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.
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.
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.
Um.. "No" what!? Care to elucidate?
I'd like to, but I'm not the person to explain how the scientific method and experimentation works if you don't understand that a single data point, especially one that can't be consistantly repeated within a margin of error is a fundamental issue that demands more extensive testing. Imagine if medicine worked this way.
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.
Um.. "No" what!? Care to elucidate?
I'd like to, but I'm the person to explain how the scientific method and experimentation works if you don't understand that a single data point, especially one that can't be consistantly repeated within a margin of error is a fundamental issue demands more extensive testing. Imagine if medicine worked this way.
Spoke with Apple Store today, I have until January 10th to return the MacBook Pro under my tree (that was bought 2 weeks ago) if battery sucks and I hate it
Spoke with Apple Store today, I have until January 10th to return the MacBook Pro under my tree (that was bought 2 weeks ago) if battery sucks and I hate it
To add to that:
"If an item was purchased between November 10 and December 25, 2016 you have until January 8, 2017 to return or exchange it. There's no fee to return a hardware gift, even if it's been opened, but Apple does ask that you include all cords, adapters, manuals, and the like in the original packaging."
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.
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.
So true!!! I even called up Apple before I bought my iPhone SE to see what they were doing about the problem Apple was having with the audio quality when the iPhone was paired with Bluetooth car audio systems. Apple reps claimed they never heard anything about it but was sure if there was a problem that Apple would solve it. Talk about blind faith! Thankfully Apple did release a software update that did fix the audio quality but not the fact that Bluetooth connectivity continues to drop when paired with your iPhone in your car.
"...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.
"Once our official testing was done, we experimented by conducting the same battery tests using a Chrome browser, rather than Safari. For this exercise, we ran two trials on each of the laptops, and found battery life to be consistently high on all six runs." - Consumer Reports
So basically this is a Safari browser performance issue which could be resolved with a software update. Or...
"For the battery test, we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down. The web pages are stored on a server in our lab, and transmitted over a WiFi network set up specifically for this purpose." - Consumer Reports
... It's an issue with the test webpages created by Consumer Reports.
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.
Um.. "No" what!? Care to elucidate?
I'd like to, but I'm not the person to explain how the scientific method and experimentation works if you don't understand that a single data point, especially one that can't be consistantly repeated within a margin of error is a fundamental issue that demands more extensive testing. Imagine if medicine worked this way.
It's not a single data point, it's many data points, with seven published usage results, based on three review units.
For instance, in a series of three consecutive tests, the 13-inch model with the Touch Bar ran for 16 hours in the first trial, 12.75 hours in the second, and just 3.75 hours in the third. The 13-inch model without the Touch Bar worked for 19.5 hours in one trial but only 4.5 hours in the next. And the numbers for the 15-inch laptop ranged from 18.5 down to 8 hours.
Those were just a few of the results; we tested battery life on these laptops repeatedly.
Imagine if medicine worked this way, with a medical trial producing wildly disparate, unpredictable results, and fans of the pharmaceutical company piling on and claiming the trial to be biased clickbait.
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.
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.
Thank you for this information. I read the contents of the websites you provided but it is nothing more than Apple's marketing literature. It says in the first website you provided ...up to 10 hours of battery life under certain conditions. I do not care about Apple's marketing. CR found a inconsistency which should be looked into. That's all. Quit defending blindly. There may be something here. Apple claims they have a 99% approval rating... then prove it. No salesmanship hype...real facts. Quit drawing the wagons around Apple. They are big boys now and have been for awhile. They do not need you to defend them. So just relax and let's see what comes of this.
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.
So true!!! I even called up Apple before I bought my iPhone SE to see what they were doing about the problem Apple was having with the audio quality when the iPhone was paired with Bluetooth car audio systems. Apple reps claimed they never heard anything about it but was sure if there was a problem that Apple would solve it. Talk about blind faith! Thankfully Apple did release a software update that did fix the audio quality but not the fact that Bluetooth connectivity continues to drop when paired with your iPhone in your car.
I have the same issue with my iPhone 6 pairing with my bluetooth car audio system. It is the nature of the technology. Bluetooth is just flaky... Not even Apple can cure this problem. I believe there are newer generations of bluetooth but how stable it is.??? I do not know.
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?
There are many, many reports out there complaining that the battery life is far less than what Apple promised. Real life usage is much different than Apple's lab tests.
