The real problem with this CR reported issue, and every other issue involving Apple, is that there are always highly divided and wildly ranging emotional reactions and responses from people or entities who either have an emotional attachment, whether positively biased or negatively biased, to Apple. Rather than responding with logic, e.g., recognizing the emergence of a latent technical issue that needs to be, and will be, fixed by Apple - you have those on one side who feel their corporate demigod has been attacked and is in need of their personal defense and those on the other side who have always hated Apple feeling that their hate has now been vindicated by Apple's massive, deliberate, and unforgivable stumble. In other words, logic and reality get kicked to the curb and emotion gets lit up like a Christmas tree, replete with all of the cognitive bias and fallacy based presents that eagerly await their unwrapping beneath such a tree.
AppleInsider could post this paragraph in lieu of every comment thread on any technical issue ever, and save us all a lot of time.
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science.
How about out you do some reasearch on how These batteries work. Then think about it.
This is isn't some situation where the battery isn't given enough room to expand or has some other design issue. Therefore the possibilities are on the usage side. Either software problem or usage problem exacerbated by YouTube mob mentality.
As as it is, sounds like consumer reports has either highlighted a sotware issue OR they need to review the reviewer and see why those tests were so psychotically varied. According to them, it seems safari was the culprit as Chrome usage enabled consistently high battery life.
I bought 2.9MHZ 15" - and the battery life really sucks I get between 2 and 3.5 hrs at best(( I might as well bought the desktop comp... I am a faithful Apple customer since late 80's, and updating my gear every two-three years, but THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST UPGRADE OF MACBOOK EVER!!! I really do not think the mew MB PRO should be called a portable computer - portable assumes that you don't have to be connected by wire all the time. While I was typing this, my charge went down from 45% to 36% - this is really bad.
1) What did Apple say when you informed them that their machine is only getting 1/4 to 1/3 the excepted battery life? I'm guessing you haven't contacted them, but you did create an account so you can say much they suck on this forum.
2) Any portable device can get only "2 and 3.5 hrs at best" if used in a certain way. You've made zero effort to detail how you're using the device and have listed no information as to what apps and services are being using most.
3) To put another way, you just complained without attempting to resolve your complaint. This could be the way you're using it, or a SW issue, a HW issue, and/or a manufacturing issue. What you should do is either work to resolve that issue or return it for a full refund. Everything else is silly, especially statements where you say that the entire line of MBPs should not be called portable computers simply because you're having an issue. It would be like saying a fast food restaurant messed up your order once and the claiming that they mess up every order.
4) A 9% drop in battery life to type 102 words which probably took you 2 minutes, but I'll round up to 5 minutes means your battery life would your MBP would die in under an hour, and yet you still offer no information as to what app or apps you were using, no information on Activity Monitor, or anything else to narrow in and resolve your issue. Even CR, with their flawed methodology also tested with Chrome and said it had excellent battery life, which a Mac app notorious for using more battery than other web browser.
H doesn't have a MBP. He knocked that out on his Note 7.
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science
Apple's tests are repeatable and understandable by anyone. Anyone can choose 25 popular sites and browse these until battery depletes. Anyone can play 1080p movies until battery depletes. Anyone can leave a MBP idle with Safari and Mail open and iCloud active... CR in contrast gives an obscure description of its tests such as "download ten pages sequentially", "stored on our server". What kind of server? Web server, file server, ftp server, which one? Ten pages what? Images, pictures, videos, Flash, Java, WebGL, Silverlight, plug-ins, iframes, what are the content of these pages? If any of these pages includes Flash or Java the test is screwed up for example. Download how? Save to disk or browse in the navigator window? Sequentially how? In an automated loop or manually?
That test absolutely does not reflect their policies and as such it is flawed from the beginning. What their policies state is "We use a product as any consumer would. For example, we assess how long a laptop computer's battery will last when running everyday applications, such as word processing and photo editing, or how quickly a digital camera can shoot photos at a fast-moving soccer game." They must withdraw those test results and publish an apology for that obscure test that doesn't comply with their policies...
