Most of that the average consumer doesn't give a shit about, however their music and ability to plug in their expensive headphones and charge the phone matters. The average person would look at your list and say well their are no upgrades there for me at all. The 6s is more than fast enough for most people, graphics are fine and while water resistence is nice it is hardly a killer feature. Improved dual cameras is really the only step up for the selfie obsessed average user. It is not enough to simply incrementally improve a device when you want someone to spend the best part of a Grand year to year on upgrades.
No. What you really mean is stuff YOU don't care about.
So, something is (maybe) occasionally causing the AMD GPU, not the CPU, to run amok (or even be in some sort of power-guzzling "SCR-Lockup" state (hopefully not!)), sucking down the juice. Obviously, CR and others haven't triggered this behavior in the same way as the MacRumors poster; but there may be more software paths to this bug, likely involving switching between dGPU and iGPU modes, and/or power-savings involving same.
I hope you're wrong. Otherwise, in two years, Apple is going to end up doing yet another logic board recall....
Unless, like it "feels" like, it is a software bug, and will be cleared up in a week or two.
estimated time remaining go up when your usage goes down. Hey, people are stupid - don't ascribe to malice what may be adequately explained by idiocy.
And it's apparently a fact that some Betas of macOS Sierra had the Time Remaining indicator in the menu, and others did not. That points to the fact that they had been playing with the idea of getting rid of that indicator from the menu. So, it obviously wasn't a reaction to any negative press about battery life. Plus, they left it IN Activity Monitor.
First of all, no, they are under no obligation. They would still likely do it since it would be in the best interest of their subscribers and of their reputation.
Furthermore, there is no official fix from Apple yet. As far as I know there are rumors of some beta version faring better, but nothing more. CR didn't say they won't re-test the devices if/when Apple releases a fix, they won't re-test the devices *as they are* since they are confident of their previous test's methodology and findings.
Note that CR shared the diagnostic files from their tests with Apple and will definitely re-test the devices as soon as Apple claims they figured out the battery problems and fixed them. Until then they trust their results and find a re-test pointless.
So no, there is nothing suspicious on the part of CR.
Maybe it's just a badly-worded summary (I know, shock!), but it sure looks like CR is saying they're done with testing the MBP, Period.
Apple hasn't said they fixed the issue and from the sounds of it they've already run these tests a number of times. Recall that the solution here isn't to try to make the tests consistent, if Apple codes to fix the tests that doesn't necessarily fix wider spread issues.
But what about if Apple just codes to fix the issue, instead?
Honestly, WTF is wrong with you? Why does ANYTHING Apple HAVE to be some sort of evil shit?!?
Even Apple has had difficulty creating appealing new features, stifling demand from customers who otherwise would look to upgrade to the latest device
While I agree that Apple hasn't really been able to introduce new features, some folks around me have ditched the iPhone for its expense. I guess they are finally "coming to their senses."
I always wondered why one would pay over US$900 for something that has functionality of other devices at half the cost; and would be "obsolete" in a year.
Um, the GN7 "Fireball" edition was actually MORE expensive than an iPhone 7 Plus.
Who could have guessed: removing features from a product does not make it more appealing! Shocking, I know.
Apparently, neither does adding or improving features (7 Plus compared with the 6s Plus):
MUCH improved CPU (Quad Core, vs. Dual Core for 6s Plus), and MUCH faster, too (40% faster than the 6s Plus). Fastest CPU in the mobile industry
MUCH improved GPU (50% faster than the 6s Plus). Fastest GPU in the mobile industry
More RAM (3 GB, as opposed to the 2 GB on the 6s Plus)
Faster Cellular MODEM (depending on model) (4G Speeds up to 450 Mbps vs. 300 Mbps for the 6s Plus)
MUCH improved water-resistance. Now IP67 rated (and easily beats that spec in real-world tests).
Home-button no longer mechanical. (Annoying breaking-point before)
MUCH improved and DUAL cameras, with better low-light sensitivity, ability to do pseudo depth-mapping, and 2 x optical zoom and 10 digital zoom. 4k rear, 1080p front video recording, vs. 6s Plus 720p recording on front camera. Better flash, too.
