait.

dongle labyrinth

This "dongle" complaining is ridiculous. Just about every musician and video artist I know has been traveling with adapters for years. DVI, VGA adapters, HDMI splitters, Adapters for Audio cards, Card Readers for CF cards (eg. Canon 5D), USB hubs for connecting Midi controllers, mice and harddisks, etc.
And if one can afford to use Macs, one can afford a couple of 100$ to buy necessary adapters, it's how we make a living.
Surely no Mac user in production really complains about carrying a couple of adapters and cables when going about their work? I have always needed adapters since the G3 Powerbook around 2001 - nothing has changed?
And the talk on these threads of losing or breaking adapters is just silly. Any serious person takes care of their equipment. I don't hear violinists complaining about losing their bows or chin rests.

For me, as a designer and video editor, it was the previous MBP retina gen. By a long shot

Agreed, great machine!
Have a good day.

 

[Spectrum]

15-17 hours seems rather unbelievable. Would someone here be able to write a similar page-loading script and test their MBPro model?

I would have thought even just the power for the screen etc (no CPU load) wouldn't manage much more than 10 h given the smaller battery capacity compared to previous versions.

I am really amazed by these results. It must be a VERY low CPU-demand test.

 

[craig1410]

What you actually do on a machine while it's under battery power can make and absolutely massive difference. Modern computer hardware is very energy efficient and much of this is achieved by powering down or slowing down parts of hardware that aren't being used. As a result there's an absolutely vast difference between how much power parts draw when they're not doing much and when they're going full tilt. In this case it was a bug in the "do not cache" setting that caused the browser to keep re-downloading the same assets over and over again even between page loads.

I have a feeling that what happened was that part of the caching functionality in Chrome simply didn't get the message and tried caching parts of the pages over and over again without success.

You're absolutely right, how you use the computer does have a big effect on battery life and although there was indeed a bug triggered by the disabling of the browser cache, I would seriously question the methodology CR used here.

As a professional developer myself, I run tests against my software before release and one of the things I have to ensure is that I start from the same initial conditions each time I run my tests, so I can easily understand why CR thought that disabling the cache was the right thing to do.

However, clearly most users won't want to disable important performance features such as the browser cache and I have to say I don't even need to do this as a developer. When you consider the incredible performance of the SSDs in the new MBPs, disabling the cache and forcing the machine to download the web assets over and over again will be highly detrimental to the machine's performance. Perhaps more importantly, it will also negatively affect the battery performance because the computer will spend more time "working" and won't be able to go back into its idle state as soon as it would if it just pulled the web assets from the cache on SSD or in RAM. Personally I would prefer that benchmarks reflected real-world usage and had a bit of variability.

 

[Spectrum]

QUestion to owners: Please could one of you simply boot up your new MBPro, let all the background tasks finish, have screen on 50%, no apps open, no Dropbox syncing going on etc.

Then use System Profiler or Activity Monitor to see how much the measured power draw is?

I'd like to see if it really is possible to get such a long battery life (with no CPU draw).

 

[craig1410]

...overpriced workstation that no Pro I know or heard of has enjoyed working with. I know developers fed up with the dongle labyrinth and to whom the TouchBar mishaps cause anxiety, designers whose frozen MBPs need be let to run out because the TouchID/Power button is unresponsive, and copywriters who can't get used to the keyboard after weeks of use..

I'm a pro (consultant web developer) and I'm very happy with my MBP+TB.
I'm a developer and although I bought 2 dongles (USB-A + TB2), I have not needed to use them yet (6 weeks and counting)
TouchID is a massive time-saver, no problems with it so far.
The keyboard is different and a little bit noisy until you learn to relax and tap the keys more lightly at which point you can really fly along with minimal errors.
I will admit I was taken aback a bit initially by the price but most of that in the UK was due to brexit currency swings and the rest was easily explained by the extra hardware required for TouchID and TouchBar. No complaints now I've got the machine.

 

[otternonsense]

I know 6 who are very happy with it (video editors and photographers) and 2 who you returned it (video editors using Adobe software)
It's expensive, but if you make your living with these machines and need a new MBP - you'll obviously have the investment returned quickly.
I have not bought one, was hoping for 32 GB Ram. Will wait.

To each their own I suppose. I do make my living with it, and the investment would be my employer's. I was quite verbose about sticking to the 2015 version instead of switching for the mere sake of "newness". It simply doesn't offer a compelling reason to upgrade. 32GB RAM is something I've been waiting for too.