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science
Apple's tests are repeatable and understandable by anyone. Anyone can choose 25 popular sites and browse these until battery depletes. Anyone can play 1080p movies until battery depletes. Anyone can leave a MBP idle with Safari and Mail open and iCloud active... CR in contrast gives an obscure description of its tests such as "download ten pages sequentially", "stored on our server". What kind of server? Web server, file server, ftp server, which one? Ten pages what? Images, pictures, videos, Flash, Java, WebGL, Silverlight, plug-ins, iframes, what are the content of these pages? If any of these pages includes Flash or Java the test is screwed up for example. Download how? Save to disk or browse in the navigator window? Sequentially how? In an automated loop or manually?
That test absolutely does not reflect their policies and as such it is flawed from the beginning. What their policies state is "We use a product as any consumer would. For example, we assess how long a laptop computer's battery will last when running everyday applications, such as word processing and photo editing, or how quickly a digital camera can shoot photos at a fast-moving soccer game." They must withdraw those test results and publish an apology for that obscure test that doesn't comply with their policies...
Exactly.
But in today's world, when someone says something on YouTube (even though they're PAID to), it's randomly taken as gospel. And it's difficult even to trust "reputable" supposed watchdogs, when you don't even know what they're actually doing or why.
Goid on Apple for calling them out and pressuring them to reveal the testing in detail. Apple will also show their own, mich more strenuous and repeatable tests, and CR will have to be accountable. I'm actually curious to see if someone loses their job for this or possibly goes to jail. There exist only two reasons for that kind of deception. What would make it worse is if the exact website content used in testing happens to be content that is KNOWN TO AFFECT CPU USAGE ADVERSELY.
that would also also point to a carefully crafted attack. One which woul irreparably harm the reputation of CR. THIS COULD BE BIG.
I'd hope it's just some random flaw in the testing config. But it's really hard to see it right now. Especially with the "but we just use the default browser" caveat.
Its unusual that that they don't want to disclose the exact nature of the content used. Various browsers handle things differently under the hood and it wouldn't surprise to see this using content specifically used to impact safari usage adversely.
Especially with the cop cop out that "Chrome Don't have dis prob, yo" at the end.
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science.
Well, yes.
There seem to be a few people around here who think that because CR is testing for consumers, then there is no need for explanation or rigour because a user wouldn't be do that either. That's okay, but then a user would also not constantly download unspecified web pages from a private server until the battery was drained, so let's not use "but we are looking for something a user might experience" as an excuse for not doing your job properly. There is science and methodology in testing, whether you are doing if for consumers or not.
I read consumer testing when I was looking for a new microwave oven.
"We experienced a failure in our test unit, so we bought two more from different outlets and tested them again. Sadly, one of those units failed after eight days, and the other failed two days later. We cannot recommend this brand based on this test."
I would hope that having seen such bizarre results, CR would have gone back and tested other non-Apple laptops to make sure those were still giving expected results.
Many years ago, a couple of us were involved in testing a huge change to a web-based procurement system. We had a test rig that we use for regression testing, and when we ran the new software through it, it told us that none of the changes had caused a problem, and that the whole system was running just as it should. Yup, everything was hunky-dory; you're safe to go live.
My colleague and I looked at each other, looked at the project managers patting themselves on the back for having made such a large-scale change run flawlessly, and then we told them that we were going to take the test rig apart.
Why?
Because it was unlikely that such a massive change to such an old code base wouldn't cause a problem somewhere.
We took the test logs apart, and when that didn't show up any problems, we started on the build scripts. As it turned out, the problem was a simple labelling mistake: the build hadn't actually included the new code, so it was just testing against the old code base. (On reflection, we should have spotted this sooner, but we assumed that we were looking at a complicated problem and so it must have a complicated answer). Once we corrected the mistake and ran the regression test again, it failed so badly that the whole upgrade was cancelled and the code base was never touched again. (And again, if they could abandon the project after less than a half an hour's discussion, I have to ask if it was ever needed in the first place).
The point is that we looked at the initial result, and common sense told us this was unlikely, so we looked into the possibility that the problem was with the testing.
Now, I'm not saying that CR's methodology was wrong, or that if it is down to their test cases they should change it to cater for Apple (if other laptops can run the pages without widely fluctuations battery drainage then so should Apple kit). What I am saying that in face of such bizarre results, I would have worked with Apple to understand what was happening, before risking the reputation of the CR publication by making a recommendation based on a faulty test. I would have said: "Look Phil; these results don't make any sense. Get someone to look them over and if we don't get a reply from you in the next few days then we're going to give you a duff recommendation."
