Apple working with Consumer Reports on MacBook Pro battery findings, says Phil Schiller

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 147
    MplsP said:
    "...the publication's results are not in line with Apple's own "extensive lab tests or field data..."

    I'm not sure what field tests Apple has done, but there are tons or reports/complaints of poor battery life. it's pretty clear that there is an issue with the machines, whether it's software or hardware based is still up for debate. Either way I'm sticking with my Mid-2011 MacBook air. I still get 3 hours of battery life on it, which is just as good as half the people are getting with their brand new MacBook Pros. I really can't disagree with Consumer Reports - I wouldn't advise buying one of these either.
    That's right, you're not sure of what field tests Apple does. Rest assured, they don't do nothing and just sit around after designing and building a notebook.

    Links to the tons of complaints? Reviews I've read have been positive.
    edited December 2016 macplusplusbrucemcpulseimages
  • Reply 62 of 147

    voodooru said:
    I miss Steve. 

    Tim's too busy doing exclusive ABC interviews to repeat the same boring 'we're great' corporate lines. 

    Poor Phil has to do work during holiday week. 

    Maybe more attention to detail before release?? Ya'know... what Apple is actually famous for. 

    Working with CR??? How the mighty have taken a bruising! Not to mention looking to hire battery experts. One would think Apple had that under control with over two decades of laptop experience. 

    What nonsense. I find it absurd that you take CR's technical expertise to be more reliable than actual engineers at Apple.
    macplusplusbrucemcpulseimagesfarjamedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 147

    Damage control!
    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.
    brucemcpulseimagesmacplusplusRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 147

    hucom2000 said:
    Here's two cents from someone who owned at 15" 2016 MBP for a shy two weeks and returned it.

    I both agree that the CR test was probably not done with due diligence and these MBPs actually have a battery/software problem. I have posted my experience early on and was questioned about my setup when I complained about getting 3-5 hours max when only working in Mail and Safari.

    I don't know if gfxCardStatus displays proper findings on these new machines, but my machine was constantly switching between integrated and discrete - even when just browsing the web. Why? No idea. Now I'm thinking animated adds, maybe? Adds change all the time on websites. Maybe Apple used controlled websites for testing, while CR used real-world websites? Honestly, I have no idea...

    The point is, that I'm glad about my decision not to be a guinea pig. My advice is to wait until Apple has figured out what's wrong with these machines.

    While this CR sucks for Apple, maybe some good will come of it: Apple will try harder once again.
    I find it so odd that you assume CR is right, when no other review site had such problems or experiences.
    pulseimagesmacpluspluswatto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 147
    pentae said:
    This is what happens when you assign your best Mac and OSX engineers over to iPhone and iOS.

    Apple are now a phone company that make computers. Get used to it.

    Why is it you assume CR tests are not malfunctioning? Who's a more reliable systems builder -- Apple, or CR scripters?
    brucemcpulseimagesmacpluspluswatto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 147
    Sure, there is a software issue.  They'll fix it.

    What I found shocking is the battery hit from the Touch Bar.  A 20% battery hit?  What junk!  No one should buy that model!

    What this means is everyone should buying the heavily discounted old model.
     Your post has a lot of "Funny" votes. I think we're seeing a new forum behavior -- "You're funny!" to nonsense.
    pulseimagesmacplusplusfarjamedRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 67 of 147

    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    Do they just buy a single MBP for their testing?
    How many should they buy?
    Exactly. This is a consumer magazine and their testing should reflect the experience Joe Public could get. That means buying a machine from the retail channel, putting it through its paces and reporting the results.

    There is no need to buy a spread of machines to see if some vary in test results from others.

    If testing was skewed or wrong in some way that can be looked into and corrected on the same machine.

    Apple can examine the machine in question and the testing that was done. If the machine is deemed to have some kind of problem, it should be reported with absolute transparency and the magazine should go out and purchase another random unit and retest it.

    If the testing itself is deemed to be flawed and the magazine agrees that that is the case, then they can retest everything having eliminated the testing flaw and present new results.

