Test finds Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro only laptops to match or beat advertised batter...

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 925member
    brucemc said:
    ...
    The problem, and we saw it before during the iPhone 4 "AntennaGate" is that Apple has such a high profile that all its products are under intense scrutiny and the slightest issue is immediately blown out of proportion. I shudder to think of the reaction if they had a mishap like the Note 8 explosions. Looks like all the other manufacturers are reporting outrageously overinflated battery life specs, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. It's only a problem when Apple does it. I guess that's what being the best is about. 
    Are you from the future?  Or will this just end up being an accurate prediction.
    :)
    Something already burned a Samsung store and it sure coincided with the release of the Note 8...
    lordjohnwhorfinwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 51
    brucemc said:
    Are you from the future?  Or will this just end up being an accurate prediction.
    :)
    LOL! Oops, Note 7. I don't pay attention to their products unless they spontaneously combust.
    Yeah, can't wait for their next POS product after the exploding phones and the rampaging washing machines, who knows what's next, man eating refrigerators?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 51
    I have not found the battery life to be very powerful in these new machines. If you are doing anything outside of optimized tasks, this battery crumbles fast. Old MacBook Pro Retina blows this battery out of the water. 74.5 watt hour battery versus 49.2 waa hour when comparing the 13" old and new models.

    The battery life has been good enough for me since I don't use the battery that often, but it in no way compares to the battery in the previous model.
    Really? My experience has been exactly the opposite. Going from an old 17" Unibody to a 13" Air the battery life obviously improved significantly. I then went from the Air to my current 15" Touchbar with 460 GPU and it's even better! I've never used it for 10 hours straight without plugging it in, but it's going through roughly 10% per hour, consistent with the 10-hour claim.

    Considering that both the test referenced in the article and those done by Consumer Reports indicated the 13" is even better than the 15", I'd suggest you should be looking for a fault if you're not getting good battery life.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 51
    sflocal said:
    Doesn't matter.  Asshat iHater, trolls, and pundits will simply ignore it and continue blaming Apple for being the best in laptops, while giving a free pass to the competitors for making shitty products.
    Oh fer fuxsake, no one is vilifying Apple OR ignoring shortcomings in other products. Some people, me included, are simply saying that Consumer Reports did not commit an atrocity by reporting the MacBook Pro's weird battery behaviour. Blaming their testing methodology is a straw man because it's the same method they used to test previous models and other brands.

    Please note that I am also sharing the findings of this test with others who consider Apple computers "overpriced" so no one is getting "a free pass." If anything, it's Apple that always seems to get the benefit of even flawed doubt, as the fanboiz view the company as a deity that can do no wrong and defend every report of a mis-step as if it were an attack.

    I'd find this forum much more useful if it were possible to discuss flaws and ways to remedy them without being insulted by the caped crusaders of the Apple Defence League.
  • Reply 25 of 51

    TLDR;
    Yes, we can tell, because if you HAD read the post you'd see that @freeper actually addressed the points you raised. Maybe you should go read it now, and see if you don't think her/his points are actually valid. I did and do.
  • Reply 26 of 51

    Rayz2016 said:
    You'd have a bit more credibility if you knew the difference between an "application" and an "operating system". 

    The bug was in Safari (an app-li-cay-shun), not MacOS (which is an operating sis-tum). 

    Read up, then come back. 
    Are you actually suggesting that the entirety of the reasoning behind the argument is invalidated by a semantic error? Or did you just seize an opportunity to be insulting, even though it contributed very little to the discussion? Could the same point have been made by politely correcting the error, or do you actually disagree with the point of the post? If the latter, you didn't bother to explain why. @freeper did.

    Read the post again, this time with the word "application" replacing the erroneous instances of "operating system." Does it make sense and are the points valid? I think so.
  • Reply 27 of 51

    ILooks like all the other manufacturers are reporting outrageously overinflated battery life specs, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. It's only a problem when Apple does it.
    I'm only half-way through this thread and that's the third time I've read that: "Nobody cares that other manufacturers exaggerate the power of their batteries." Why do you say that? What do you mean by "nobody cares?" I've already pointed it out to a few people, and I just read it 15 minutes ago. How exactly do we measure the level of "cares" in the population? How would anyone here know who cares and who doesn't?