They probably suspect that the problem is being caused by Safari (indeed, they alluded to this), but that wouldn't make such a great headline as this is something that can be fixed with an update before the headline made any real impact. (And yes, they make money from page hits, so this will influence how they write their headlines).
Damage control? Did you actually read their report? They got wildly different battery results and on the high end much higher than anyone else has gotten. How could they publish a report with such variation?
Yes, I did. The fact that Phil is reacting so quickly to just about every slam against the new MBP's means there is really something wrong with the batteries and no one is believing Apple's explanation of removing a certain battery display feature will magically fix the problem.
Please, do explain how this is true -- how does Schiller responding to what he perceives as BS somehow mean there's a hardware fault? Seems far more likely to me that he thinks its unfounded BS, thus his response to see why CR failed.
No one claims removing a historically inaccurate time-remaining gauge is a fix to a battery problem. Just you and your, uh, narrative. Don't believe me? Then tell me how to enable this gauge on your iPhone. Oh yeah, there isn't one, because its stupid.
If it's not a hardware problem why didn't Apple fix it with the recently released OS X update?
So the Apple Discussion boards that are filled with Apple owners complaining of crap battery life is BS? Don't believe me? Go look for yourself.
Damage control? Did you actually read their report? They got wildly different battery results and on the high end much higher than anyone else has gotten. How could they publish a report with such variation?
Yes, I did. The fact that Phil is reacting so quickly to just about every slam against the new MBP's means there is really something wrong with the batteries and no one is believing Apple's explanation of removing a certain battery display feature will magically fix the problem.
Please, do explain how this is true -- how does Schiller responding to what he perceives as BS somehow mean there's a hardware fault? Seems far more likely to me that he thinks its unfounded BS, thus his response to see why CR failed.
No one claims removing a historically inaccurate time-remaining gauge is a fix to a battery problem. Just you and your, uh, narrative. Don't believe me? Then tell me how to enable this gauge on your iPhone. Oh yeah, there isn't one, because its stupid.
If it's not a hardware problem why didn't Apple fix it with the recently released OS X update?
If we're talking about this specific case then CR have said that the problem doesn't occur when running the same test with Chrome, which does point to a problem with Safari, not the operating system and not the hardware. They didn't fix it in the last OS update because they didn't know about it. CR are running a specific test that uses specific web pages on a server than no one else on the internet has access to. Not sure how Apple was going to test for this particular instance, but now they have the logs and the test machines then perhaps this will shake out a problem that they may have overlooked.
So the Apple Discussion boards that are filled with Apple owners complaining of crap battery life is BS? Don't believe me? Go look for yourself.
You don't need to be an Apple kit owner to leave a message on the Apple discussion boards; that's why Apple doesn't monitor them for complaints. We don't know how many are real, and how many are people just posting with an axe to grind. By the same token, we don't know how many people will say they don't have a problem when they don't actually own the model in question. Because Apple knows how many machines are sold and how many are returned then only Apple knows how big or how small the problem is.
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science
Apple's tests are repeatable and understandable by anyone. Anyone can choose 25 popular sites and browse these until battery depletes. Anyone can play 1080p movies until battery depletes. Anyone can leave a MBP idle with Safari and Mail open and iCloud active... CR in contrast gives an obscure description of its tests such as "download ten pages sequentially", "stored on our server". What kind of server? Web server, file server, ftp server, which one? Ten pages what? Images, pictures, videos, Flash, Java, WebGL, Silverlight, plug-ins, iframes, what are the content of these pages? If any of these pages includes Flash or Java the test is screwed up for example. Download how? Save to disk or browse in the navigator window? Sequentially how? In an automated loop or manually?
That test absolutely does not reflect their policies and as such it is flawed from the beginning. What their policies state is "We use a product as any consumer would. For example, we assess how long a laptop computer's battery will last when running everyday applications, such as word processing and photo editing, or how quickly a digital camera can shoot photos at a fast-moving soccer game." They must withdraw those test results and publish an apology for that obscure test that doesn't comply with their policies...