MUCH improved Bluetooth from the industry-leading Apple W1 chip (backwards-compatible w/std. BT also)
Stereo Speakers
Extended Battery Life (over 1 hour more vs. the 6s Plus).
Twice the maximum storage (up to 256 GB vs. the 6s Plus 128 GB max).
25% Brighter Display (over the 6s Plus), with wide (P3) color gamut
...and that's just from one model-year to the next!
And yet, all people want to do is bitch about a damn headphone jack...
CR is under no obligation to retest. Catching and fixing issues in QA before the product is shipped is Apple's responsibility. CR isn't Apple's beta tester.
designs are sourced wholesale from taiwanese design house mills. Running design in house, hiring expensive talended designers is not profitable
That's true, only if you're building "race-to-the-bottom" shitboxes like Dell and Asus do.
Apple, OTOH, has a nice new building all set-aside at their new campus in California (just like the existing one at 1 Infinite Loop), that is filled with nothing but their R&D.
You're an unmitigated moron. Not every computer OEM is the same, and certainly not Apple.
I have a brand new Dell laptop for work, and a brand new Macbook Pro for home. As a testt I used both in the same manner over the holidays, browsing the web, playing movies, listening to music, checking email.
Mac battery life was 2x better than the Dell/Windows laptop based on recharge cycles over several days. 8-10 hrs on the Mac, 4-5 hrs on the Dell. Same brightness, same wifi connection.
Pick whatever works best for you. But clearly Apple has better battery technology and energy saving features.
"Seems like if they can't get consistent answers they would want to find out why?"
It's not their responsibility to figure out why the answers are different, as long as the questions are consistent. If the results are inconsistent, that's Apple's problem.
So if a Windows Update happens to cause this same sort of problem in a Lenovo or Dell laptop that just happens to be tested by CR right after that Update is published/applied, then CR is under no obligation to re-test said laptop after MS finds and fixes the issue, because, after all, it's Lenovo or Dell's problem, right?
And don't use the excuse that Apple creates the OS and software, too. The point is, in both cases, the problem turns out to not be with the Laptop itself; but rather with a temporary (and fixed!) software bug, unknown to both OEM and CR at the time of testing.
Not saying it's CR's "fault", either; but they should live up to their original offer to "re-test if Apple believes they have found and fixed a problem" (paraphrasing from memory), instead of reversing themselves less than a week later.
Why should they continue to re-run tests until they get the results the vendor wants? Running and monitoring the tests isn't free and they have finite resources, it isn't their responsibility to do the vendors work for them and their tests have otherwise produced consistent results.
Not at all; but initially they stated that they would be happy to re-run the tests if Apple told them they made a change that addressed the issue. And I believe that is their usual offer to other manufacturers of other items that CR doesn't "recommend".
Now, all of a sudden, they are refusing to re-run tests, only a week after publishing the results of their first tests?
Sometimes, in the real-world, problems, especially intermittent problems like this one, take some time to track-down.
You'd know that if you actually ever built anything more complicated than a flower-box in wood shop class.
Is that Apple had no interest in actually sending the logs and test data to their engineers to figure out what went wrong and develop a solution. Instead, they wanted to solve the issue with PR:
You're talking out your ass.
In fact, one poster reported in another forum that when he responded to Phil Schiller's Tweet to CR about his personal experience with battery-life issues in his new MBP, Schiller actually replied, requesting that the user send him some specific system logs, etc.
So, I feel fairly certain that Schiller (or more likely whoever in Engineering he turned this matter over-to) did ask CR for any documentation they had from their testing.
They should, if such company came along with "we fixed the issue you identified, please re-test updated product". However, this is not what Apple is doing.
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.
Actually, it probably took OWC that long to get the Flash memory that was on Allocation due to commitments to Apple and others.
Consumer Reports, as they said, is pretty careful with testing. But even if they were not quite as careful as they are, as long as they tested different devices in the same way and used consumer purchased models, they results they found should stand.
Hopefully Apple will get to the bottom of what happened in the tests, and make the laptops better. Then they can get back on the list next year. It does seem like some mix of software and hardware has some quirk if you can find the range of times Consumer Reports found.