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?
How? Page hits. That's what it is all about these days.
From my years in software development and testing, I'd never have publisted (even internally) a report with such variations. I'd go back and look at why there were such variations. Repeatbility is the name of the game. Then others can duplicate your results to validate them. This makes no claims as to the validity of the tests but just that here is a test method that done 'N' (where N is > 5) times gives these results. That said, all that takes time and money and effort and discipline. All of those are in short supply these days.
One nasty and convoluted software bug inside an Operating System Device Driver once took me close on 3 months to fix. The first 2.5 months were spent trying to replicate the problem in a reliable, repeatable and measurable way. Once that was done it was easy to apply various solutions to solve the problem until we got one that was rock solid. Only then did we commit the patch into the mainstream kernel. In latter years (pre 2001) we could not spend even 20% of that time fixing bugs. We had to apply a patch and let the users test it for us. Nothing has changed since. Probably got worse.
Or you know, the more likely reason is that there legitimately is an issue with the battery. This is CR not BGR. But hey we can pretend that there are no issues and call it a day.
My guess is they ran one test using Safari and the others using Chrome. Chrome seems act like an application with a memory leak. Just my 2 cents. It really makes no sense since Apple has dominated battery life in laptops for years and I mean years.
Except that this isn't the first report of battery life not being as great on the new MacBook Pros.
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.
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.
Thank you for this information. I read the contents of the websites you provided but it is nothing more than Apple's marketing literature. It says in the first website you provided ...up to 10 hours of battery life under certain conditions. I do not care about Apple's marketing. CR found a inconsistency which should be looked into. That's all. Quit defending blindly. There may be something here. Apple claims they have a 99% approval rating... then prove it. No salesmanship hype...real facts. Quit drawing the wagons around Apple. They are big boys now and have been for awhile. They do not need you to defend them. So just relax and let's see what comes of this.
I don't defend anything blindly. I'm just exposing one single objective fact: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. That's it.
Your brain may be relaxed enough to fill in the blanks. The mine is not.
Thursday I get to work, flip open my new 15" MBP+TB, and notice two things: 1. I'm at 66% battery after working a few hours the previous evening and 2. I forgot my charger at home.
So, I tell my staff I will probably leave work early when my battery dies, and finish up the day from home. What ended up happening? I went home at 5:00 with 10% remaining. I had two mail clients, Safari, Terminal and Xcode open pretty much all day.
There is so far only one thing I've found which will burn through battery like a fat kid through cake: Windows 10 running in VMWare Fusion. I avoided that one on Thursday.
Consumer Reports is not into the "clickbait" thing. Also, they have no reason to target the MacBook Pro, which accounts for a very small percentage of PC sales. Note: this same fact is cited by an oped "No, Apple did not switch to USB-C on its new MacBook Pros to profit from dongle & adapter sales" down the page which points out that Apple switching to USB Type C on MacBooks is not some profiteering on accessories scheme with stating "Apple's best quarter ever for the Mac was the September 2015 frame, when the company sold 5.7 million computers."
You may find fault with Consumer Reports' testing methodology, but the important thing to remember is that they use the same methodology to test devices from all manufacturers. Suggesting they adopt Apple's methodology for testing Apple devices or have Apple play a role in designing the test for them A) gives Apple an advantage that other manufacturers do not enjoy and would not necessarily be helpful in identifying something that Apple may have missed due to flaws in their own QA program, "tunnel vision" etc. I will state that Consumer Reports' methodology is not that different from the "benchmarking" tests that I see on a lot of sites. Add that to the fact that Consumer Reports is hardly a tech site i.e. AnandTech, so their testing is going to be more "general purpose" geared to the needs and use cases of the average user, just as they are not Motor Trend when it comes to their car reviews. AnandTech, ComputerWorld, Tom's Hardware etc. probably would have followed up the Safari tests with a bunch of different tests on a variety of applications, but that isn't really Consumer Reports' job.
And yes, this is likely a software issue as opposed to a hardware issue. Consumer Reports' own review stated as much, and also stated that they are going to revise it later when the software issue is fixed. And as the notorious resource hog and bug magnet "platform-as-a-browser" application Chrome gave better results than Safari, then the problem is almost certainly Safari itself. Do not pretend as if Safari hasn't been a huge headache for years. Apple will release a patch for Safari to resolve this issue - or a patch in the OS that addresses whatever is causing the issue with Safari - Consumer Reports will revise the review and all this will be forgotten. If it takes more than a week, it will only be because everyone is on Christmas vacation.