This "dongle" complaining is ridiculous. Just about every musician and video artist I know has been traveling with adapters for years. DVI, VGA adapters, HDMI splitters, Adapters for Audio cards, Card Readers for CF cards (eg. Canon 5D), USB hubs for connecting Midi controllers, mice and harddisks, etc.
And if one can afford to use Macs, one can afford a couple of 100$ to buy necessary adapters, it's how we make a living.
Surely no Mac user in production really complains about carrying a couple of adapters and cables when going about their work? I have always needed adapters since the G3 Powerbook around 2001 - nothing has changed?
And the talk on these threads of losing or breaking adapters is just silly. Any serious person takes care of their equipment. I don't hear violinists complaining about losing their bows or chin rests.

Not quite so ridiculous. Highly specialized equipment does call for adapters, it's a given. I've always carried hubs and adapters around. With this MBP iteration though, Apple chose to kill ALL standard ports (incl MagSafe) simultaneously. I'm quite pedantic with my equipment, and I reckon it's not worth updating all of it for marginal performance improvements, plus I refuse to risk the odd moment in which the lack of an HDMI adapter could be a show stopper.

I acknowledge that I'm speaking for myself, and that another user may find the MBP to be gold. I simply find it hard to believe. Have a good day also

 

[lowkey]

I'm happier with the new MacBook Pro having the same battery life while being lighter, rather than having longer battery life but being thicker and heavier.

But to call it not professional because of a 10 hour battery life is plain ridiculous.

How do you expect them to get the quad i7 in there while maintaining battery life. It's tdp is 45w vs 28w. It's going to have to be thicker, heavier and hotter. How is that more "Pro"? In that case just get the 15" instead. When Intel can get 30w quads in a couple of generations it will be doable.

For me, I think the new range are great computers that are getting too expensive. Especially with the change in exchange rates here giving the cost a double increase.

How about you read what I wrote. Perhaps if apple put slightly less emphasis on it being so razor thin, they could deliver both. Give us one or the other, battery improvements with dual core processors or quad core processors. I'd be happy with a lack of battery improvement if it meant a real jump in performance like quad core for the 13, I'm not happy wirh same or less battery life because the battery is smaller due to them shrinking the chassis again.

 

[travelsheep]

ports problem fixed too? ... what's next, MacBook Pro $ 3000 without screen? Buy a screen for merely $ 500 ?

 

[Roller]

"been": so it's not any more?
"very good": very meaningless.

You're seriously questioning what Lucidtosh meant by "has been?" If you want to debate semantics, technically all experience is in the past, so "has been" is fine.

As for the non-specificity of the battery life pronouncement, all Lucidtosh is saying is that it's been very good for his or her use case, which is fine. That's been my experience with my 13" TB, which lasted 9 1/2 hours over three days doing a combination of tasks that I've described in other posts. I'd also characterize it as "very good," but someone doing video editing or some other energy-draining work would surely get less time.

 

[otternonsense]

I'm happier with the new MacBook Pro having the same battery life while being lighter, rather than having longer battery life but being thicker and heavier.

Pardon me barging in, but the 2012-1015 retina MacBook Pro was hardly what you'd call a chunky monkey. Apple could retain the size and jam-pack it with features. Does every Apple product need to become thinner and thinner until it disappears into thin air? Don't get me wrong, I love my tech neatly slim but there is a limit beyond which hardware capacity, structural integrity and heatsink/chipset lifespan come into question. The tradeoff to this unnecessary, self-aggrandizing pursuit of thinness is the RAM cap, the no-travel keyboard, debatable battery life, magsafe/port/dongle reality show, soldered everything etc. Is it worth it?

 

[smacrumon]

An actual user review - new macbook 15-inch late 2016 model has much less battery life than my old 17-inch early 2009.

So personally, I don't believe a word about this new changed report. The original reporting, without Apple's interference, seems to reflect my experience.

Something really looks odd about this change of reporting by Consumer Reports. I suspect many other companies wouldn't get special treatment that Apple has had here. Stinks of bias, cash for comment and complete unethical reporting.

Good news for Apple, I'll be returning my device under warranty citing battery complaints, it can have its experimental unit back.

 

[oldmacs]

I'm happier with the new MacBook Pro having the same battery life while being lighter, rather than having longer battery life but being thicker and heavier.

But to call it not professional because of a 10 hour battery life is plain ridiculous.

How do you expect them to get the quad i7 in there while maintaining battery life. It's tdp is 45w vs 28w. It's going to have to be thicker, heavier and hotter. How is that more "Pro"? In that case just get the 15" instead. When Intel can get 30w quads in a couple of generations it will be doable.

For me, I think the new range are great computers that are getting too expensive. Especially with the change in exchange rates here giving the cost a double increase.

It goes back to what you need in a computer. From my point of view apple should make two grades of their pro machine, one that focuses on thinness and the other on power etc as trying to heap every one into one or the other isn't going to work.

