Consumer Reports Updates Its MacBook Pro Review (consumerreports.org) 246
Reader TheFakeTimCook writes: Last month, the new MacBook Pro failed to receive a purchase recommendation from Consumer Reports due to battery life issues that it encountered during testing. Apple subsequently said it was working with Consumer Reports to understand the results, which it said do not match its "extensive lab tests or field data." According to an article from Consumer Reports, Apple has since concluded its work, and says it learned that Consumer Reports was using a "hidden Safari setting" which triggered an "obscure and intermittent bug" that led to inconsistent battery life results. With "normal user settings" enabled, Apple said Consumer Reports "consistently" achieved expected battery life. Apple stated: "We learned that when testing battery life on Mac notebooks, Consumer Reports uses a hidden Safari setting for developing web sites which turns off the browser cache. This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage. Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab. After we asked Consumer Reports to run the same test using normal user settings, they told us their MacBook Pro systems consistently delivered the expected battery life." Apple said it has fixed the Safari bug in the latest macOS Sierra beta seeded to developers and public testers this week.
CR announces new test lab (Score:2)
Meh... (Score:5, Insightful)
... battery life wasn't really the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back anyway.
True dat (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple: "Consumers don't want a touch screen or ports; they'll settle for a touch bar and dongles."
Every other laptop maker: "TOUCHSCREENS! PORTS! FRACTION OF THE PRICE!"
Re: (Score:2)
Fraction of the revenue! Fraction of the profit!
Re: True dat (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You haven't actually looked at the available options then...
So they didn't enable cheat mode (Score:2, Insightful)
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's a great help in real life, but a big problem for repeatable testing and A/B comparison.
Disabling cache does seem like the fairest option. While in real life you might get somewhat better results, you won't get any worse results.
It certainly isn't fair to allow reliance on unrealistic caching to inflate battery life.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
What it boils down to is that we can't know how much effect this fix will have until Consumer Resorts repeats the test.
Maybe it will fix it, maybe this is like the signal strength bug that was supposed to stop you holding it wrong.
Re:So they didn't enable cheat mode (Score:4, Insightful)
Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab
That would obviously chew up battery life downloading icons over and over again, chewing up CPU cycles to refresh the icon on the window, and chew up wifi power because its easy to see how a stuck loop re-downloading icons could cycle thousands or millions of times.
Good for Consumer Reports for sticking to their guns, seeing an issue, reporting the issue, and forcing Apple to fix it. It's obscure sure. But many developers probably use Safari Developer Mode to work on their projects, and this will help them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So they didn't enable cheat mode (Score:5, Insightful)
But many developers probably use Safari Developer Mode to work on their projects, and this will help them.
Yes, but those developers don't get their recommendations from Consumer Reports. That magazine's audience would never have encountered that bug.
Obligatory car analogy: say they're testing a Ford Focus. They disable its antilock brakes so that a professional driver can get its best-case dry pavement stopping distance. Along the way, the find an OBD-II bug that causes the brakes to take twice as long to stop the car. They report the bad results instead of the normal, expected values. Yes, their test was correct! It found a bug that needs to be fixed. However, the only people who would ever see that bug are the exact ones who'd notice something was wrong and be able to troubleshoot it. You and I aren't ever going to disable our antilock brakes, even if a test engineer might.
I think that's kind of what happened here. Again, yes, they legit found a bug. My problem with it is that they reported the buggy results instead of the actual ones that a normal non-developer would see. A developer would notice their battery draining in a fourth the expected time and that it only happened when they were debugging in Safari, so they probably wouldn't even be significantly affected by the bug.
Re: (Score:3)
So by your reasoning, if a car manufacturer accidentally made a bug which caused the engine to cheat on diesel emissions tests, it's actually the EPA's fault for not designing their test to more accurately mimic how people use their cars in real life?