Exactly.
But in today's world, when someone says something on YouTube (even though they're PAID to), it's randomly taken as gospel. And it's difficult even to trust "reputable" supposed watchdogs, when you don't even know what they're actually doing or why.
Goid on Apple for calling them out and pressuring them to reveal the testing in detail.
Apple didn't call them out as you would have known from reading the source article. Consumer Reports was confused by the inconsistent results using the exact same testing they use for all laptop batteries. So they reached out to Apple inviting them to look at their test results in detail, and Apple accepted the invite.
The real problem with this CR reported issue, and every other issue involving Apple, is that there are always highly divided and wildly ranging emotional reactions and responses from people or entities who either have an emotional attachment, whether positively biased or negatively biased, to Apple. Rather than responding with logic, e.g., recognizing the emergence of a latent technical issue that needs to be, and will be, fixed by Apple - you have those on one side who feel their corporate demigod has been attacked and is in need of their personal defense and those on the other side who have always hated Apple feeling that their hate has now been vindicated by Apple's massive, deliberate, and unforgivable stumble. In other words, logic and reality get kicked to the curb and emotion gets lit up like a Christmas tree, replete with all of the cognitive bias and fallacy based presents that eagerly await their unwrapping beneath such a tree.
AppleInsider could post this paragraph in lieu of every comment thread on any technical issue ever, and save us all a lot of time.
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science.
Well, yes.
There seem to be a few people around here who think that because CR is testing for consumers, then there is no need for explanation or rigour because a user wouldn't be do that either. That's okay, but then a user would also not constantly download unspecified web pages from a private server until the battery was drained, so let's not use "but we are looking for something a user might experience" as an excuse for not doing your job properly. There is science and methodology in testing, whether you are doing if for consumers or not.
I read consumer testing when I was looking for a new microwave oven.
"We experienced a failure in our test unit, so we bought two more from different outlets and tested them again. Sadly, one of those units failed after eight days, and the other failed two days later. We cannot recommend this brand based on this test."
I would hope that having seen such bizarre results, CR would have gone back and tested other non-Apple laptops to make sure those were still giving expected results.
Many years ago, a couple of us were involved in testing a huge change to a web-based procurement system. We had a test rig that we use for regression testing, and when we ran the new software through it, it told us that none of the changes had caused a problem, and that the whole system was running just as it should. Yup, everything was hunky-dory; you're safe to go live.
My colleague and I looked at each other, looked at the project managers patting themselves on the back for having made such a large-scale change run flawlessly, and then we told them that we were going to take the test rig apart.
Why?
Because it was unlikely that such a massive change to such an old code base wouldn't cause a problem somewhere.
We took the test logs apart, and when that didn't show up any problems, we started on the build scripts. As it turned out, the problem was a simple labelling mistake: the build hadn't actually included the new code, so it was just testing against the old code base. (On reflection, we should have spotted this sooner, but we assumed that we were looking at a complicated problem and so it must have a complicated answer). Once we corrected the mistake and ran the regression test again, it failed so badly that the whole upgrade was cancelled and the code base was never touched again. (And again, if they could abandon the project after less than a half an hour's discussion, I have to ask if it was ever needed in the first place).
The point is that we looked at the initial result, and common sense told us this was unlikely, so we looked into the possibility that the problem was with the testing.
Now, I'm not saying that CR's methodology was wrong, or that if it is down to their test cases they should change it to cater for Apple (if other laptops can run the pages without widely fluctuations battery drainage then so should Apple kit). What I am saying that in face of such bizarre results, I would have worked with Apple to understand what was happening, before risking the reputation of the CR publication by making a recommendation based on a faulty test. I would have said: "Look Phil; these results don't make any sense. Get someone to look them over and if we don't get a reply from you in the next few days then we're going to give you a duff recommendation."
They probably suspect that the problem is being caused by Safari (indeed, they alluded to this), but that wouldn't make such a great headline as this is something that can be fixed with an update before the headline made any real impact. (And yes, they make money from page hits, so this will influence how they write their headlines).
Agree or disagree with their testing methods, however as they do the same test to all laptops including all prior MacBook Pro's, which they recommended (i bet no one here was complaining about those results) the results have validity. They are seeing different behaviour with these MacBook Pro's than prior models and other laptops. As they're using the same test there must be a reason for the difference. It's either hardware or software.