    I don't understand where that perception comes from. It *seems* knee-jerk defensive, but maybe there's something I'm missing?
  • Reply 28 of 51
    wizard69 said:
    [...] This is actually pretty simple to understand   A battery with a given amp/hour rating will simply have a shorter life span than a larger battery given the same load.
    My understanding is that the newer machines require less power to perform the same work as previous models. Thus the "load" may not be as great with current CPU/GPU/RAM/Storage systems as it was with previous generations, even performing identical tasks. Hence a smaller battery could provide the same usable hours as previous models with larger batteries, even when doing exactly the same operations as the older machine.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 29 of 51
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,162member
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    Consumer Reports can never be trusted. It's been that way for years. 
  • Reply 30 of 51
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,979member
    It's about the OS as well. Windows hmmm battery hunger OS
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 51
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    How long did it take Apple's top engineers to resolve the issue once CR reported the battery problem?
  • Reply 32 of 51
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    I always suspected all these type of 'reports' are bought and paid for.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 51
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member

    lkrupp said:
    sflocal said:
    Doesn't matter.  Asshat iHater, trolls, and pundits will simply ignore it and continue blaming Apple for being the best in laptops, while giving a free pass to the competitors for making shitty products.
    See responses in this very thread to validate your statement. So easy to predict what that crowd will say.
    I'd like to see AI somehow (I'm sure it could be done) block any post from a non Apple product.  The trolls would all but vanish.  For example, Gatorguy (not the worst troll by a mile I should add) expounds non-stop on Apple and Mac issues yet doesn't even own a Mac and I doubt an iPhone!
    edited March 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 51
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member
    Fatman said:
    I use a Dell laptop on a regular basis - it has an i7 8 core - on paper should be a powerhouse, instead 8 cores means it uses those cores to drain the battery, heat the CPU and kick the fans on. Only the latest Windows 10 version has somewhat helped alleviate the wasted cycles (I believe it just throttles back the processor extensively ... in which case what's the point of a faster CPU?), I'm lucky if I get 90 minutes of unplugged use out of it -- it's not very mobile since I need to be near a power outlet/plugged in at all times.
    Not a laptop comparison but I use one of my Macs, a 2013, 6 core Mac Pro (Intel Xeon E5 with 12MB L3 cache and Dual AMD FirePro D500 graphics processors with 3GB of GDDR5 VRAM each ), to run Windows 10 a lot using the latest Catalyst AMD drivers.  I boot directly into Windows (not using Boot Camp) on an external SSD.  The OS surely doesn't know what the heck it's running on.  To Windows this is just a bloody powerful PC that can blow most PCs out of the water.  The power consumption and heat generated under Windows is way higher than macOS.  I find this curious.  If I am missing something I am happy to be educated.
    edited March 2017
  • Reply 35 of 51
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,578member
    Even excluding the Consumer Reports kerfuffle, there were fairly widespread reports of poof battery life on the new MBPs. Does anyone know if those been resolved or are are still occurring? I know the update Apple released to correct the bug CR found didn't fix all of them.
  • Reply 36 of 51
    anomeanome Posts: 1,294member

    Rayz2016 said:
    You'd have a bit more credibility if you knew the difference between an "application" and an "operating system". 

    The bug was in Safari (an app-li-cay-shun), not MacOS (which is an operating sis-tum). 

    Read up, then come back. 
    Are you actually suggesting that the entirety of the reasoning behind the argument is invalidated by a semantic error? Or did you just seize an opportunity to be insulting, even though it contributed very little to the discussion? Could the same point have been made by politely correcting the error, or do you actually disagree with the point of the post? If the latter, you didn't bother to explain why. @freeper did.

    Read the post again, this time with the word "application" replacing the erroneous instances of "operating system." Does it make sense and are the points valid? I think so.
    I'll point out some flaws in his argument, due to some factual errors.

    Consumer Reports found nothing. They conducted a test which, due to a bug in dev mode, provided inaccurate results. Apple looked into it, and found the bug, and fixed it.

    Let me repeat, Consumer Reports did not find a bug in any software. Apple found the bug when they looked into why Consumer Reports' test got unexpected results.

    As for whether Consumer Reports should have published, it does seem odd that they went straight to press before Apple got a chance to fix the bug. Put simply, CR went for a big headline to get attention.
    jony0radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 51
    anome said:
    As for whether Consumer Reports should have published, it does seem odd that they went straight to press before Apple got a chance to fix the bug. Put simply, CR went for a big headline to get attention.
    CR is an independent organisation and it's important they maintain this independence. I'd say that Apple's quick response and fix, and CR's subsequent update and glowing report, end up being very positive for both. I don't see Dell, Acer, Asus and Lenovo rushing to explain their inflated battery claims.
  • Reply 38 of 51
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,739member
    anome said:
    [...] As for whether Consumer Reports should have published, it does seem odd that they went straight to press before Apple got a chance to fix the bug. Put simply, CR went for a big headline to get attention.
    If they were testing cars and found that a particular model had wildly inconsistent fuel consumption results, would you expect CR to contact the manufacturer and work out the reason, or simply publish the results at tested?

    If they were testing ovens and found that the temperature of a particular model varied wildly from the selected value, do you think they should work with the manufacturer on figuring out why, or publish what their tests measured?

    If they were testing amplifiers and found the the power output varied from test to test, would you consider the results invalid if they didn't contact the manufacturer to figure out why?

    It's not CR's job to solve manufacturing problems. They test what hits the streets and report their results. It's ridiculous to assert that they should have consulted with Apple. Why would they do that in this case when they never have before and it's completely outside the scope of what they do?