Everyone seems to be trying to spin this for or against Apple / Consumer Reports. The no-spin version is that CR was using an industr
Re: (Score:2)
Disabling the cache seems reasonable for testing the battery life of one PC vs another, but not to produce a real-world battery life statistic. To some extent, all tests of this sort produce 'performance in testing mode' stats that differ from real life performance, but shouldn't some attempt be made to measure the real life values as well. I normally do something like
1. wipe the cache
2. perform the test
3. perform the test again, assuming the cache is now improving the results.
Some mathematical combinatio
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they could have been doing something like this - and the Safari bug would've still skewed the results enough to matter, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Page views per site may vary (Score:2)
If I visit the first page for a site to retrieve all of the graphics-intensive formatting stuff, then as I browse thirty more pages on that same site I do not have to re-download that stuff because it's cached then that could make for a difference.
That depends on a particular user's browsing habits. You might "browse thirty more pages on" Slashdot while reading stories and writing comments but hit only one document on a site when reading each story's featured article. Or you might "browse thirty more pages on" a web search engine while performing queries but hit only one document on a site when reading each result.
Don't most people revisit the same site many times (Score:2, Insightful)
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi.
Yes, that is the definition of a cache...
In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day
You don't? Are you seriously saying you do not visit several sites multiple times in a day?
Not to mention, lets say some sites you only go to ever so often - say Amazon, I go to a few times a month. A cache is still useful there for many of the page components and CSS files do not change
Re: (Score:2)
In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day
You don't? Are you seriously saying you do not visit several sites multiple times in a day?
No, I'm saying I don't sit around reloading the same page all day. I might reload a number of pages, but most of my browsing is to new content. Sure, a lot of the CSS and images and the like will be cached, but that's quite different from the whole page being cached entirely.
Clearly Apple is trying to minimize network traffic, because wifi uses a lot of energy. That's a good thing to do, a perfectly reasonable optimization, but it does distort automated test results. To make tests repeatable and fair Consum
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you were visiting using Lynx, it's hard to believe that you didn't benefit from having all the CSS and image files that make up every page on Slashdot cached.
I can't speak to the CSS because that is normally invisible, but I can speak to "image files that make up every page". They are invisible here. A banner at the top, a couple of small icons at the bottom, but other than that -- what images?
When I visit a /. page I explicitly refresh the page because I want to see everything that is new. If I wanted to see the same things over and over I'd just print the page and tack it up on the wall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's more than you think.
I used about:config to disable image loading (preferences.image.default = 2) and I see only one tiny difference between the previous version of this page and the one I see now: the two little 64x64 icons at the bottom of the page attached to the previous and next stories are gone. That's all.
Oh, and the "Slashdot" logo is gone. That's not very large compared to the page itself, which is useless if I use a cached version.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Caching was off in all laptops they reviewed - a very fair comparison. The bug was that something else weird happens when caching is off. The bug was specific to the new MacBook.
Re:So they didn't enable cheat mode (Score:4, Informative)
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
Read, then post:
Disabling the Cache did more than just cause Reloading each time. Apparently, it ALSO triggered an intermittent bug in Safari that caused REPEATED loading of "icons" from the page.
Apparently, THAT is what burned the battery. Very similar to a "runaway process", like I (and others) originally postulated.
So, you can safely remove that extra layer of tinfoil, Hater.
Re: (Score:2)
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
No, you don't reload the same page constantly, but you usually visit several pages within the same site. There's no reason you'd want those images to reload every time. I saw somewhere that the average user only visits 5 different sites per day. That was a few years back, so it has probably changed since then, but I wouldn't think it's too dramatic.So it seems to me that caching extends battery life to expected levels.
Re: (Score:2)
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
On your normal web site, the actual page content is a pretty small part of the overall download. As images, stylesheets, and javascript files are cached the only thing that loads from page to page is the actual HTML. I develop using Rails, and we have an asset system now that allows us to tell the browser to cache the non-HTML assets for a year, so they'll hopefully never be reloaded. If using standard jquery and such, you can use a CDN that'll have the same sorts of policies to promote caching.