I have this problem with my new 15" 2016 MacBook Pro. I'm lucky if I get 4-4:30 while running on battery. I use Chrome, not Safari, so "switching" isn't going to solve my problem. I love my new computer, but I expected to get close to or better than the 10 hours that was claimed by Apple. Battery life is a big part of owning a portable computer. If the claim in 10 hours, then that's what it should be able to deliver.
Lastly, check out the Discussions forums over this issue. There are hundreds of posts with users having this problem. Consumer Reports was right to withhold their approval until this issue is resolved.
It's a great laptop, the industrial design is on point. Touch bar has potential. USB-C is the future.
Yet...
It feels only minutely faster than my 2012 mbp. 4 years later, super expensive laptop, and it kinda just runs the same.
The battery life is awful. Normally new laptops, the battery life feels incredible. No, this runs like an old laptop.
What is going on??? Who is to blame? Intel? Apple? Every year our phones get faster and faster and faster... yet a four year upgrade on a mbp is barely noticeable, yet now far more expensive. With all the complaints about dongles and gimmick touch bar and blah blah blah -- the most important thing, performance and battery is what actually sucks about these laptops. One thing is for certain, Moore's law is dead.
7 posts... double hmmm...
definitely seems to to be a pattern here in this forum as well as with those who receive sponsored income on YouTube. Quite interesting.
I had about 3 hours battery life on 13-in MBP with touch bar. Draining battery all the way twice improved to about 5. I then did a total clean reinstall of MacOS Sierra and now regularly get 7-9 hours with normal use- web browsing, emails and other work like word processing.
Riiiight..
another 1 post detractor. The pattern continues...
Working with Consumers Report? That is a magazine. More like trying to bribe them. Work with the people who spent money on the laptops. Give them some idea of how long it should take to fix the problem. Communicate with the consumer. I hope it will be very soon.
10 posts...
pattern furthers...
and no no logic contained within the post.
It it would be advantageous for apple to understand why this one company says they had such wild variation. Beyond that, its strategic to use such communication as an effective message to the world as CR is currently respected as a consumer watchdog.
Either Apple fixes a problem and CR reports it or CR fixes their own problem and reports it. Either way it's a great move.
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science
Apple's tests are repeatable and understandable by anyone. Anyone can choose 25 popular sites and browse these until battery depletes. Anyone can play 1080p movies until battery depletes. Anyone can leave a MBP idle with Safari and Mail open and iCloud active... CR in contrast gives an obscure description of its tests such as "download ten pages sequentially", "stored on our server". What kind of server? Web server, file server, ftp server, which one? Ten pages what? Images, pictures, videos, Flash, Java, WebGL, Silverlight, plug-ins, iframes, what are the content of these pages? If any of these pages includes Flash or Java the test is screwed up for example. Download how? Save to disk or browse in the navigator window? Sequentially how? In an automated loop or manually?
That test absolutely does not reflect their policies and as such it is flawed from the beginning. What their policies state is "We use a product as any consumer would. For example, we assess how long a laptop computer's battery will last when running everyday applications, such as word processing and photo editing, or how quickly a digital camera can shoot photos at a fast-moving soccer game." They must withdraw those test results and publish an apology for that obscure test that doesn't comply with their policies...
Exactly.
But in today's world, when someone says something on YouTube (even though they're PAID to), it's randomly taken as gospel. And it's difficult even to trust "reputable" supposed watchdogs, when you don't even know what they're actually doing or why.
Goid on Apple for calling them out and pressuring them to reveal the testing in detail. Apple will also show their own, mich more strenuous and repeatable tests, and CR will have to be accountable. I'm actually curious to see if someone loses their job for this or possibly goes to jail. There exist only two reasons for that kind of deception. What would make it worse is if the exact website content used in testing happens to be content that is KNOWN TO AFFECT CPU USAGE ADVERSELY.
that would also also point to a carefully crafted attack. One which woul irreparably harm the reputation of CR. THIS COULD BE BIG.
I'd hope it's just some random flaw in the testing config. But it's really hard to see it right now. Especially with the "but we just use the default browser" caveat.
