2011 MacBook Pro and Discrete Graphics Card

Apple can not define a macbook pro 15 "of 2011 old or obsolete by definition, lack of own honor, a computer with Intel Core i7 quad-core 2.3GHz at a distance of 6 years is always one of the most powerful and most advanced in trade taking into account the architecture and size, I do not explain why apple does not make another call to change the motherboard again with a new generation.I think that the company's policies have changed in recent years, the only profit discourage buyers and personally I will continue to insist until I am given an answer or a solution

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

What gets deleted is determined by Community Hosts, who are not required to have deep technical expertise in the area under discussion, and have NO responsibilities for current Apple products, other than the forum itself.

Posts are deleted If and only if they violate:

Apple Support Communities Terms of Use

You agreed to abide by those terms when you signed up. To eliminate the mystery, perhaps you should skim them again.

No. There is nothing mysterious about Apple reasons to delete contributions to their forums: if it hurts business, it will be deleted. This includes postings that explain consumer rights around the globe. Apple's 'Community Hosts' don't care about criticasters being grilled, although this is clearly against the Terms of Us mentioned.

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

You seem to have forgotten that you are a guest in Apple's house when you post here. They supply the servers and the Venue, including our hardworking Hosts.

If you pay attention to the rules, your post stays, even if it is technically misguided. You violate the rules, your post goes. This is not a constitutional issue. You are not being censored -- you are merely being asked to be civil and stay on topic.

What Apple seems to have forgotten about is that Apple operates in a world governed by authorities that try to protect their consumers by laws, so Apple is a guest in the communities it is are making a profit from. This includes tax laws, consumer laws and laws that are supposed to protect our planet. As long as Apple makes profit in the communities it is part of without constructively contributing, Apple is no more than a parasite.

Allan Eckert wrote:

OK. I'll clarify that. Yes, Apple does monitor and censor the threads here on these forums. What I referring to is that Apple Engineering does not read these forums for problems. Hence the reason I suggested that the feedback link be used. Anything sent there is read by Apple Engineering.

"editing out all information that informs their customers about their consumer rights"

I serious doubt that statement. I would like see you produce any kind of reference to back it up.

How cheap. I have lost track of the contributions by me and others here that were deleted, and you want me to produce some kind of 'Apple Discussions Undeleted'?

eezacque

Apple is no more than a parasite.

OK, there is your counterexample regarding censorship.

Apple does not censor you based on content, only on adherence to the term of use.

What you may have failed to notice in posting that as your opinion, is that it diminishes any respect you might have gotten from the members of this community when you make outrageous and indefensible statement like the one above.

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

eezacque

Apple is no more than a parasite.

OK, there is your counterexample regarding censorship.

Apple does not censor you based on content, only on adherence to the term of use.

Rules:

Short form: Stay on Topic, Polite, constructive, no polls, Tested my answer on own machine, no advertising, didn’t use a name, legal, my own work, is licensed for Apple to use, no personal information.

Topic: State your problem and ask for comments to achieve a satisfactory solution.

Various "Hosts" have suggested that contributor have not complied with the rules. The short form of the rules is listed above. Host have said that retaliation through censorship and slow downs have not occured. Yet many have reported receiving 'you are cut off messages or have experienced recent admission to discussion blocks'.

Are the above comments on topic? The problem has been stated repeatedly and without a redesign evidence has been put forward that no long term solution has been found. Therefore the choice of solutions is decreasing to getting Apple to admit their design error, they marketed the product that is failing in abnormal numbers after Apple themselves have made repeated repairs, and then providing their customers with a the fully functioning machine each customer paid, with reasonable expectations, Apple to deliver.

This discussion has evolved into searching for a solution while trying to overcome barriers on two fronts, the Hosts of this discussion claiming the comment is off topic or in some stretch of reasoning has not followed the rules. Without the right of challenge Apple customers are deemed rule breakers and punished without the courtesy of stating the infaction. Kind of like bowling with the center of the lane blocked by a curtain. Once the ball is thrown who knows what happened... no feedback.

Has this discussion stayed on Topic dispite these attempts to side track Apple Customers? Yes, without a doubt. People have for years been persistent at finding how to get their machince fixed by repeatedly confronting Apple with the obvious evidence its an Apple design problem and common sense and decency demands Apple right their wrong. Apple, after years of resisting, partially admitted its liability by extending Apple's warranty problem. Then repeated the the error that created the original problem by using original parts, that have already demonstrated an abnormally high failure rate, those original parts were used to affect extended warranty repairs. Again the failure rates, now being reported by Apple Customers as repeated failures with the same symptoms, increased dramatically.