Turning o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
Really? In normal use, people visit a very small subset of sites very frequently. I'd wager the majority just waste the day on facebook alone.
You, in all likelihood, visited this site twice already, once for the home page, and once to get to this article. Not to mention whatever happens after you submitted your post. Turning off cache would be far *less* realistic
Besides, it's not like Apple invented web caching just to inflate their battery performance. It exists in all browsers for a very good reason. An
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you count downloading popular javascript libraries like JQuery. That's 258 KBytes/page refresh right there. A lot of ad-related stuff follows you around too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple are saying there is an obscure and intermittent bug that is triggered by that testing practice.
Presumably that bug can be fixed.
(As a total aside, in my daily use, I visit about ten websites more or less constantly -- I don't even mean social media. Caching very definitely is extending battery life for me. For those who use social media sites, or any webkit-based app, caching is helping enormously.)
It already HAS been fixed, and will be released in the next Sierra update (which is due out pretty much any day now).
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the HDD spins down, and it probably won't as the browser continuously saves your position in case of a crash or power loss, it's a matter of marginal power during access compared to idle. Does a 2.5" HDD use more power moving the head or just keeping the platters spinning?
Re: (Score:2)
What MacBook Pro model has a spinning hard drive?
Re: (Score:2)
"Instructions unclear, disk stuck in fan."
Re: (Score:2)
but this stated reason, that CR had disabled the browser cache, is kind of unsettling. It kind of turns it into a hit piece and should definitely stain CR's credibility a bit. Incompetence, malice - both show similar symptoms.
I don't think disabling the cache shows incompetence. I could argue that is a reasonable thing to do during a stress test. It wasn't the disabling the cache though that directly caused the problem. It was that disabling the cache exposed an actual bug that depleted the battery life. Consumer Reports goes out of their way to make sure they are neutral. They even go so far as send secret shoppers to purchase the items so they don't get optimized products. I'm surprised they even worked with Apple but it
Re:So they didn't enable cheat mode (Score:4, Insightful)
From how I read it, CR released the report.. Apple went "wtf that's not right" and then asked CR to help them solve a problem. This sounds like fairly standard debugging practices to me -- discover a problem, figure out how to duplicate it, and then fix it.
The fact that it was CR that ran into the problem rather than some random guy on the internet posting a rant on Reddit is just luck and maybe makes for a "fun" story for conspiracy nuts, but it doesn't indicate that either party did anything that they shouldn't have done or was being shady or misrepresenting facts or anything like that.
Sure CR added an update to their original report but didn't try to redact the problem out of existence. It seems to me to have been handled completely appropriately by both parties.
Re: (Score:2)
I could argue that is a reasonable thing to do during a stress test.
Was it a stress test? Or a typical usage test?
Re: (Score:3)
Was it a stress test? Or a typical usage test?
Neither. It is a comparison test that removes variables as much as possible so all laptops are on the same playing field. From CR [consumerreports.org] itself:
Inaccurate headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But did they post that as an update to the review, or in a separate article?
Re: (Score:2)
They have updated it now to note that a fix has been produced and they're waiting to re-test with the fix (that part hasn't been done yet I guess.)
Re: (Score:2)
They did not update their review, they posted that they may.
They said that they were in the process of doing a thorough re-testing, and will update their review when complete.
How to get Apple to fix a bug (Score:5, Interesting)
"Please report that through our bug console." The console was still broken.
Look for another Safari setting (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a setting to make the dynamic touchbar a static set of function keys I'm used to using, vs. having to wonder what buttons/functionality is there at any given point in time, that would be helpful as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a setting to make the dynamic touchbar a static set of function keys I'm used to using, vs. having to wonder what buttons/functionality is there at any given point in time, that would be helpful as well.
