Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Reports Now Recommends MacBook Pros (macrumors.com)
Consumer Reports has updated their report on the 2016 MacBook Pros, and is now recommending Apple's latest notebooks. MacRumors reports: In the new test, conducted running a beta version of macOS that fixes the Safari-related bug that caused erratic battery life in the original test, all three MacBook Pro models "performed well." The 13-inch model without a Touch Bar had an average battery life of 18.75 hours, the 13-inch model with a Touch Bar lasted for 15.25 hours on average, and the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar had an average battery life of 17.25 hours. "Now that we've factored in the new battery-life measurements, the laptops' overall scores have risen, and all three machines now fall well within the recommended range in Consumer Reports ratings," reports Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports originally denied the 2016 MacBook Pro a purchase recommendation in late December due to extreme battery life variance that didn't match up with Apple's 10 hour battery life claim. Apple worked with Consumer Reports to figure out why the magazine encountered battery life issues, which led to the discovery of an obscure Safari caching bug. Consumer Reports used a developer setting to turn off Safari caching, triggering an "obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons" that drained excessive battery. The bug, fixed by Apple in macOS Sierra 10.12.3 beta 3, is not one the average user will encounter as most people don't turn off the Safari caching option, but it's something done in all Consumer Reports tests to ensure uniform testing conditions. A fix for the issue will be available to the general public when macOS Sierra 10.12.3 is released, but users can get it now by signing up for Apple's beta testing program.
Your quote "That's all well and good, but either way it's still Apple's fault. Not that their fans will care." is factually incorrect. The issue in question was whether Apples estimates on battery life were wrong.
This statement was and is entirely correct. It would have been correct even if it turned out that the Consumer Reports' result was the result of the tester smoking meth and deciding to type random stuff on his report. For the third (fourth?) time, I was responding to a hypothetical given by someone else. What the hell, I'm feeling charitable, let me try to give you some pointers on the bits I think you may be misunderstanding:
A. The "either" refers to the battery life being off (hardware issue of some sort), or there being a bug in Safari.
B. The hypothetical bug was not and is not the same as the actual bug.
They weren't, consumer reports enabled hidden developer features so were not testing the battery in the way Apple does or in the way a regular user would experience.
[Reminder: this issue/argument is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the above. I'd still be right on that first point even if I were wrong on this second point, which I'm not]
Holy hell, where to even begin...
1. "You're holding it wrong." This gives you away immediately. No sane person who hasn't chugged a gallon of Jobs' kool-aid says stuff like this.
2. I love how we're basically openly admitting now that the Macbook "Pro" is not intended for developers or power users. Your arguments make no sense whatsoever as soon as you admit that there are advanced users who very well might tinker with browser internals, and who might wish to buy a MBP.
3. At any point did I say or imply that the latest MBP is a horrible piece of crap that no one should buy specifically because of the bad battery life? No. I simply said that the responsibility for the bad test result, in case of a bug in Safari, lies on Apple and not Consumer Reports. This closely ties into #1. Read it repeatedly. Try to apply your argument to a product not made by Apple and see if it's reasonable. Let me get you started:
"Well I'm so sorry the robot attacked your technician! But you see, he was wearing a metallic green shirt, and regular users don't wear metallic green shirts, so really it's your fault. Yes, your test of our robot was definitely set up incorrectly because he wore a metallic green shirt and thus it was really unfair of you guys to initially give our robot an unfavorable review."
4. The setting was activated presumably for a good reason as part of CR's methodology, perhaps to make the browser settings as close as possible to the other notebooks they were comparing it with. I might be wrong on this point and it was just a dumb mistake of theirs, but even if I'm wrong on this point my other 3 points will stand.
"how the hell is that a "flaw in the testing methodology" you ask frothily? That seems obvious now.
Indeed. The guy who was decapitated by the berserk robot was clearly using flawed methodology because he wore a metallic green shirt, which is unusual.
Yes their was apparently a bug in the developer tools that disable caching of websites but you including that in your conclusion was a strawman
The "informal logical fallacies of debate" were abused almost immediately after they were popularized, but it's been getting really bad lately. This one is particularly sad, though.
A conclusion isn't a strawman. Premises are (or can be) strawmen. A strawman involves misunderstanding/misrepresenting someone's argument. Try Googling words you aren't sure the meaning of before using them. (Bonus points if, at this stage, you decide to erroneously accuse me of ad hominems.)
The other strawmen you built regarding removable batteries
That's not a strawman either, not