One thing I wonder is if it will even have much of an effect. Do many people really rely on consumer reports for laptop info? It seems like there are so many other sites comparing laptop hardware, that consumer reports is just one of many data points...
And for Apple in particular that matters even less, because if you want a MacBook Pro you are buying what they are selling. It may mean someone would wait another year. Or it might mean that you would possibly purchased an older model instead (I had read somewhere that refurbished 2015 MacBook Pros were selling really well).
I think Apple will iron this out within a month or so and then it really will not matter, but it makes me think more of Consumer Reports that they are willing to stick by results as they found them and not cave into pressure for a re-test.
See my post here about at least one possible cause.
Sigh. Apple does not have battery battery technology. Heck, they don't even make the Macbooks. Quanta does, and Quanta also makes laptops for all the other major brands..
You don't know the first thing about the difference between Design and Manufacturing.
Apple Designs all their Products in-house. But, ever since the early 21st century, I don't think they actually manufacture any of them, except possibly the Mac Pro.
Just wondering if these are the same Macbooks that have USB-C poert instead of standard USB ports, and have the touch bar that replaced part of the keyboard ? As I am not a (Cr)apple fan, I really don't care enough to look this up for myself.
The problem is not "over inflated battery life" - and actually, Apple has (in the past) gotten kudos for being one of the few companies that consistently provided reasonably accurate battery numbers for their products.
No, the issue is there's something as-yet-unexplained which, under some circumstances, causes the battery life of the newest MacBook Pros to plummet to ridiculously low levels. Consumer Reports saw it in their testing; but, even before that, some customers were experiencing it (and justifiably complaining).
Sounds like they have stopped being "objective" and have moved on to "defensive".
HOWEVER, an interesting anecdote comes from reading another online forum (MacRumors.com), last evening, where a poster with a tbMBP 15" noted that, ONE TIME, when he unplugged an external Thunderbolt display (TB displays FORCE the MBP to use the dGPU), "Activity Monitor" said in the "Energy" tab that, instead of the 10 or 11 hours he was getting on average, it was showing that he was expected to get 3 hours.
However, no Processes were showing as being Energy-Hogs, and, he also stated that the "CPU" Tab showed that nothing was using over 1.5% CPU (which was reasonable for what he had running). And what he did have running SHOULD (and probably was) running on the iGPU. (???)
But, what was really "telling", was that he reported that the area under the "E" and "R" keys on the Keyboard was getting REALLY HOT. Hot enough that he panicked, and Rebooted the laptop.
Everything returned to normal, battery life report back to normal, no heating, hasn't happened since...
So, looking at the iFixit teardown of the 15" MBP, you can see in Step 6, that the components that would be under that area of the Keyboard would plainly be the AMD GPU (outlined in Yellow) (and not the CPU, which is over nearer to the "I" and "O" keys, basically).
So, something is (maybe) occasionally causing the AMD GPU, not the CPU, to run amok (or even be in some sort of power-guzzling "SCR-Lockup" state (hopefully not!)), sucking down the juice. Obviously, CR and others haven't triggered this behavior in the same way as the MacRumors poster; but there may be more software paths to this bug, likely involving switching between dGPU and iGPU modes, and/or power-savings involving same.
More than likely this is still a software issue; but it is not one that Users can see in Activity Monitor (other than it does seem to "know" that the battery is being drained by something, hence the low "Time Remaining" number). Apparently, Activity Monitor doesn't report separately on GPU Energy usage (they need to change that!)
Just an interesting little tidbit, that belies the assertion that a "retest" wouldn't make a difference (after Apple has a chance to address this issue, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
Most of that the average consumer doesn't give a shit about, however their music and ability to plug in their expensive headphones and charge the phone matters. The average person would look at your list and say well their are no upgrades there for me at all. The 6s is more than fast enough for most people, graphics are fine and while water resistence is nice it is hardly a killer feature. Improved dual cameras is really the only step up for the selfie obsessed average user. It is not enough to simply incrementally improve a device when you want someone to spend the best part of a Grand year to year on upgrades.
No. What you really mean is stuff YOU don't care about.
There's likely a difference.
Woosh! Different kinds of intelligence, demonstrated right before our eyes!