I kind of think they are going to add that Option, if it is not there already. But right now, you can do it [apple.com], at least sort of...
Re: (Score:2)
Just hold down the Fn key. I think that was the default on previous Macs anyway, since the brightness and volume settings were performed by pressing the top row without holding down Fn.
Re: (Score:2)
You can force the function keys, but you have to add each application in the control panel one by one.. there is no global setting.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a while, someone will create a utility to do the one-by-one adding for you. Maybe you could do that yourself and release it to the world. Either way, it will probably not be a problem long-term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
installing many little third party toolets to make an expensive machine do what you want
That's the Unix way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I said Unix - OS X is based on a different Unix OS and I'm not comparing it to Linux.
A lot of things you take for granted on the CLI are based on bash scripts using all sorts of tiny scripts (sed, awk, grep). Even major packages work this way.
Either way, Apple is well-known for enforcing their preferred way of using a device (you're holding it wrong). If you are wanting to do something different, there's a long-established history of being forced to go the third-party route. If you're already using a Mac
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll Ask the Question (Score:3)
Re:OK, I'll Ask the Question (Score:5, Funny)
I believe it's called "Do Not Load TFA/TFS." Apparently it saves battery life because some can't be bothered to read the entire summary.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Enable Hidden Developer Menu
2. Enable "Disable Caches"
If they were even a little savvy they could have accomplished the same thing on their web server by setting no-cache headers, but whatever.
Uh.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Firefox have this bug out of the box? I only use Firefox and the battery on my mac only lasts 4 hours. Tested three times now.
Probably because the actual bug is in a Framework ALSO used by FireFox.
Consumer Reports updates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds more like Apple's updating CR's review. Not much in there about what CR thinks about all this.
Meh, The Keyboard Still Sucks (Score:2)
I've tried using that keyboard several times and it's just doesn't make the cut. If they would have left the thickness they could have had better keyboard travel and better battery life.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
How many Mac users develop web sites?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too many.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't assert 'No one develops websites on the Mac', all the websites hosted on my servers are developed on the Mac.
But the number of people who do this is Much Less Than the total Mac user population.
Furthermore, few people who develop websites on any platform get their tech advice from Consumer Reports.
But then, when you can't produce a useful thought, insults work just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't assert 'No one develops websites on the Mac', all the websites hosted on my servers are developed on the Mac.
But the number of people who do this is Much Less Than the total Mac user population.
Furthermore, few people who develop websites on any platform get their tech advice from Consumer Reports.
But then, when you can't produce a useful thought, insults work just fine.
Rather, when you don't include pertinent information, and then simply post what sounds like an inflammatory comment, you invite insults.
Re: (Score:2)
Developing web sites on a Mac does not reflect real-world usage. Gotcha.
Well, yeah. What percentage of a typical user's time on his Mac is spent developing web pages? In general, very little. In many (most?) cases, none at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. What percentage of a typical user's time on his Mac is spent developing web pages? In general, very little. In many (most?) cases, none at all.
Conversely, among the web developers who use Macs (which is quite a lot of them), maybe 75 percent of their workday is spent developing web pages. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Point is that the benchmark should be geared toward the typical expected user - Not the niche that is web developers. Seems pretty straight-forward. Make sense?
Re:Should Consumer Reports be trusted? (Score:5, Informative)
Read the article. It answers your question.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer, I do not use Apple products or work in Consumer Reports.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this setting enabled in the first place?
Probably because they use some kind of automated testing framework, so they don't need to have an actual human sitting there the entire time clicking on things.
Disabling cache common practice for testing, to si (Score:2)
Disabling or clearing cache is common in testing/benchmarking to measure/simulate performance loading fresh pages or otherwise doing something the first time, but repeating the test for more accurate results.
CR probably had a list of 12-25 commonly used web sites they used as example sites, and loaded each of those sites many times rather than loading hundreds of different sites. If you want to load 12 web sites ten times, to simulate loading 120 web sites, you need to disable cache to simulate loading 120
Re: (Score:2)
The article say they disable cache to facilitate consistent behavior for repeating a test.