    I'm glad Phil is taking care of his hens in such a proactive way. I can't remember any product that has had him come out publicly to defend on so many occasions.
    When there are so many BS publications trolling them constantly, what do you expect? He's head of marketing, cutting down the BS is part of his job.
    pulseimagesmacpluspluswatto_cobra
  • Reply 68 of 147

    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Soli said:
    Do they just buy a single MBP for their testing?
    They bought two machines: a 13-inch and a 15-inch model. Ideally they should have bought two of each, but I'm not sure it would have made a difference in this case. 
    How would two of each help? What if one pair had shown inconsistent results, the other consistent? Get a third, tie-breaker pair? 

    The only relevant question is, did they do anything differently in this front then what they have done in the past with Apple and non-Apple products in these types of tests. Everything else is cherry-picking or sour-graping the results of the tests. 

    Okay, let me introduce you to a little testing methodology I like to call 'leaving no stone unturned'. With the internet and its mum screaming that every other Macbook Pro has a failing battery, then I would have bought two machines of each configuration to make sure that I wasn't looking at a hardware problem. If I'm seeing the same problem with the same test on all machines, then chances are we're looking at a problem with the software. If some of the machines behave normally and one or two of the mentions exhibit the odd behaviour, then I would be leaning towards a problem with the hardware. 

    I would also check memory while the test is running, but unlike you, I've tested hardware/software combinations before. If I see results that don't make sense, I try a second machine to make sure I'm not dealing with dodgy hardware, especially if I've run the same tests on other configuration  It saves a lot of time. And also, unlike you, I wouldn't count their second laptop, which happens to be a completely different configuration, as the second hardware check machine. Two machines of each type; that's what I would go with.

    As for 'cherry-picking' and 'sour-graping'? I think you're mistaking that for people asking for more details of CR's methodology. Their first run recorded a battery life much higher than anything else recorded for this laptop. Rather than saying 'Wow, this laptop can go for 18 hours', the sour-grapers are saying, 'That sounds a bit high.' 

    What I suspect will happen is that this problem will be traced to a bug in the software (and since this doesn't seem to happen with Chrome then it looks like Safari might be the culprit) that Apple will fix.  What people are hoping for is that the test will show a problem with the hardware, which they somehow think will cause Apple to have a hallelujah moment and start making making laptops bristling with legacy ports and a battery the size of an aircraft carrier.


    You can leave as many stones turned or unturned as you want, but it's irrelevant. Are you implying that CR should do special testing for Apple? Why? Do you have any evidence that they test other products in the way you suggest? C'mon.

    Their test replicates a real world case where a typical consumer buys one randomly and uses it. Period. They're not a very wealthy publication (they might even be a non-profit, for all I know), they don't even accept ads. Cut them a little slack. There are a number of idiots posting here making all sorts of claims about these guys looking for bribes, looking for clickbait, etc. That's offensive nonsense.

    If the problem is a SW problem, great. Apple should -- and will -- fix it. I am not "hoping for" anything other than: (i) If it's not a problem to begin with, let find out that it's not; (ii) It it's a problem, then let it get fixed. End of story.
    No -- it's entirely possible that a random purchaser, including CR, could get a defective unit. Obviously, that's why you would buy more than one machine for published tests. The point of the testing is to yield results for the typical consumer, which excludes a random hardware fail, thus running tests on more than one set of equipment. Pretty obvious stuff, really.
    edited December 2016 SolianantksundaramroundaboutnowpulseimagesmacpluspluschiaRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 69 of 147
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,013member
    As we approach then end of yet another year of Apple failing to fail I want to wish everyone happy holidays and a happy new year. Who knows, maybe the haters will get their wish in 2017 but I wouldn’t count on it. A 2016 salute to forty years of Apple failure and irrelevance!
    StrangeDaysSolimacpluspluspscooter63quadra 610pulseimagesbrucemcfarjamedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 147
    One of these days lkrupp said:
    As we approach then end of yet another year of Apple failing to fail I want to wish everyone happy holidays and a happy new year. Who knows, maybe the haters will get their wish in 2017 but I wouldn’t count on it. A 2016 salute to forty years of Apple failure and irrelevance!
    One of these days they'll just need to accept the fact that they suck, can't innovate, and are beaten by almost every competitor in each of the multiple sectors they build in, and consumers hate them. Oops, the opposite of that is true.
    Soliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 71 of 147
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Soli said:
    Do they just buy a single MBP for their testing?
    They bought two machines: a 13-inch and a 15-inch model. Ideally they should have bought two of each, but I'm not sure it would have made a difference in this case. 
    How would two of each help? What if one pair had shown inconsistent results, the other consistent? Get a third, tie-breaker pair? 