What? You don't think that the "designer" comment was meant sarcastically?
So, something is (maybe) occasionally causing the AMD GPU, not the CPU, to run amok (or even be in some sort of power-guzzling "SCR-Lockup" state (hopefully not!)), sucking down the juice. Obviously, CR and others haven't triggered this behavior in the same way as the MacRumors poster; but there may be more software paths to this bug, likely involving switching between dGPU and iGPU modes, and/or power-savings involving same.
I hope you're wrong. Otherwise, in two years, Apple is going to end up doing yet another logic board recall....
Unless, like it "feels" like, it is a software bug, and will be cleared up in a week or two.
Your question was a non-sequitur, not based on the facts.
No, it was a hypothetical scenario, exactly based on the facts. And Lind many "hypotheticals", it was phrased as a question.
estimated time remaining go up when your usage goes down. Hey, people are stupid - don't ascribe to malice what may be adequately explained by idiocy.
And it's apparently a fact that some Betas of macOS Sierra had the Time Remaining indicator in the menu, and others did not. That points to the fact that they had been playing with the idea of getting rid of that indicator from the menu. So, it obviously wasn't a reaction to any negative press about battery life. Plus, they left it IN Activity Monitor.
First of all, no, they are under no obligation. They would still likely do it since it would be in the best interest of their subscribers and of their reputation.
Furthermore, there is no official fix from Apple yet. As far as I know there are rumors of some beta version faring better, but nothing more. CR didn't say they won't re-test the devices if/when Apple releases a fix, they won't re-test the devices *as they are* since they are confident of their previous test's methodology and findings.
Note that CR shared the diagnostic files from their tests with Apple and will definitely re-test the devices as soon as Apple claims they figured out the battery problems and fixed them. Until then they trust their results and find a re-test pointless.
So no, there is nothing suspicious on the part of CR.
Maybe it's just a badly-worded summary (I know, shock!), but it sure looks like CR is saying they're done with testing the MBP, Period.
Apple hasn't said they fixed the issue and from the sounds of it they've already run these tests a number of times. Recall that the solution here isn't to try to make the tests consistent, if Apple codes to fix the tests that doesn't necessarily fix wider spread issues.
But what about if Apple just codes to fix the issue, instead?
Honestly, WTF is wrong with you? Why does ANYTHING Apple HAVE to be some sort of evil shit?!?
Even Apple has had difficulty creating appealing new features, stifling demand from customers who otherwise would look to upgrade to the latest device
While I agree that Apple hasn't really been able to introduce new features, some folks around me have ditched the iPhone for its expense. I guess they are finally "coming to their senses."
I always wondered why one would pay over US$900 for something that has functionality of other devices at half the cost; and would be "obsolete" in a year.
Um, the GN7 "Fireball" edition was actually MORE expensive than an iPhone 7 Plus.
Who could have guessed: removing features from a product does not make it more appealing! Shocking, I know.
Apparently, neither does adding or improving features (7 Plus compared with the 6s Plus) :
MUCH improved CPU (Quad Core, vs. Dual Core for 6s Plus), and MUCH faster, too (40% faster than the 6s Plus). Fastest CPU in the mobile industry
MUCH improved GPU (50% faster than the 6s Plus). Fastest GPU in the mobile industry
More RAM (3 GB, as opposed to the 2 GB on the 6s Plus)
Faster Cellular MODEM (depending on model) (4G Speeds up to 450 Mbps vs. 300 Mbps for the 6s Plus)
MUCH improved water-resistance. Now IP67 rated (and easily beats that spec in real-world tests).
Home-button no longer mechanical. (Annoying breaking-point before)
MUCH improved and DUAL cameras, with better low-light sensitivity, ability to do pseudo depth-mapping, and 2 x optical zoom and 10 digital zoom. 4k rear, 1080p front video recording, vs. 6s Plus 720p recording on front camera. Better flash, too.
MUCH improved Bluetooth from the industry-leading Apple W1 chip (backwards-compatible w/std. BT also)
Stereo Speakers
Extended Battery Life (over 1 hour more vs. the 6s Plus).
Twice the maximum storage (up to 256 GB vs. the 6s Plus 128 GB max). 25% Brighter Display (over the 6s Plus), with wide (P3) color gamut
And yet, all people want to do is bitch about a damn headphone jack...
