Live data from Hacker News

Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

businessinsider.com

221–230 of 440 posts

Re: Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

#221
post #92
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They can make 32GB with current chipsets but chose not to for battery life. This is false dichotomy. There are alternatives, parallel decisions. They could've decided to not sacrifice weight or size for battery power. This'd have made the MBP Pro, not Air like it is now. You used to buy a MBP for several years, so it'd need good battery power. The new MBPs are all less good with battery power, than the 2015 version…

> They could've decided to not sacrifice weight or size for battery power. Using DDR4 would have been a major regression even if they stuck to the old form factor. It uses a lot more power, especially on standby: https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pro-limited-16gb-ram . There is a reason that all the PC laptops that have great battery life either have big external batteries (T460), or also use LPDDR and have a 16GB limit (S…

>> or have only 5-6 hours of battery life

Laptops with long battery life are still a bit of a novelty to me -- it's probably because I'm older and the average battery life since my very first laptop (a Powerbook 170) is probably well below 3 hours. I'd be super happy with 5-6 hours of battery life.

Re: Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

#222
post #146
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having owned MacBooks/PowerBooks/iBooks in various configurations over the past 15 or so years, what models were getting real-life 10 hour lifetimes, and while doing what? I've never seen anything near that on anything I've owned before.

Likewise, I've owned a huge number of mac laptops since the titanium PowerBook and I don't think I ever managed to get more than 4-5hr of real work use (adobe suite etc) I've always been confused by these 10hr claims and have never expected more than 4-5

I get 10-11 hours from my 2014 13" mbp, usually running safari, mail and atom.

Re: Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

#223
I have lost faith in Apple engineering.

My iPhone 6s is sketchy (e.g., lockups, shutdowns) whereas my iPhone 4s was bulletproof. And it seems the new MPBs are lame.

I just bought a Samsung 9 to hold me over for a year while I wait to see if Apple can get its act together.

Re: Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

#224
post #200
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They can make 32GB with current chipsets but chose not to for battery life. This is false dichotomy. There are alternatives, parallel decisions. They could've decided to not sacrifice weight or size for battery power. This'd have made the MBP Pro, not Air like it is now. You used to buy a MBP for several years, so it'd need good battery power. The new MBPs are all less good with battery power, than the 2015 version…

Absolutely no evidence for your "theory", which is the same old "planned obsolescence" canard we hear over and over about Apple. Always without evidence, and it always looks silly 3-4 years down the road when, lo and behold, all the machines in question are still working very nicely. Also, once the market catches up to USB-C, which will take 12-18 months, you'll no longer need those adapters. Lastly, it's just silly…

> Absolutely no evidence for your "theory", which is the same old "planned obsolescence" canard we hear over and over about Apple. Always without evidence

My current MBP from 2010 shipped with a broken GPU Apple refuses to replace in warranty (even though I bought a 3 year support contract which is pretty much an anti harassment tax). Yeah, premium support right there. The only reason I can use it is because some intelligent and nice people released a piece of open source software (with various 3rd party fixes to make it keep working in later OS X revisions) allowing me to swap to integrated instead of discrete graphics card.

> Also, once the market catches up to USB-C, which will take 12-18 months, you'll no longer need those adapters.

You do, well maybe you don't. But I would, and many other too. For all the devices you are currently using which you're not replacing with USB-C devices.

> Lastly, it's just silly and inaccurate to call the iPhone "disposable", when in fact it leads the industry in terms of how long the product lasts, how long the OS is supported for older hardware, etc. By a wide margin.

Well, you need to upgrade to the latest iOS or you can forget about security fixes. According to reports this leads to a lot less uptime and/or a slower device. So its far less rose tinted than you claim. Besides, the iPhone 4 doesn't get software updates anymore.

On top of that, yes an iPhone is disposable from a hardware PoV as well. You can't upgrade any of the hardware, replacing the screen costs (in my country) 150+ EUR, you can't replace the battery (even though you are recharging daily which means after 3 years the battery is ripe for replacement).

By contrast, my phone is getting security backports to its older Android version (5.1.x). I can replace the battery and screen myself without a problem.