    The only relevant question is, did they do anything differently in this front then what they have done in the past with Apple and non-Apple products in these types of tests. Everything else is cherry-picking or sour-graping the results of the tests. 

    Okay, let me introduce you to a little testing methodology I like to call 'leaving no stone unturned'. With the internet and its mum screaming that every other Macbook Pro has a failing battery, then I would have bought two machines of each configuration to make sure that I wasn't looking at a hardware problem. If I'm seeing the same problem with the same test on all machines, then chances are we're looking at a problem with the software. If some of the machines behave normally and one or two of the mentions exhibit the odd behaviour, then I would be leaning towards a problem with the hardware. 

    I would also check memory while the test is running, but unlike you, I've tested hardware/software combinations before. If I see results that don't make sense, I try a second machine to make sure I'm not dealing with dodgy hardware, especially if I've run the same tests on other configuration  It saves a lot of time. And also, unlike you, I wouldn't count their second laptop, which happens to be a completely different configuration, as the second hardware check machine. Two machines of each type; that's what I would go with.

    As for 'cherry-picking' and 'sour-graping'? I think you're mistaking that for people asking for more details of CR's methodology. Their first run recorded a battery life much higher than anything else recorded for this laptop. Rather than saying 'Wow, this laptop can go for 18 hours', the sour-grapers are saying, 'That sounds a bit high.' 

    What I suspect will happen is that this problem will be traced to a bug in the software (and since this doesn't seem to happen with Chrome then it looks like Safari might be the culprit) that Apple will fix.  What people are hoping for is that the test will show a problem with the hardware, which they somehow think will cause Apple to have a hallelujah moment and start making making laptops bristling with legacy ports and a battery the size of an aircraft carrier.


    You can leave as many stones turned or unturned as you want, but it's irrelevant. Are you implying that CR should do special testing for Apple? Why? Do you have any evidence that they test other products in the way you suggest? C'mon.

    Their test replicates a real world case where a typical consumer buys one randomly and uses it. Period. They're not a very wealthy publication (they might even be a non-profit, for all I know), they don't even accept ads. Cut them a little slack. There are a number of idiots posting here making all sorts of claims about these guys looking for bribes, looking for clickbait, etc. That's offensive nonsense.

    If the problem is a SW problem, great. Apple should -- and will -- fix it. I am not "hoping for" anything other than: (i) If it's not a problem to begin with, let find out that it's not; (ii) It it's a problem, then let it get fixed. End of story.
    No.
    macplusplusanantksundarambrucemcRayz2016
  • Reply 72 of 147
    adamcadamc Posts: 582member

    I am curious how many pay attention to CR.  I have never bothered and have had great results with what I use.
    Judging from the reactions here and elsewhere -- not to mention attracting the attention of Apple itself -- I guess plenty of people do. The fact that you "have never bothered" amounts to one data point that's neither here nor there.

    Yes I paid top dollars to buy a MacBook Pro to use safari and nothing else.

    If they had tested the MacBook Pro with other applications then I am more of a believer other than that should believe what they had tested.

    Yes Schiller should not be so defensive and let the trolls enjoy their day in the sun.../s



    pulseimageswatto_cobra
  • Reply 73 of 147
    adamcadamc Posts: 582member


    I am curious how many pay attention to CR.  I have never bothered and have had great results with what I use.
    Judging from the reactions here and elsewhere -- not to mention attracting the attention of Apple itself -- I guess plenty of people do. The fact that you "have never bothered" amounts to one data point that's neither here nor there.
    Interesting to see that you are so defensive of CR.

