Consumer Reports Stands By Its Verdict, Won't Recommend Apple's MacBook Pro (mashable.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday December 30, 2016 @06:40AM from the nope,-no-sir dept.

Consumer Reports took many by surprise last week -- certainly Apple -- when it said it doesn't recommend the company's new MacBook Pro models. The American magazine, which has garnered credibility over 80 years of its existence, said battery life on Apple's new laptops was all over the place -- hitting 19 hours in a test, but less than four hours in another. Last week, Apple's VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller insisted that Consumer Reports' findings didn't match the company's field data, and that Apple was working with Consumer Reports to understand its review. Now Consumer Reports has responded: The nonprofit organization is standing by its initial verdict in which it did not give the MacBook Pro (2016) its "recommended" rating. The organization has now said it doesn't think re-running the tests will change anything. "In this case, we don't believe re-running the tests are warranted for several reasons. First, as we point out in our original article, experiencing very high battery life on MacBooks is not unusual for us -- in fact we had a model in our comparative tests that got 19 hours," it said. "Second, we confirmed our brightness with three different meters, so we feel confident in our findings using this equipment. Finally, we monitor our tests very closely. There is an entry logged every minute, so we know from these entries that the app worked correctly," it added.

1 of 268 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:I don't see why they would change by Solandri · 2016-12-30 07:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've been waiting since 2011 to upgrade but every model they put out has been more and more retarded. Soldered memory. Proprietary storage.
You're behind the times. The newest Macbook Pros have their NAND storage soldered to the mainboard.

The previous iteration of their proprietary SSD had encrypted communications. It took OWC over a year to reverse-engineer it and offer compatible SSD upgrades. I guess Apple took that as a sign that they needed to eliminate any possibility of a third party upgrade. After all, you can't have customers modifying their hardware to their liking.