Yeah, nothing new to see here, move along.
CR is under no obligation to retest. Catching and fixing issues in QA before the product is shipped is Apple's responsibility. CR isn't Apple's beta tester.
Doesn't answer my question.
designs are sourced wholesale from taiwanese design house mills. Running design in house, hiring expensive talended designers is not profitable
That's true, only if you're building "race-to-the-bottom" shitboxes like Dell and Asus do.
Apple, OTOH, has a nice new building all set-aside at their new campus in California (just like the existing one at 1 Infinite Loop), that is filled with nothing but their R&D.
You're an unmitigated moron. Not every computer OEM is the same, and certainly not Apple.
I have a brand new Dell laptop for work, and a brand new Macbook Pro for home. As a testt I used both in the same manner over the holidays, browsing the web, playing movies, listening to music, checking email.
Mac battery life was 2x better than the Dell/Windows laptop based on recharge cycles over several days. 8-10 hrs on the Mac, 4-5 hrs on the Dell. Same brightness, same wifi connection.
Pick whatever works best for you. But clearly Apple has better battery technology and energy saving features.
Interesting test. Thanks for sharing!
"Seems like if they can't get consistent answers they would want to find out why?" It's not their responsibility to figure out why the answers are different, as long as the questions are consistent. If the results are inconsistent, that's Apple's problem.
So if a Windows Update happens to cause this same sort of problem in a Lenovo or Dell laptop that just happens to be tested by CR right after that Update is published/applied, then CR is under no obligation to re-test said laptop after MS finds and fixes the issue, because, after all, it's Lenovo or Dell's problem, right?
And don't use the excuse that Apple creates the OS and software, too. The point is, in both cases, the problem turns out to not be with the Laptop itself; but rather with a temporary (and fixed!) software bug, unknown to both OEM and CR at the time of testing.
Not saying it's CR's "fault", either; but they should live up to their original offer to "re-test if Apple believes they have found and fixed a problem" (paraphrasing from memory), instead of reversing themselves less than a week later.
That is what is suspicious on the part of CR.
But I also happen to be an embedded designer
Of course "designers" like Macs - that's exactly the image they sell!
What, exactly, do you think an "Embedded Designer" does? "Designer" == "Developer" in that field.
But, you'd know that if you had any experience with embedded design/development whatsoever.
I'm surprised you didn't blame this issue on the fact that those engineers in Cupertino use Windows to design the Macs...
WTF are you blathering on about this time?
Why should they continue to re-run tests until they get the results the vendor wants? Running and monitoring the tests isn't free and they have finite resources, it isn't their responsibility to do the vendors work for them and their tests have otherwise produced consistent results.
Not at all; but initially they stated that they would be happy to re-run the tests if Apple told them they made a change that addressed the issue. And I believe that is their usual offer to other manufacturers of other items that CR doesn't "recommend".
Now, all of a sudden, they are refusing to re-run tests, only a week after publishing the results of their first tests?
Sometimes, in the real-world, problems, especially intermittent problems like this one, take some time to track-down.
You'd know that if you actually ever built anything more complicated than a flower-box in wood shop class.
https://slashdot.org/~TheFakeT...
Shall we wait for him to turn up, or does somebody want to go bait him?
Looks like I've got a Fan. Have you "Friended" me yet?
Is that Apple had no interest in actually sending the logs and test data to their engineers to figure out what went wrong and develop a solution. Instead, they wanted to solve the issue with PR:
You're talking out your ass.
In fact, one poster reported in another forum that when he responded to Phil Schiller's Tweet to CR about his personal experience with battery-life issues in his new MBP, Schiller actually replied, requesting that the user send him some specific system logs, etc.
So, I feel fairly certain that Schiller (or more likely whoever in Engineering he turned this matter over-to) did ask CR for any documentation they had from their testing.
Do you actually have evidence to the contrary?
They should, if such company came along with "we fixed the issue you identified, please re-test updated product". However, this is not what Apple is doing.
And you know this how, exactly?
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.
Actually, it probably took OWC that long to get the Flash memory that was on Allocation due to commitments to Apple and others.