    Do you work for them?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 74 of 147
    Notsofast said:
    Sure, there is a software issue.  They'll fix it.

    What I found shocking is the battery hit from the Touch Bar.  A 20% battery hit?  What junk!  No one should buy that model!

    What this means is everyone should buying the heavily discounted old model.
    Too late.  Millions already have and, along with most reviewers, they report loving it.  I love mine and am getting 7 to 11 hours consistently.   What should we do now oh great swami?
    Congratulations.  If you want a Mac you'll buy a Mac.  The question is which one?  The Touch Bar was main innovation 2016 vs 2015, and it already had questionable value.  It may be good eventually, but right now people are beta testers.  Why the heck would you buy something that is considerably more expensive that gives significantly worse battery life? Something is fundamentally wrong if it's causing more than a 5% battery hit. (I'm talking just about the Touch Bar)

    The "Great Swami" says buy the 2015 for the best value.  If you want the latest tech but battery life is important buy the 2016 non Touch Bar version.

    Personally, I'd buy a souped up 2015 and wait until they fix the 2016 version (probably 2017/18).
    roundaboutnowpscooter63pulseimages
  • Reply 75 of 147
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    The Touch Bar was main innovation 2016 vs 2015
    No it wasn't.
    pulseimageschiawatto_cobra
  • Reply 76 of 147
    Sure, there is a software issue.  They'll fix it.

    What I found shocking is the battery hit from the Touch Bar.  A 20% battery hit?  What junk!  No one should buy that model!

    What this means is everyone should buying the heavily discounted old model.
    That 20% battery hit from the Touch Bar... Any link for that? Other than that questionable CR report...

    Regarding the slightly better battery performance of 13" w/o Touch Bar as claimed in that report, the single fan is more effective on the battery life than the Touch Bar. Touch Bar essentially belongs to a low power realm (iOS devices) and cannot have so much impact on the battery of a MBP. But the machine it resides in has two fans, that have a more powerful impact on the battery life. So don't blame the Touch Bar unnecessarily. The difference in battery performance, if any, is caused by the architectural differences between the two 13" models, including CPU and RAM speeds, the number of TB3 ports, and obviously, the number of fans and battery capacity (54.5 Wh vs 49.2 Wh in Touch Bar model)

    Touch Bar is a real innovation as it brings Apple Pay and Touch ID the first time to a computer, besides its value as a UI enhancement.
    edited December 2016 watto_cobra
  • Reply 77 of 147
    I am glad this has happened. Apple can not ignore these test results from Consumer Reports. Whenever I have made a claim about an Apple product to AppleCare, they seem to express the claim as a surprise. "We never heard this before" is always their initial response. I am concerned because Apple will try to discredit CR then try and solve the problem. I do not trust Schiller... he is in charge of marketing hence "the cover up."  Sorry, Tim Cook should be addressing this issue.
    pulseimagesbrucemcmacplusplusfarjamedRayz2016
  • Reply 78 of 147
    I guess this is as good a place as any...

    Happy Holidays, everyone!   :)
    anantksundarampscooter63
  • Reply 79 of 147
    I am glad this has happened. Apple can not ignore these test results from Consumer Reports. Whenever I have made a claim about an Apple product to AppleCare, they seem to express the claim as a surprise. "We never heard this before" is always their initial response. I am concerned because Apple will try to discredit CR then try and solve the problem. I do not trust Schiller... he is in charge of marketing hence "the cover up."  Sorry, Tim Cook should be addressing this issue.
    ... If there is an issue at all. Apple can clearly describe the tests the battery estimations are based on. CR cannot clearly explain their tests. And this is all this article is about.