I would have preferred they kept the 2015 chassis and improved the battery life or improved the performance to a greater extent. Just my opinion. I do see it as a move away from professional users to focus on thinness rather than battery life, we are all however different.

 

[leman]

It also happens to be a heavily compromised, overpriced workstation that no Pro I know or heard of has enjoyed working with.

Fist of all, its not a workstation and is not intended to be a workstation. And its literally the best computer I have ever had the pleasure to work with. The amount of power you have in such a mobile package is really unprecedented and the battery life is excellent. As far as I am concerned, its the most versatile laptop on the market right now.

 

[oldmacs]

Pardon me barging in, but the 2012-1015 retina MacBook Pro was hardly what you'd call a chunky monkey. Apple could retain the size and jam-pack it with features. Does every Apple product need to become thinner and thinner until it disappears into thin air? Don't get me wrong, I love my tech neatly slim but there is a limit beyond which hardware capacity, structural integrity and heatsink/chipset lifespan come into question. The tradeoff to this unnecessary, self-aggrandizing pursuit of thinness is the RAM cap, the no-travel keyboard, debatable battery life, magsafe/port/dongle reality show, soldered everything etc. Is it worth it?

Worth it to some, but then you think wouldn't they be better suited by a hugely beefed up air with a Retina display?

 

[otternonsense]

Fist of all, its not a workstation and is not intended to be a workstation. And its literally the best computer I have ever had the pleasure to work with.

Good grief. The top-tier MacBook Pro is NOT INTENDED TO BE A WORKSTATION?! Which reality have I awoken in? What the effing eff is this powerhouse intended to be if NOT a workstation? A Starbucks table prop for the affluent discerning patron?

Worth it to some, but then you think wouldn't they be better suited by a hugely beefed up air with a Retina display?

Of course they'd be. Wasn't that supposed to be the plain MacBook though?

 

[Spectrum]

Good grief. The top-tier MacBook Pro is NOT INTENDED TO BE A WORKSTATION?! Which reality have I awoken in? What the effing eff is this powerhouse intended to be if NOT a workstation? A Starbucks table prop for the affluent discerning patron?

I agree. I think Apple messed up here by trying to merge the MB Air and MBPro models.

In my opinion there should be 5 laptops spread across two styles depending on market:

Ultra-thin, low battery, retina, fewer ports: 12" MB (Air), 14" MB (Air)
Powerful, bigger battery, retina, thicker, heavier, more ports: 13" MBPro, 15" MBPro, 17" MBPro

The airs should have: 1x USBC, 1x USBA, 1xSD slot, headphone
The MBPro should have 2x USBC, 2x USBA, 1x SD slot, 1x HDMI, headphone, magsafe

 

[otternonsense]

I agree. I think Apple messed up here by trying to merge the MB Air and MBPro models.

In my opinion there should be 5 laptops spread across two styles depending on market:

Ultra-thin, low battery, retina, fewer ports: 12" MB (Air), 14" MB (Air)
Powerful, bigger battery, retina, thicker, heavier, more ports: 13" MBPro, 15" MBPro, 17" MBPro

The airs should have: 1x USBC, 1x USBA, 1xSD slot, headphone
The MBPro should have 2x USBC, 2x USBA, 1x SD slot, 1x HDMI, headphone, magsafe

Agree with your assessment too. To me, the main culprit is King Ive with his relentless pursuit of wafer-thin disposable monoliths, spineless accountant-in-chief Cook, and sideshow Bobs like Schiller who come off as dumb as a bag of dongles.

 

[leman]

Good grief. The top-tier MacBook Pro is NOT INTENDED TO BE A WORKSTATION?! Which reality have I awoken in? What the effing eff is this powerhouse intended to be if NOT a workstation?

I don't know where you were sleeping, but welcome to the real world! Apple never EVER made a portable workstation. Nor they have ever marketed MBP as such. Of course, we can spend en eternity arguing what a workstation is, but here are a few properties of this category as common to laptops that are being described and sold as workstation:

- workstation-grade CPUs (Xeon)
- workstation-grade RAM (with ECC)
- workstation-grade GPUs (with specialised drivers and enhanced stability)
- good internal expandability
- portability and battery not that much a concern — workstations from Dell and HP regularly weight 3kg or more

In contrast, the MBP design parameters have been very different, from the start:

- fastest consumer-level mobile CPUs
- fastest consumer-level mobile GPU within the sub 45W TDP (which means low-to mid-end nowadays)
- portability over expandability (the MBPs were ALWAYS traditionally thinner and lighter than the competition)
- focus on battery life

What is MBP intended to be? A versatile, adaptable, balanced laptop that is truly mobile. Apple's vision for it is ultimate portability while preserving as much performance as possible. This is very different from the workstation category, which doesn't care about portability that much. A funny thing of course is that now MBP actually does offer workstation GPUs, for the first time in its history. Then again, the concept of the workstation GPU has changed a lot. And its not like the 4xx Pro series are using ECC VRAM...