Its unusual that that they don't want to disclose the exact nature of the content used. Various browsers handle things differently under the hood and it wouldn't surprise to see this using content specifically used to impact safari usage adversely.
Especially with the cop cop out that "Chrome Don't have dis prob, yo" at the end.
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science
Apple's tests are repeatable and understandable by anyone. Anyone can choose 25 popular sites and browse these until battery depletes. Anyone can play 1080p movies until battery depletes. Anyone can leave a MBP idle with Safari and Mail open and iCloud active... CR in contrast gives an obscure description of its tests such as "download ten pages sequentially", "stored on our server". What kind of server? Web server, file server, ftp server, which one? Ten pages what? Images, pictures, videos, Flash, Java, WebGL, Silverlight, plug-ins, iframes, what are the content of these pages? If any of these pages includes Flash or Java the test is screwed up for example. Download how? Save to disk or browse in the navigator window? Sequentially how? In an automated loop or manually?
That test absolutely does not reflect their policies and as such it is flawed from the beginning. What their policies state is "We use a product as any consumer would. For example, we assess how long a laptop computer's battery will last when running everyday applications, such as word processing and photo editing, or how quickly a digital camera can shoot photos at a fast-moving soccer game." They must withdraw those test results and publish an apology for that obscure test that doesn't comply with their policies...
Exactly.
But in today's world, when someone says something on YouTube (even though they're PAID to), it's randomly taken as gospel. And it's difficult even to trust "reputable" supposed watchdogs, when you don't even know what they're actually doing or why.
Goid on Apple for calling them out and pressuring them to reveal the testing in detail. Apple will also show their own, mich more strenuous and repeatable tests, and CR will have to be accountable. I'm actually curious to see if someone loses their job for this or possibly goes to jail. There exist only two reasons for that kind of deception. What would make it worse is if the exact website content used in testing happens to be content that is KNOWN TO AFFECT CPU USAGE ADVERSELY.
that would also also point to a carefully crafted attack. One which woul irreparably harm the reputation of CR. THIS COULD BE BIG.
I'd hope it's just some random flaw in the testing config. But it's really hard to see it right now. Especially with the "but we just use the default browser" caveat.
Its unusual that that they don't want to disclose the exact nature of the content used. Various browsers handle things differently under the hood and it wouldn't surprise to see this using content specifically used to impact safari usage adversely.
Especially with the cop cop out that "Chrome Don't have dis prob, yo" at the end.
Read it when it came out. It's usually in my daily or weekly series of reference sites.
Always liked ARS. and they are speaking common sense. When you first get your machine, indexing and iCloud sync will impact your battery. Give it a bit of time. The rest was simply more common sense that applies to ANY mobile device.
Great advice. You should read it again. It doesn't say what you want to believe it does.
You have to wonder about the CONTRNT that was being delivered by the websites CR tested.
that much inconsistency is scientifically impossible.
Unless... certain pages were. chosen That load random or varied content (with video, etc / yes that would imply conspiracy) which would negate the accuracy of these tests.
"scientifically impossible" ... wtf does that mean in your world ??
You much guy live with the concept of your individual world but I live in the real world where osbservable and repeatable science actually means science
Apple's tests are repeatable and understandable by anyone. Anyone can choose 25 popular sites and browse these until battery depletes. Anyone can play 1080p movies until battery depletes. Anyone can leave a MBP idle with Safari and Mail open and iCloud active... CR in contrast gives an obscure description of its tests such as "download ten pages sequentially", "stored on our server". What kind of server? Web server, file server, ftp server, which one? Ten pages what? Images, pictures, videos, Flash, Java, WebGL, Silverlight, plug-ins, iframes, what are the content of these pages? If any of these pages includes Flash or Java the test is screwed up for example. Download how? Save to disk or browse in the navigator window? Sequentially how? In an automated loop or manually?
That test absolutely does not reflect their policies and as such it is flawed from the beginning. What their policies state is "We use a product as any consumer would. For example, we assess how long a laptop computer's battery will last when running everyday applications, such as word processing and photo editing, or how quickly a digital camera can shoot photos at a fast-moving soccer game." They must withdraw those test results and publish an apology for that obscure test that doesn't comply with their policies...