    Here are Apple's explanations. Footnote #2 quoted below :
    http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/
    1. ...
    2. Testing conducted by Apple in October 2016 using preproduction 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with a 256GB SSD and 8GB of RAM (wireless web test, iTunes movie playback test, and standby test). Testing conducted by Apple in October 2016 using preproduction 2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with a 512GB SSD and 8GB of RAM (wireless web test and iTunes movie playback test) and preproduction 2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i5-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with a 256GB SSD and 8GB of RAM (standby test). The wireless web test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing 25 popular websites with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%. The iTunes movie playback test measures battery life by playing back HD 1080p content with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%. The standby test measures battery life by allowing a system, connected to a wireless network and signed in to an iCloud account, to enter standby mode with Safari and Mail applications launched and all system settings left at default. Battery life varies by use and configuration. See www.apple.com/batteries for more information.
    edited December 2016 roundaboutnowpscooter63pulseimagesjumpcutterRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 80 of 147

    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Soli said:
    Do they just buy a single MBP for their testing?
    They bought two machines: a 13-inch and a 15-inch model. Ideally they should have bought two of each, but I'm not sure it would have made a difference in this case. 
    How would two of each help? What if one pair had shown inconsistent results, the other consistent? Get a third, tie-breaker pair? 

    The only relevant question is, did they do anything differently in this front then what they have done in the past with Apple and non-Apple products in these types of tests. Everything else is cherry-picking or sour-graping the results of the tests. 

    Okay, let me introduce you to a little testing methodology I like to call 'leaving no stone unturned'. With the internet and its mum screaming that every other Macbook Pro has a failing battery, then I would have bought two machines of each configuration to make sure that I wasn't looking at a hardware problem. If I'm seeing the same problem with the same test on all machines, then chances are we're looking at a problem with the software. If some of the machines behave normally and one or two of the mentions exhibit the odd behaviour, then I would be leaning towards a problem with the hardware. 

    I would also check memory while the test is running, but unlike you, I've tested hardware/software combinations before. If I see results that don't make sense, I try a second machine to make sure I'm not dealing with dodgy hardware, especially if I've run the same tests on other configuration  It saves a lot of time. And also, unlike you, I wouldn't count their second laptop, which happens to be a completely different configuration, as the second hardware check machine. Two machines of each type; that's what I would go with.

    As for 'cherry-picking' and 'sour-graping'? I think you're mistaking that for people asking for more details of CR's methodology. Their first run recorded a battery life much higher than anything else recorded for this laptop. Rather than saying 'Wow, this laptop can go for 18 hours', the sour-grapers are saying, 'That sounds a bit high.' 

    What I suspect will happen is that this problem will be traced to a bug in the software (and since this doesn't seem to happen with Chrome then it looks like Safari might be the culprit) that Apple will fix.  What people are hoping for is that the test will show a problem with the hardware, which they somehow think will cause Apple to have a hallelujah moment and start making making laptops bristling with legacy ports and a battery the size of an aircraft carrier.


    You can leave as many stones turned or unturned as you want, but it's irrelevant. Are you implying that CR should do special testing for Apple? Why? Do you have any evidence that they test other products in the way you suggest? C'mon.

    Their test replicates a real world case where a typical consumer buys one randomly and uses it. Period. They're not a very wealthy publication (they might even be a non-profit, for all I know), they don't even accept ads. Cut them a little slack. There are a number of idiots posting here making all sorts of claims about these guys looking for bribes, looking for clickbait, etc. That's offensive nonsense.

    If the problem is a SW problem, great. Apple should -- and will -- fix it. I am not "hoping for" anything other than: (i) If it's not a problem to begin with, let find out that it's not; (ii) It it's a problem, then let it get fixed. End of story.
    No -- it's entirely possible that a random purchaser, including CR, could get a defective unit. Obviously, that's why you would buy more than one machine for published tests. The point of the testing is to yield results for the typical consumer, which excludes a random hardware fail, thus running tests on more than one set of equipment. Pretty obvious stuff, really.
    The only obvious thing is that you failed to understand the gist of my post. 
    pulseimagesbrucemcRayz2016
Sign In or Register to comment.