Re: Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

#226
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ports are all Thunderbolt 3 ports, which I believe by definition means they are USB 3.1 ports as well. But some devices out in the world have USB-C ports that are not Thunderbolt 3 compatible. No longer can you tell what sort of devices will work with a port by its physical shape. For instance, I have a Windows desktop machine with a single USB-C port on the back, but it's not a Thunderbolt 3 port. So while I c…

> If you can plug it in, it will work Unfortunately, this hasn't been my experience. As an example, I have a display-port-based Apple cinema display, and I bought this adapter to try to connect it to a new macbook pro 15": http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MMEL2AM/A/thunderbolt-3-usb-c-to-thunderbolt-2-adapter The physical size of the connectors are compatible, of course; you can plug the monitor into the thunderbolt…

> As a weaker example, I have an LG 27UD88 Monitor. The USB-C connection from it works, but only carries 60W of charging "oomph," and the 15" macbook pro needs 85W of charging. So, even though the menubar icon on the mac signals that charging is happening, the battery is actually depleting over time

It actually loses battery being charged @ 60W? I can't imagine the MBP 15" is actually pulling that much current over the long term... If this is the case, that means it's simply not using the power delivery whatsoever which seems utterly insane.

I've plugged in my 15W phone charger to my 15" MBP, and I was fairly certain at the time my battery was going down less than it was previously. This could of course been placebo.

Ugh, what a silly rollout if so. Plus Apple shipping USB-C 2.0 cables with their chargers in an effort to save... $1? On a $3,000 laptop? Just ridiculous.

Not having a viable USB-C -> HDMI adapter at launch has to be the biggest oversight/wtf for me though. I don't know many users of MBP's that don't do presentations/toss some code up on a projector/etc. from time to time. This is now genuinely hard to impossible. I have to carry 2 HDMI adapters in my bag, as some TVs work with one, some the other. And some not at all.

I'm all for the move to USB-C - but it's like they put zero thought into the transition. You can't cripple a generation of hardware like this.

I know most of these problems will be solved both in software and in third party support - but man this product feels like some manager pulled 4 different groups together and said "you guys have had 3 damn years, release what you have now" and they tried badly at integrating it all together in a couple weeks.

Then you get into actual day to day usability issues like the touchbar lacking the completely in-your-face-obvious feature of haptic feedback making it almost useless... Like how was that not the first thing the first UIx tester who used the escape key said? Just amazes me.

Re: Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

#227
Just a random and wild thought: I wonder if the inconsistency in battery life might be related to variances in ambient noise levels in the test environment. Could it be Siri listening to stuff when it shouldn't be by way of a bug or something else?

I have a maxed out 15 TB MBPro and the battery seems just fine and in line with what I expect. I love it: keyboard, screen, build quality, performance. I have literally worked with every single previous generation of the Pro and this one feels the best. Happy customer here.

Re: Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

#228
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno man, my eyes glazed over somewhere in the middle of that third paragraph and I'm just happy I don't have to deal with any of that. Think they'll wise up and change any of it on the next model?

"Steve never would have backed down, remove more ports!" is how that product meeting will go.

The thing that bugs me about the argument for USB-C only on the new MBPs is that the early 2011 MBPs came out while Steve Jobs was alive.

That year was the first appearance of the Thunderbolt port on a Macbook Pro. You could have theoretically removed every legacy port outside of the MagSafe port and only had a bunch of TB ports to handle the I/O of peripherals. Yet Apple left the USB, FW800 (on the 15/17, maybe the 13 too) and SD reader instead of making people buy dongles to make up for the slack.

Re: Newest MacBook Pro is the first MacBook not recommended by Consumer Reports

#230
post #135

Honestly to me the worst thing about the new MacBook Pro isn't that there are no legacy ports on it or that the battery may be smaller, it's that the new all-things-for-all-people ports it has are confusing. The ports are all Thunderbolt 3 ports, which I believe by definition means they are USB 3.1 ports as well. But some devices out in the world have USB-C ports that are not Thunderbolt 3 compatible. No longer can y…

USB 1, 2, and 3 all used the USB A plug.
Post reply on HN