Have comments been polite, constructive and tested. Certainly. Has someone used someone elses name in this process. No Apple's discussion software provides the names, most of us have never met each other. Have we reported our own work, Yes. By our entries we have transformed any thing we say from private information into public knowledge so the last requirement become mute.

"Hosts" have admitted not experiencing the problem or knowledge of a solution, therefore any comments must be taken as "on topic" and fodder for further discussion. Personally I have experienced repeated messages that my comments have been deleted, that my access to this discussion has been blocked and recently neither of those kind os message, my access just mysteriously dies.

The original intent was to have a means of Apple Customers experiencing problems with Apple products to find a solution for the problem they are experiencing. This discussion has never varied from that goal. Contributor have resisted efforts to block them from 1) solving their own problem 2) from assisting others to solve their problem with personal feedback. This discussion could not succeed without customer feedback that is the measure of "on topic"

Do I hear an Amen? For those less informed Amen is a ancient word meaning "So be it"

Without the right of challenge Apple customers are deemed rule breakers and punished without the courtesy of stating the infaction.

You are a guest in Apple's house when you post here. Apple will determine at its sole discretion, without ANY means of adjudication by anyone, what stays on this forum and what goes.

If you do not wish to participate on those terms, please post your opinions elsewhere.

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

Without the right of challenge Apple customers are deemed rule breakers and punished without the courtesy of stating the infaction.

You are a guest in Apple's house when you post here. Apple will determine at its sole discretion, without ANY means of adjudication by anyone, what stays on this forum and what goes.

If you do not wish to participate on those terms, please post your opinions elsewhere.

Are you Apple?

Do you speak for Apple when you say "at its sole discretion" or is the "Host", as stated in previous comments, not obligated to adhere to Apple's published rules for this discussion as you have stated with the attached response?

I see informing Apple customers of the lessons of history on this problem as informative, polite, my work, tested and on topic. Do you see that kind of infomation as indication of noncompliance to the stated rules and therefore grounds for you, speaking as Apple, to curtail further comments?

If there were no commentors on any of Apple's discussions what would you be doing right now? We are the Ying and Yang of mutual dependency.

Wish I could block some of the users. I value this post a lot as one of the customers who benefited from 2 times replacement in Brussels. Hope my MBP will serve me more years although lately I am using it less for photo edits I can not be sure if having no problems is due to this.

No one who posts here has the authority to speak for Apple, Inc, unless they are clearly identified with a distinctive tag as an Apple employee.

Anyone who claims to speak for Apple, but does not, will very likely have their post removed and be banned.

You are free to argue in favor of the merits and validity of your posts. Other Readers are not the judges of your posts' adherence to the Terms of Use. When the Hosts feel (at their sole discretion) your posting is not in compliance with the Terms of Use, it will be removed.

This is a technical forum, for technical questions. When a reader continues to blather on and post off-topic side arguments, they may risk being thought of as doing so only for the attention that gets them.

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

No one who posts here has the authority to speak for Apple, Inc, unless they are clearly identified with a distinctive tag as an Apple employee.

Anyone who claims to speak for Apple, but does not, will very likely have their post removed and be banned.

You are free to argue in favor of the merits and validity of your posts. Other Readers are not the judges of your posts' adherence to the Terms of Use. When the Hosts feel (at their sole discretion) your posting is not in compliance with the Terms of Use, it will be removed.

This is a technical forum, for technical questions. When a reader continues to blather on and post off-topic side arguments, they may risk being thought of as doing so only for the attention that gets them.

Thanks ... we agree this a technical forum for technical questions.

The technical question is how to solve a problem that has been determined, by the manufacture, as a product designed to fail?

First the problem must be isolated and a cause determined. Thanks to many thousands of comments we have isolated the problem and determined the cause. Next we are brought to discussing a fix. The problem can be limited but not eliminated with software which severly limits performance. Not considered a fix by Apple, so was never implemented by Apple. Apple isolated the problem to the main board which it has replaced with original production during the normal warranty period and for those with additonal paid for warranty during that period. The already repaired with a new replacement main boards also fail at abnormal rates. Its now over a year, in many cases two years, after initial sales and the failure rates are continuing to spike.

Apple customers experiencing this particular failure are beginning to find each other via this and other discussion. Apple has claimed immunity from warranty and class action suits begin collecting the names of customers who have experienced this problem. The discussion of this problem grew rapidly and was truncated into this current thread.

Apple anounced an extended warranty and payback program with a few caveats. This is the first positive indication that Apple knows the problem is within their product. Then Apple used over production from the original production run as the repair for the problem. Logicially not a sound approach, fix a problem with what causes the problem.