The only workstation computer Apple makes is the Mac Pro btw.

 

[gorkt]

You know what, this is the system working as intended. CR found a flaw, and Apple heard the feedback and fixed it.

 

[demodave]

"Battery Issue Fixed!"

"We removed our crania from our recta, and everything seems to have improved a great deal."

 

[BruceEBonus]

The MacBook Pro - It's Not All Bad.

 

[Ethosik]

Good grief. The top-tier MacBook Pro is NOT INTENDED TO BE A WORKSTATION?! Which reality have I awoken in? What the effing eff is this powerhouse intended to be if NOT a workstation? A Starbucks table prop for the affluent discerning patron?



Of course they'd be. Wasn't that supposed to be the plain MacBook though?

Um, a workstation has Xeon and, typically, Quadro graphics cards. These have never had these types of components. I could never perform Workstation-like tasks on these, even when Steve Jobs was around.

 

[otternonsense]

I don't know where you were sleeping, but welcome to the real world! Apple never EVER made a portable workstation. Nor they have ever marketed MBP as such. Of course, we can spend en eternity arguing what a workstation is, but here are a few properties of this category as common to laptops that are being described and sold as workstation:

- workstation-grade CPUs (Xeon)
- workstation-grade RAM (with ECC)
- workstation-grade GPUs (with specialised drivers and enhanced stability)
- good internal expandability
- portability and battery not that much a concern — workstations from Dell and HP regularly weight 3kg or more

In contrast, the MBP design parameters have been very different, from the start:

- fastest consumer-level mobile CPUs
- fastest consumer-level mobile GPU within the sub 45W TDP (which means low-to mid-end nowadays)
- portability over expandability (the MBPs were ALWAYS traditionally thinner and lighter than the competition)
- focus on battery life

What is MBP intended to be? A versatile, adaptable, balanced laptop that is truly mobile. Apple's vision for it is ultimate portability while preserving as much performance as possible. This is very different from the workstation category, which doesn't care about portability that much. A funny thing of course is that now MBP actually does offer workstation GPUs, for the first time in its history. Then again, the concept of the workstation GPU has changed a lot. And its not like the 4xx Pro series are using ECC VRAM...

The only workstation computer Apple makes is the Mac Pro btw.

Trust me, I hear you, and I'm wide awake. But for all intents and purposes, the high end MacBook Pro is and has been Apple's mobile workstation offering, at least as close as it gets to one. This year round, Apple simply chose to sacrifice too much for the sake of "ultimate portability". Read the user critique -portability was never a concern with the 2014-2015 MBP iterations, the stagnating hardware was.

Or maybe it's one big misunderstanding, and Apple's vision was never actually in line with its consumers' perception.

Btw, the desktop-class Mac Pro also didn't feature state of the art (workstation grade) hardware at the time (now it's just laughable). The 4-year neglect speaks volumes about Apple's attitude towards the 'pro' crowd. Perhaps we should all make up our minds that as of 2012 Apple is the iPhone company with little side vision to anything else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ImaxGuy]

So.... WTF did Apple use to get their original results?

I get 4-5 hrs ONLY running iBooks at 25% screen brightness in a 2.9 Ghz 15" 2016 MBP.

BTW I LOVE my machine (esp the new keyboard) despite my battery issue.

 

[nwcs]

The same principles should apply for CR and other entities with a similar role. If there's a finding that is wildly different from the vendor's claims, CR should have worked with the vendor to figure out what the problem is (and if it will affect the majority of the public) before going public with it.

That's not Consumer Report's role. They are not a vendor or independent researcher looking for bugs and vulnerabilities. They have no responsibility to a manufacturer to alert them of anything for any reason. The closer analogy for CR is an inspector. And no inspector who has any credibility works with a vendor for any reason before publishing a result.

Consider a similar situation: health inspector goes to a restaurant and discovers an issue. What should they do? Work with management to correct it and then report that they got a 100/100 after the inspector worked with management. No, they report the issue and management addresses it and gets retested.

Same exact thing for CR. I find it amazing how many people don't seem to understand the distinction. CR isn't designed or tasked with bounty hunting and bug finding. They're a consumer protection organization that tries to remain objective and test things with a consistent test (regardless of the relative merit of the test) and report the results. Neutrality and objectivity are essential ingredients.

Most of what people seem to want for CR is to basically do whatever it takes to make any manufacturer look good and not expose anything but the worst problems. Maybe that's why people pay so much attention to anonymous reviews that are often "bought" by the manufacturer. People are so influenced these days they can't even see it anymore.