I'll admit the phrasing makes it sound all weird and exotic, but all they did was disable cache.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was this setting enabled in the first place? It sounds like the setting in question isn't on by default, nor should it be. Why would Consumer Reports have enabled it for their testing?
As much as I would like to blame CR for this, it comes down to practicality.
They "locally" host the webpages they download, in order to factor-out stuff like internet traffic from their tests (and possibly to be nice to the websites that they have "targeted"), and so, there is literally no other way they could force a "page reload" (which they do for ALL laptops being tested) without disabling the browser cache.
And, as Apple said, the real problem was that, when CR did that, it triggered an intermittent
Re:What do you know. (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't what the article says.
There were no flaws in the tests. The tests were tickling an obscure bug, which Apple has now fixed.
Consumer Reports are retesting with the patch.
This is good news for everyone, surely? Methodology better explained, bug found.
Re:What do you know. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you leave caching on, you'd can't test by loading a handful of sites over and over. They would have to have a script of non-repeating real-world web sites that would handle 8-10 hours of battery life.
By limiting to a handful of sites and disabling a cache, you can make a more consistent and repeatable test. While you're testing real-world (and real web sites), you still want to test in a repeatable and somewhat verifiable way.
Re: (Score:2)
I visit basically the same dozen or so sites every day, with a few random ones thrown in there from links from twitter or facebook.
There was BOTH a bug in Safari AND a problem with the testing protocol. That is, the test was made by lazy people that don't ACTUALLY want to simulate what a real day is like, they want to reload a few sites over and over and pretend that that's what people do, and it's not. The fact that they're lazy isn't actually the reader's problem.
If they had a more representative test, Ap
Re: (Score:2)
That is, the test was made by lazy people that don't ACTUALLY want to simulate what a real day is like
If you have real people clicking buttons all day, that's likely to give false readings, too. If you have enough web site samples to be representative of average web sites, then you don't actually need all 600 sites visited over 8-10 hours to be different as long as caching is disabled.
Their testing protocol would have been fine if it weren't for the Safari bug.
Moreover, they should've tested with another browser to see if the results were replicable there
I don't 100% disagree, but they're giving a single battery rating. Not one for every possible use case. Adding 3rd-party software is not completel
Re: (Score:2)
So load more sites... I dont vistit a million new sites every day. I visit the same ones over and over again, sure its not 3 or 4 but it is probably 20 or 30 and thus caching is extremely relevant as many assets are reused.
Seems flawed to me.
Re:What do you know. (Score:5, Informative)
The test was good. It was Safari that had the flaw. Thanks to the Consumer Reports test it was revealed so it can be fixed.
As for actual user, you do know that Macs are popular among web designers?
Re: (Score:2)
The test was good. It was Safari that had the flaw. Thanks to the Consumer Reports test it was revealed so it can be fixed.
As for actual user, you do know that Macs are popular among web designers?
This would be of more consolation if the flaw actually got fixed and consumer reports continued running the same test rather than changing a testing regime for a single product.
Re: (Score:2)
The test is as good as it can possibly be.
You can't browse random web sites because they change constantly, so no repeatability or comparisons to previously tested machines. Also, internet speed varies. So you set up your own local HTTP server with some fixed, typical sites and browse those with a script.
Unfortunately the browser is doing its best to minimize network traffic, so your static content gets cached quite aggressively. While that is useful in real life, it breaks the test because you are not gene
Re: (Score:2)
Apple install small batteries in their laptops, in order to make then thinner and lighter. They compensate by carefully optimizing the OS and their own apps for battery life, helped by having only a limited number of models to support. It works well for some use cases, but not for others. This test breaks it, and so will doing things that force the laptop to use more energy like high screen brightness* or high CPU/GPU load. It's important to communicate this to consumers, in case they think that good web browsing numbers mean they will also get good gaming time.