Consumer Reports, as they said, is pretty careful with testing. But even if they were not quite as careful as they are, as long as they tested different devices in the same way and used consumer purchased models, they results they found should stand.
Hopefully Apple will get to the bottom of what happened in the tests, and make the laptops better. Then they can get back on the list next year. It does seem like some mix of software and hardware has some quirk if you can find the range of times Consumer Reports found.
One thing I wonder is if it will even have much of an effect. Do many people really rely on consumer reports for laptop info? It seems like there are so many other sites comparing laptop hardware, that consumer reports is just one of many data points...
And for Apple in particular that matters even less, because if you want a MacBook Pro you are buying what they are selling. It may mean someone would wait another year. Or it might mean that you would possibly purchased an older model instead (I had read somewhere that refurbished 2015 MacBook Pros were selling really well).
I think Apple will iron this out within a month or so and then it really will not matter, but it makes me think more of Consumer Reports that they are willing to stick by results as they found them and not cave into pressure for a re-test.
See my post here about at least one possible cause.
Sigh. Apple does not have battery battery technology. Heck, they don't even make the Macbooks. Quanta does, and Quanta also makes laptops for all the other major brands..
You don't know the first thing about the difference between Design and Manufacturing. Apple Designs all their Products in-house. But, ever since the early 21st century, I don't think they actually manufacture any of them, except possibly the Mac Pro.
You're a moron. Go away.
Just wondering if these are the same Macbooks that have USB-C poert instead of standard USB ports, and have the touch bar that replaced part of the keyboard ? As I am not a (Cr)apple fan, I really don't care enough to look this up for myself.
Yes, they have the standard USB-C/TB3 ports, just like many, many other laptops.
Idiot Slashtard.
The problem is not "over inflated battery life" - and actually, Apple has (in the past) gotten kudos for being one of the few companies that consistently provided reasonably accurate battery numbers for their products.
No, the issue is there's something as-yet-unexplained which, under some circumstances, causes the battery life of the newest MacBook Pros to plummet to ridiculously low levels. Consumer Reports saw it in their testing; but, even before that, some customers were experiencing it (and justifiably complaining).
See my Post here, for a possible cause.
Sounds like they have stopped being "objective" and have moved on to "defensive".
HOWEVER, an interesting anecdote comes from reading another online forum (MacRumors.com), last evening, where a poster with a tbMBP 15" noted that, ONE TIME, when he unplugged an external Thunderbolt display (TB displays FORCE the MBP to use the dGPU), "Activity Monitor" said in the "Energy" tab that, instead of the 10 or 11 hours he was getting on average, it was showing that he was expected to get 3 hours.
However, no Processes were showing as being Energy-Hogs, and, he also stated that the "CPU" Tab showed that nothing was using over 1.5% CPU (which was reasonable for what he had running). And what he did have running SHOULD (and probably was) running on the iGPU. (???)
But, what was really "telling", was that he reported that the area under the "E" and "R" keys on the Keyboard was getting REALLY HOT. Hot enough that he panicked, and Rebooted the laptop.
Everything returned to normal, battery life report back to normal, no heating, hasn't happened since...
So, looking at the iFixit teardown of the 15" MBP, you can see in Step 6, that the components that would be under that area of the Keyboard would plainly be the AMD GPU (outlined in Yellow) (and not the CPU, which is over nearer to the "I" and "O" keys, basically).
So, something is (maybe) occasionally causing the AMD GPU, not the CPU, to run amok (or even be in some sort of power-guzzling "SCR-Lockup" state (hopefully not!)), sucking down the juice. Obviously, CR and others haven't triggered this behavior in the same way as the MacRumors poster; but there may be more software paths to this bug, likely involving switching between dGPU and iGPU modes, and/or power-savings involving same.
More than likely this is still a software issue; but it is not one that Users can see in Activity Monitor (other than it does seem to "know" that the battery is being drained by something, hence the low "Time Remaining" number). Apparently, Activity Monitor doesn't report separately on GPU Energy usage (they need to change that!)
Just an interesting little tidbit, that belies the assertion that a "retest" wouldn't make a difference (after Apple has a chance to address this issue, of course).