So no conspiracies, no nefarious attempt by Consumer Reports to undermine Apple or make money. (Funny, none of these accusations are made when these same companies give Apple good reviews and good PR ... and when they give bad reviews and PR to Microsoft, Samsung and the other competition.) This is just yet another "Apple PLEASE do something about Safari" in a long line of them. And please improve iTunes while you are at it.
CR is very well into the clickbait thing as it sells visitors' data to advertisers and "doesn't recommend" brings always more clicks than "recommends" in regard to famous brands. Their vague statements about tests, their avoidance to give any meaningful description of these tests ("download ten pages" is not a test and would not exhaust the battery) shows that this time CR is caught with dirty hands. They may be "hardly a tech site" but measuring a battery performance is still a tech issue which should be done under proper engineering rules, they cannot escape with that statement...
You apparently know nothing at all about Consumer Reports. You should take at least a few minutes to verify what you're guessing they do before pronouncing it as fact. In that specific post of yours case I couldn't find a fact in there.
You really should be more careful not to mislead casual visitors. That's how FUD gets spread. Our regulars are probably more well-read and realized how incorrect you were.
I'd like to, but I'm not the person to explain how the scientific method and experimentation works if you don't understand that a single data point, especially one that can't be consistantly repeated within a margin of error is a fundamental issue that demands more extensive testing. Imagine if medicine worked this way.
It's not a single data point, it's many data points, with seven published usage results, based on three review units.
This weird notion that because the casing has a similar looks means the internals are the same needs to STOP. That's three different products each with different components. These are different machines and any one of them could have a CPU or GPU issue, or some other component issue that either isn't carried over to all the machines with the same east ethic casing design or because it's configured on the uniquely designed logic board in a new way.
Imagine if medicine worked this way, with a medical trial producing wildly disparate, unpredictable results, and fans of the pharmaceutical company piling on and claiming the trial to be biased clickbait.
Medicine doens't work that way. There is no one test subject. Neither does statistical analysis. As I've stated to every one that creates an account on this website to bitch about some obscure issue they have, if it's manufacturer's defect, then take the damn thing back. This shit happens! Sometimes it's HW, other times it's SW. This existed before Cook and will exist long after Cook, too, so you can also check anti-Apple/anti-Cook comments at the door about this never would've happened if Steve were alive.
Comments
Do you work for Apple?
So true!!! I even called up Apple before I bought my iPhone SE to see what they were doing about the problem Apple was having with the audio quality when the iPhone was paired with Bluetooth car audio systems. Apple reps claimed they never heard anything about it but was sure if there was a problem that Apple would solve it. Talk about blind faith! Thankfully Apple did release a software update that did fix the audio quality but not the fact that Bluetooth connectivity continues to drop when paired with your iPhone in your car.
So basically this is a Safari browser performance issue which could be resolved with a software update. Or...
"For the battery test, we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down. The web pages are stored on a server in our lab, and transmitted over a WiFi network set up specifically for this purpose." - Consumer Reports
... It's an issue with the test webpages created by Consumer Reports.
Your brain may be relaxed enough to fill in the blanks. The mine is not.
A consistent under say four hours would be a bad battery issue. But that wild swing? An issue somewhere but not hardware aka "the battery".
1. I'm at 66% battery after working a few hours the previous evening
and
2. I forgot my charger at home.
So, I tell my staff I will probably leave work early when my battery dies, and finish up the day from home. What ended up happening? I went home at 5:00 with 10% remaining. I had two mail clients, Safari, Terminal and Xcode open pretty much all day.
There is so far only one thing I've found which will burn through battery like a fat kid through cake: Windows 10 running in VMWare Fusion. I avoided that one on Thursday.
You really should be more careful not to mislead casual visitors. That's how FUD gets spread. Our regulars are probably more well-read and realized how incorrect you were.
Medicine doens't work that way. There is no one test subject. Neither does statistical analysis. As I've stated to every one that creates an account on this website to bitch about some obscure issue they have, if it's manufacturer's defect, then take the damn thing back. This shit happens! Sometimes it's HW, other times it's SW. This existed before Cook and will exist long after Cook, too, so you can also check anti-Apple/anti-Cook comments at the door about this never would've happened if Steve were alive.