Exactly.
But in today's world, when someone says something on YouTube (even though they're PAID to), it's randomly taken as gospel. And it's difficult even to trust "reputable" supposed watchdogs, when you don't even know what they're actually doing or why.
Goid on Apple for calling them out and pressuring them to reveal the testing in detail. Apple will also show their own, mich more strenuous and repeatable tests, and CR will have to be accountable. I'm actually curious to see if someone loses their job for this or possibly goes to jail. There exist only two reasons for that kind of deception. What would make it worse is if the exact website content used in testing happens to be content that is KNOWN TO AFFECT CPU USAGE ADVERSELY.
that would also also point to a carefully crafted attack. One which woul irreparably harm the reputation of CR. THIS COULD BE BIG.
I'd hope it's just some random flaw in the testing config. But it's really hard to see it right now. Especially with the "but we just use the default browser" caveat.
Its unusual that that they don't want to disclose the exact nature of the content used. Various browsers handle things differently under the hood and it wouldn't surprise to see this using content specifically used to impact safari usage adversely.
Especially with the cop cop out that "Chrome Don't have dis prob, yo" at the end.
Read it when it came out. It's usually in my daily or weekly series of reference sites.
Always liked ARS. and they are speaking common sense. When you first get your machine, indexing and iCloud sync will impact your battery. Give it a bit of time. The rest was simply more common sense that applies to ANY mobile device.
Great advice. You should read it again. It doesn't say what you want to believe it does.
Comments
How about out you do some reasearch on how These batteries work. Then think about it.
This is isn't some situation where the battery isn't given enough room to expand or has some other design issue. Therefore the possibilities are on the usage side. Either software problem or usage problem exacerbated by YouTube mob mentality.
As as it is, sounds like consumer reports has either highlighted a sotware issue OR they need to review the reviewer and see why those tests were so psychotically varied. According to them, it seems safari was the culprit as Chrome usage enabled consistently high battery life.
That test absolutely does not reflect their policies and as such it is flawed from the beginning. What their policies state is "We use a product as any consumer would. For example, we assess how long a laptop computer's battery will last when running everyday applications, such as word processing and photo editing, or how quickly a digital camera can shoot photos at a fast-moving soccer game." They must withdraw those test results and publish an apology for that obscure test that doesn't comply with their policies...
But in today's world, when someone says something on YouTube (even though they're PAID to), it's randomly taken as gospel. And it's difficult even to trust "reputable" supposed watchdogs, when you don't even know what they're actually doing or why.
Goid on Apple for calling them out and pressuring them to reveal the testing in detail. Apple will also show their own, mich more strenuous and repeatable tests, and CR will have to be accountable. I'm actually curious to see if someone loses their job for this or possibly goes to jail. There exist only two reasons for that kind of deception. What would make it worse is if the exact website content used in testing happens to be content that is KNOWN TO AFFECT CPU USAGE ADVERSELY.
that would also also point to a carefully crafted attack. One which woul irreparably harm the reputation of CR. THIS COULD BE BIG.
I'd hope it's just some random flaw in the testing config. But it's really hard to see it right now. Especially with the "but we just use the default browser" caveat.
Its unusual that that they don't want to disclose the exact nature of the content used. Various browsers handle things differently under the hood and it wouldn't surprise to see this using content specifically used to impact safari usage adversely.
Especially with the cop cop out that "Chrome Don't have dis prob, yo" at the end.
In fact, I'd bet on it.
Well, yes.
There seem to be a few people around here who think that because CR is testing for consumers, then there is no need for explanation or rigour because a user wouldn't be do that either. That's okay, but then a user would also not constantly download unspecified web pages from a private server until the battery was drained, so let's not use "but we are looking for something a user might experience" as an excuse for not doing your job properly. There is science and methodology in testing, whether you are doing if for consumers or not.
I read consumer testing when I was looking for a new microwave oven.
"We experienced a failure in our test unit, so we bought two more from different outlets and tested them again. Sadly, one of those units failed after eight days, and the other failed two days later. We cannot recommend this brand based on this test."
I would hope that having seen such bizarre results, CR would have gone back and tested other non-Apple laptops to make sure those were still giving expected results.