So far still on topic, polite, tested, my own work, does not include a poll, does not advertise for shops that have demonstrated fixing the problem , comments are technical in nature comments and I would like Apple to widely distribute these comments.

Would a reasonable person find any blathering or side arguments in the above?

You are not Apple but play one on this site. What do you think? Accurate, informative and cogent are good words for describing the above comments.

No lawsuits actually went to trial, so the idea that lawsuits pressured them is moot. Apple says the product is not defective. No court of competent jurisdiction found that the product is defective.

It does not matter how many times you state the product is defective, that does not make it true.

Because of the high failure rates detected by their own internal processes, Apple extended the coverage for this specific failure to four years. NOT forever. That solution have allowed for trouble-free operation for nearly four years, for any customers who presented their computers for evaluation and service doing that time. NOT forever.

Apple's obligation under the law in most states was for one year. Instead, they generously chose to extend the coverage for this specific failure to four years. The repair program ended. This product has progressed through Vintage to now being Obsolete. I do not expect Apple to do anything more for owners of these computers.

In my opinion, your insistence on "Apple needs to do more" is a case of biting the hand that feeds you, and I expect you will never be satisfied, and will continue to bash Apple forever.

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

No lawsuits actually went to trial, so the idea that lawsuits pressured them is moot. Apple says the product is not defective. No court of competent jurisdiction found that the product is defective.

It does not matter how many times you state the product is defective, that does not make it true.

Because of the high failure rates detected by their own internal processes, Apple extended the coverage for this specific failure to four years. NOT forever. That solution have allowed for trouble-free operation for nearly four years, for any customers who presented their computers for evaluation and service doing that time. NOT forever.

Apple's obligation under the law in most states was for one year. Instead, they generously chose to extend the coverage for this specific failure to four years. The repair program ended. This product has progressed through Vintage to now being Obsolete. I do not expect Apple to do anything more for owners of these computers.

In my opinion, your insistence on "Apple needs to do more" is a case of biting the hand that feeds you, and I expect you will never be satisfied, and will continue to bash Apple forever.

Agreed no lawsuit went to trial, therefore no court ruled on funtionality. As you said Apple, an expert witness, discovered abnormally high failure rates and extended Apple's warrantly period. Common sense leads a reasonable person to conclude that because Applle discovered the abnormal failure rates were coming from an Apple product there is a functionality problem with that product, the 2011 MacBook Pro. Function is determined by design, therefore there is a design problem. Agreed?

Apple by its own actions demonstrate the problem is with one component, the main logic board. Apple further demonstrated by its own actions that replacing the producation main logicboard with another producation main logic board produced the same failure and failure rate. Initially Apple demonstrated this characteristic during the initital warranty period and during additional purchased warranty period by doing repairs by replacing production main logic boards with main logic boards produced by Apple at the same time as the production main logic boards.

When the sales and paid for extended warranty time limits had expired, according your testimony, the abnormal failure rates continued."Because of the high failure rates detected by their own internal processes, Apple extended the coverage for this specific failure to four years." "Apple's obligation under the law in most states was for one year. Instead, they generously chose to extend the coverage for this specific failure to four years." A warranty period fours times the normal length for warranties of a typical Apple products. Representing a significant business expense.

Warranty repairs, during the four year extension period, were made with original production main logic boards, according to the manfucaturing time stamps on replacement main logic boards, and those replacement main logic boards failed at the same rate as original production, abnormally high, according to your testimony "high failure rates detected by their own internal processes".

I need to put the record straight your sentence "In my opinion, your insistence on "Apple needs to do more" is a case of biting the hand that feeds you, and I expect you will never be satisfied, and will continue to bash Apple forever." is a fabrication, no where can you find, on this discussion thread or else where, a comment from me stating those sentiments or words.

As for the "case of biting the hand that feeds you" your understanding of economics is contrary to mine. In the free enterprise system, no one tells the citizens what to buy. In other political/economic systems, quickly identified by "ism" after their name, your description is accurate. That discussion would take us off topic.

Please stay on topic and follow discussion rules.

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

Without the right of challenge Apple customers are deemed rule breakers and punished without the courtesy of stating the infaction.

You are a guest in Apple's house when you post here. Apple will determine at its sole discretion, without ANY means of adjudication by anyone, what stays on this forum and what goes.

So, we agree that the notion of the Apple Discussion Forum Terms of Use is moot?

Apple deletes what Apple does not like.

That's it.

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

No lawsuits actually went to trial, so the idea that lawsuits pressured them is moot. Apple says the product is not defective. No court of competent jurisdiction found that the product is defective.

In other words: Apple chickened out.