Shouldn't they wait to change their recommendation until after the fix is actually released? Average Joe who goes and buys one based on this report will then wonder why it's still an issue for them. No recommendation should be made based on beta software.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Consumer Reports Reverses Course, Recommends MacBook Pro Following New Testing After Apple Bug Fix
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple does not pay enough to get 48 hours battery life ?
Shame on apple. Poor Marketing
otternonsense
Suspended
CR refrained from its recommendation on grounds of battery life.
As for best laptop.. we both know that's not true.
It was a bug. Apple admitted that it was a bug. Apple also said, correctly, that CR's decision to disable caching - which has nothing to do with cookies inherently - is not representative of typical user behavior. CR should indeed be aware of the defaults given that they change the defaults
skids929
macrumors 6502a
First off Chrome is Googles issue not Apples...And Apple software is some of the most well written software known to mankind! Honestly how anyone can use MacOS and not see the HUGE differences between it and windows is beyond me.
I am fascinated daily when I use my MBP how well everything works and how well the software controls the hardware. THAT is the difference between Apple and everyone else. Had this battery issue been a Windows issue it would never have been fixed properly and they can't send fixes like Apple can because the OS is on so many different types of hardware. I couldn't disagree more this your statement, the software is second to none.
Funny, I read soooo many replies here from people saying "CR doesn't matter, apple doesn't care" blah blah
Then why did Apple work with CR ? Hmm?
Then why did Apple work with CR ? Hmm?
It was very unprofessional of CR to release the first version of the review, where it was obvious that the results were not representative. But 15+ hours? Come on... Thats just as ridiculous... only shows that their test is unrealistic.
Um, what? How does this look suspicious at all? Apple's testing process is different from CR's. CR changes some defaults to standardize their testing process across machines and Apple sticks to the defaults. They got different results. Apple asks CR to hare their testing process and as a result discovers a bug in Safari that when fixed improves the battery life. CR even admitted that when they used the standard defaults, the battery life was in line with Apple's battery test results. They didn't write results to cheat battery tests, they wrote mostly working software which had a bug that would not normally occur.
td2243
Cancelled
As someone else pointed out, CR's test is meant to be able to compare multiple machines, not necessarily be representative of the normal usage pattern. I've gotten 9 hours before on a 2013 rMBP rated for 7 - and that was w/o dim lighting
AppleFan91
macrumors 68000
I love all the conspiracy theories saying Apple paid off Consumer Reports or "broke some legs". It's a simple case where CR tested the product and due to a software bug, it underperformed in battery tests. Apple asked for data and after fixing the software issue, it was retested and CR changed their rating. I love all the conspiracy theories in this thread though, they're funny.
That's what I thought to but then remembered that they changed the defaults to break Safari initially, which means that the Average Joe won't be affected
It's a bug related to a developer setting. It's not causing a crash, just some extra cpu work that most people aren't going to notice. This is the definition of an obscure and difficult to observe bug.
Tompkinson
macrumors 6502
When you write "Apples software really isn't up to scratch anymore" - one could get the impression you're saying it's Apple's fault .
It's a developer setting any normal user would not be using. Should not be reviewed by consumer reports.
For whatever reason, there will always be people who doubt Apple or who somehow want to see Apple fail.
If you remember the initial results, they also included 15+ hours of battery life in some test runs. So what you see here is the removal of the bug that intermittently reduced the battery life significantly from 15+ hours under a light load.
The deeper message here is that Intel and Apple have managed to reduce battery consumption under idle or light load very significantly. Essentially, when not needed various parts of the CPU, motherboard and OS can go into something like a sleep mode. The problem with these advances is that the power consumption in idle mode and under full throttle now probably exceeds a more than 10x differential. This means that actual power consumption will vary dramatically from user to user and application to application. And that any bug that disturbs this 'sleep' has very large consequences. And one might ask whether any real system with many applications and with minor problems accumulating will be highly unlikely to allow these advanced power-saving measures to become active.
CharlesShaw
macrumors 68030
I don't believe anyone in the market to buy a MacBook Pro decided to buy something else based on that CR report, so I doubt Apple lost any sales.
I'm afraid to automate testing, you need to do things that normal users wouldn't do. And without automation, you cannot get repeatability.
Last edited:
benjitek
macrumors 6502a
Not much -- people who say they won't buy a MacBook because of what Consumer Reports said probably wouldn't have bought one regardless.
Bacillus
Suspended
skids929
macrumors 6502a
A lot of people read and rely on CR. Which is why Apple QUICKLY responded publicly and said they are working to a resolution. And they did, which I think is honorable.