Many years ago, a couple of us were involved in testing a huge change to a web-based procurement system. We had a test rig that we use for regression testing, and when we ran the new software through it, it told us that none of the changes had caused a problem, and that the whole system was running just as it should. Yup, everything was hunky-dory; you're safe to go live.
My colleague and I looked at each other, looked at the project managers patting themselves on the back for having made such a large-scale change run flawlessly, and then we told them that we were going to take the test rig apart.
Why?
Because it was unlikely that such a massive change to such an old code base wouldn't cause a problem somewhere.
We took the test logs apart, and when that didn't show up any problems, we started on the build scripts. As it turned out, the problem was a simple labelling mistake: the build hadn't actually included the new code, so it was just testing against the old code base. (On reflection, we should have spotted this sooner, but we assumed that we were looking at a complicated problem and so it must have a complicated answer). Once we corrected the mistake and ran the regression test again, it failed so badly that the whole upgrade was cancelled and the code base was never touched again. (And again, if they could abandon the project after less than a half an hour's discussion, I have to ask if it was ever needed in the first place).
The point is that we looked at the initial result, and common sense told us this was unlikely, so we looked into the possibility that the problem was with the testing.
Now, I'm not saying that CR's methodology was wrong, or that if it is down to their test cases they should change it to cater for Apple (if other laptops can run the pages without widely fluctuations battery drainage then so should Apple kit). What I am saying that in face of such bizarre results, I would have worked with Apple to understand what was happening, before risking the reputation of the CR publication by making a recommendation based on a faulty test. I would have said: "Look Phil; these results don't make any sense. Get someone to look them over and if we don't get a reply from you in the next few days then we're going to give you a duff recommendation."
They probably suspect that the problem is being caused by Safari (indeed, they alluded to this), but that wouldn't make such a great headline as this is something that can be fixed with an update before the headline made any real impact. (And yes, they make money from page hits, so this will influence how they write their headlines).
If we're all now using 'funny' to mean 'dislike' then how are we doing 'funny'?
So the Apple Discussion boards that are filled with Apple owners complaining of crap battery life is BS? Don't believe me? Go look for yourself.
If we're talking about this specific case then CR have said that the problem doesn't occur when running the same test with Chrome, which does point to a problem with Safari, not the operating system and not the hardware. They didn't fix it in the last OS update because they didn't know about it. CR are running a specific test that uses specific web pages on a server than no one else on the internet has access to. Not sure how Apple was going to test for this particular instance, but now they have the logs and the test machines then perhaps this will shake out a problem that they may have overlooked.
So the Apple Discussion boards that are filled with Apple owners complaining of crap battery life is BS? Don't believe me? Go look for yourself.
You don't need to be an Apple kit owner to leave a message on the Apple discussion boards; that's why Apple doesn't monitor them for complaints. We don't know how many are real, and how many are people just posting with an axe to grind. By the same token, we don't know how many people will say they don't have a problem when they don't actually own the model in question. Because Apple knows how many machines are sold and how many are returned then only Apple knows how big or how small the problem is.
I now eagerly look forward to someone doing so with this post.
Agree or disagree with their testing methods, however as they do the same test to all laptops including all prior MacBook Pro's, which they recommended (i bet no one here was complaining about those results) the results have validity. They are seeing different behaviour with these MacBook Pro's than prior models and other laptops. As they're using the same test there must be a reason for the difference. It's either hardware or software.
definitely seems to to be a pattern here in this forum as well as with those who receive sponsored income on YouTube. Quite interesting.
Meanwhile others are reporting zero issues.
another 1 post detractor. The pattern continues...
pattern furthers...
and no no logic contained within the post.
It it would be advantageous for apple to understand why this one company says they had such wild variation. Beyond that, its strategic to use such communication as an effective message to the world as CR is currently respected as a consumer watchdog.
Either Apple fixes a problem and CR reports it or CR fixes their own problem and reports it. Either way it's a great move.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/12/explaining-the-battery-life-problems-with-the-new-macbook-pros/
Always liked ARS. and they are speaking common sense. When you first get your machine, indexing and iCloud sync will impact your battery. Give it a bit of time. The rest was simply more common sense that applies to ANY mobile device.
Great advice. You should read it again. It doesn't say what you want to believe it does.