Consumer Reports now recommends the MacBook Pro after a software fix

That's only relative. In absolute numbers the mac is a large business.

What people need is not necessarily faster systems, but often just quality workhorse computers to replace their previous (broken or worn off) ones. Fingerprint security, better audio and better battery life would have been a good enough increment to a lot of people to buy the new series. In fact the MBP did perform well in sales, though it could've been even better if all 3 of the above were available on all models.

The iPhone 7 though is a big disappointment, and the fact that Apple themselves overestimated the demand is indicative of that. I think to a lot of people it looked like a decrement rather than increment, i.e. it's a 6 without the headphone jack. Camera? I don't know if I need the new one really. Faster CPU? I'm not sure it's critical for the apps I'm using. Personally, it's the first time since iPhone 3 that I don't want the new one.

Maybe it's all normal and maybe Schiller is right in that every new product will always be met with criticism. Apple's stuff is now too popular and too important to be dismissed if it's a flop. Who cares if Dell's next laptop is ugly and/or overpriced? No one cares. But Apple is a near-monopoly because of OS lock-in and millions of people's jobs (I'm guessing) literally depending on them.

It's this sense of panic that Apple is slowly building up a bubble around themselves. We don't even know whether it's the usual secrecy around R&D or they simply don't know what to do next.

4k Netflix is an easy to understand new feature, that will have an impact on the non-technology aware consumer.

To quote another commenter right above you:

You don't invent an entirely new hinge mechanism, a completely new keyboard mechanism and integrate an entire computer subsystem with touch based interface, together with thorough updates to all your software to support it, in a product you're neglecting. The only credible criticism I've seen of the new MBP is that it's limited to 16 GB RAM and that's because that's the maximum limit of low profile RAM the Intel mobility processors support. That should change this year. For the iMac, the move to 5K and wide colour gamut were huge upgrades. I think they bought themselves a few more months of runway on those, given the paucity of Intel's roadmap over the last year. The real pain is with the Mac Pros. The situation there is just plain embarrassing. But looking at the Mac as a whole, Apple has been pouring in innovation and attention to detail. No other manufacturer is coming close to the level of effort going into their systems. Contrast the Surface line with bought-in commodity touch tech and clunky component choices (5400 rpm hard drives? Really?).

Not only that, this seems like a deviation from Consumer reports' normal policy of testing the end-user experience. If an ordinary end-user ran into an edge case which caused the battery life to plummet beyond the advertised level, as a number seem to have, Apple wouldn't rush to find and fix the issue. They're effectively retesting with a special fix aimed at their test process, and there are so many ways this could be rigged (for example, by throttling performance during the test).

Probably would be comparable to an AppleTV if Apple did indeed make such a thing.

.. so use Safari and Sublime.

People seriously need to start ditching apps built on Electron and start using native applications again. Atom uses about 400-600Mb memory. So does GitKraken, and so does WhatsApp. The first two can be replaced by Sublime (rarely above 200Mb and much faster) and Fork, although the only real alternative for WhatsApp is Telegram (with the native client), although that has not nearly as much users.

I don't use Chrome or even keep apps like Slack open anymore.

If I'm just browsing and chatting, battery life is excellent.

But if I want to use Pro apps (XCode) on my Pro laptop, battery life takes a nosedive. I understand that, but in the 2016 revision they reduced the battery capacity, and it sounds like they based that decision on "well, Safari and Mail are super-efficient, when you're doing "Wireless Web" you can now get the same battery life as with the old one, why would anyone need more capacity?"

I switched to mostly Safari when I got the new MacBook Pro because I understood that there were efficiencies built in that would maximise battery life. Not sure how large a difference if any there really is. In any case I get a few hours when all I'm doing is light browsing. No Atom open, etc. Which is for me OK as I'm usually not away from a socket for very long.

The figure of 15.x hours, however, seems completely unbelievable to me.

Remember that the brightness is way up, soyou might be able to get by with a significantly lower brightness than what you're used to.

Ditto.

And a bigger battery. And it doesn't have the second thunderbolt controller to power.

The SSD speed is the same across the lineup