    I understand the argument that the testing methodology unintentionally "activated" an obscure bug that may not affect most actual users, but not that CR did something wrong. First, the testing method is the same for everybody, and only Apple's product reacted badly to it. Second, CR's job is "test and report," not "test, provide supplier chance to provide better sample, retest, reconsult manufacturer, retest, report only when results satisfy the product's fans."

    There is definitely some prejudice affecting opinions here, with advocates and apologists suggesting that Apple was victimized by not being afforded special consideration that's never been extended to anyone else. It's illogical.

    BTW, to be clear, I'm not critical of Apple in this matter. I'm just saying people's expectations of CR are unreasonable.
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 39 of 51
    anomeanome Posts: 1,294member
    anome said:
    [...] As for whether Consumer Reports should have published, it does seem odd that they went straight to press before Apple got a chance to fix the bug. Put simply, CR went for a big headline to get attention.
    If they were testing cars and found that a particular model had wildly inconsistent fuel consumption results, would you expect CR to contact the manufacturer and work out the reason, or simply publish the results at tested?

    If they were testing ovens and found that the temperature of a particular model varied wildly from the selected value, do you think they should work with the manufacturer on figuring out why, or publish what their tests measured?

    If they were testing amplifiers and found the the power output varied from test to test, would you consider the results invalid if they didn't contact the manufacturer to figure out why?

    It's not CR's job to solve manufacturing problems. They test what hits the streets and report their results. It's ridiculous to assert that they should have consulted with Apple. Why would they do that in this case when they never have before and it's completely outside the scope of what they do?

    I understand the argument that the testing methodology unintentionally "activated" an obscure bug that may not affect most actual users, but not that CR did something wrong. First, the testing method is the same for everybody, and only Apple's product reacted badly to it. Second, CR's job is "test and report," not "test, provide supplier chance to provide better sample, retest, reconsult manufacturer, retest, report only when results satisfy the product's fans."

    There is definitely some prejudice affecting opinions here, with advocates and apologists suggesting that Apple was victimized by not being afforded special consideration that's never been extended to anyone else. It's illogical.

    BTW, to be clear, I'm not critical of Apple in this matter. I'm just saying people's expectations of CR are unreasonable.

    If, Consumer Reports were testing a car, and were getting wildly inconsistent fuel consumption results that were not being reported by people using the same model of car, then yes I would expect them to contact the manufacturer.

    If they were testing ovens, and found the temperature of a particular model varied wildly from the selected value, and there weren't reports of people either getting their roasts burnt, or coming out raw on different attempts, then yes I would expect them to try and find out why.

    And so on...

    It's not CR's job to solve manufacturing problems, it is, however, their job to make sure the results they get are representative of the real world, which their tests weren't. None of the reports from end-users seemed to show the same kind of inconsistency that the CR results did.

  • Reply 40 of 51
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,473member
    Notsofast said:
    freeper said:
    dbeats said:
    Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?
    No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

    Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

    Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

    Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.
    Wow, you need some balance and objectivity.  I am CR long time subscriber, but you are glossing over their irresponsibility in rushing out test results to meet a deadline when their own results didn't make any sense. The responsible thing would have been to work with Apple to see if there was something in their testing methodology, (yes there was) or a bug somewhere (yes, as well) that was causing the anomalous (absurdly high battery life results as well).  Objectively, CR hurt its credibility on this as no responsible testing organization, getting these wildly inconsistent results, wouldn't have gone back to figure out the problem, but it was just too sexy of a title at that time of year for whoever made the decision to publish to resist.  They compounded their error by issuing a "no buy" recommendation.  Those of us who support CR are the ones most disappointed in their actions because we need organizations like CR to protect consumers and when they do something that damages their credibility, they undermine that role.  Sadly, many consumers who are more casual followers of CR have likely written them off. 
    Around 1973, CR said that the AMC Gremlin was the best subcompact made.   I bought one.   It was one of the worst cars ever made.   I'd say the worst, but there was a Ford car that would blow up if it was hit.   Everything that could possibly go wrong in a car went wrong in that car, EXCEPT for the air conditioner.   Valves, rings, wheel bearings, oil leaks, electrical shorts (horn starts honking by itself) and lots of other stuff I can no longer remember.  Even the piece of metal that held the seats up broke and I remember I had to jerry rig some kind of rod to keep them up.    I put as much into that stupid car as it cost to buy (which was only $3K, but that's $16,460 in 2017 dollars, which means it cost me the equivalent of $32K to own that car).   CR later apologized.   But I never trusted them again.   

    On the other hand, Apple has been getting really sloppy lately.   I have a brand new MBP and there are lots of annoyances that should not happen in a computer that costs $3K.  As for battery life, while I've never yet run it down to 0% as yet, it looks to me that it would never get more than eight hours.  At 5 hours, it's usually about 30-35%.  
Sign In or Register to comment.