Bzzt! Wrong, Hater! Thanks for playing. Now GET OUT!
The REAL issue was, if you had bothered to read TFA, you would know that Apple found an INTERMITTENT BUG in Safari, that was, coincidentally, triggered by Disabling Safari's Browser Cache. This BUG caused Safari to sometimes fall into a LOOP, CONTINOUSLY RELOADING assets from the SAME Page, again and again. THAT is what caused the battery drain; NOT just reloading the pages per their test-script.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, assuming they control the site (implied by your use of new pagename/asset/etc) send cache control headers so that no caching is done of some of the assets.
Re: (Score:2)
and Streamed Content I'd argue is a much bigger % of people's traffic (volume wise (hits wise probably less so... but that is the nature of the beast))
That seems very unlikely for the usage profile of being on batteries. Sure, we all stream when we're at our desks, but I don't know how that translates to out-and-about traffic patterns. Restaurant Wi-Fi is often so spotty that you wouldn't try to listen to live streams. I doubt many people are consuming lots of video content from their cell phone tethers.
Re: (Score:2)
. to me it is obvious that the first Consumer Reports test was correct.
I would somewhat agree but if Apple was able to fix the bug so that the original configuration they used with the cache off also significantly improved then it isn't a problem with the test as much as a problem with the bug that Consumer Report accidentally found. I'm actually kindof surprised that Apple never tested with the cache off as this would seem like a common thing to test.
Re: (Score:2)
. to me it is obvious that the first Consumer Reports test was correct.
I would somewhat agree but if Apple was able to fix the bug so that the original configuration they used with the cache off also significantly improved then it isn't a problem with the test as much as a problem with the bug that Consumer Report accidentally found. I'm actually kindof surprised that Apple never tested with the cache off as this would seem like a common thing to test.
INTERMITTENT bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you don't understand that "settings an actual user would have enabled" is actually not what needs tested. I'd rather the tests be done with the first Consumer Reports configuration... because when I'm browsing the Internet I generally don't reload the same page 1000s of times... I browse different pages all the time, sure some % of those pages gets cached as resources, but... all streamed data (Music, Video, Networked Games) can't be cached...
and Streamed Content I'd argue is a much bigger % of people's traffic (volume wise (hits wise probably less so... but that is the nature of the beast))
So having a test that reloads the same page 1000s of times or one that actually uses the network (and even finds a bug in the browser)... to me it is obvious that the first Consumer Reports test was correct.
But what you are ignoring is the fact that it wasn't the page-reloads that CR was INTENDING; but rather, disabling the browser cache actually triggered a BUG in Safari that caused it to CONTINUOUSLY reload certain assets on a page that had already been loaded. THAT is what caused the battery drain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that your laptop's battery life will significantly extend or deteriorate based upon whether the data used to render a webpage (or video) is coming from an SSD or Wifi is absurd.
Yes it is; when everything is operating right.
But, Apple has found that, disabling the Cache in Safari uncovers an INTERMITTENT bug that causes assets from an ALREADY LOADED web page to be CONTINUOUSLY RELOADED, and THAT is what causes the excessive power-drain.
DO try to at LEAST read TFS...
Re: (Score:2)
MacOS isn't so bug free, the setting of turning off the caching triggered a icon reload error. Next time Apple test your software better.
Spoken like a person who has never written more than 10 lines of code. Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Next time Apple test your software better.
I don't care if software has bugs (because it always does). I care if they get fixed in a timely manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Likely not a whole lot. Couple days of a dev's salary to find and fix the problem. Sounds like its being included in an already-planned update to Safari so there shouldn't be much if anything in the way of extra distribution costs.
CR may have charged a consulting fee if it took the people on their side more than a couple emails but that wouldn't add up to significant amounts either -- at least not when scaled against the depths of Apple's pockets.