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.
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.
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 ??
I guess Apple didn't care about user complaints/issues about the MBP battery life. But when a major publication like CR has the same issues and doesn't recommend the MBP, then Apple jumps right to it!
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.
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.
I've been involved with verification & validation testing (V&V) of products and systems for more than 30 years and I have no problem with conducting what I would call "informal customer usage scenarios" in addition to formal V&V testing because they can and often do uncover issues that escape more formal forms of controlled lab-based testing to avoid the "you're not supposed to use it that way" absurdity. Not that I don't trust testers, but I've seen testers develop very bad tests on occasion and sometimes a little less control and formality outside of the engineering lab is a good thing. Heck, I'd even encourage a bit of "zoo monkey" testing in addition to controlled testing, but only if the actions of the zoo monkey can be repeated. Additionally, beta testing has its place as long as your beta testers are trustworthy. I suspect Apple's highly secretive nature surrounding new product releases dissuades them from doing much external beta testing with customer representative applications outside of their own labs.
The complex nature of a multitasking and multifunctional operating system like macOS and iOS coupled with equally complex applications like Safari or MS Office means that realistically, due to the nature of probability and statistics, some issues that could have been caught during testing are going to leak out into the field despite how much testing you perform prior to release. It's going to happen but companies like Apple who care about their customers are going to address the issue and make it right. Such is life in the new product development domain. If you can't live with this reality - consider farming, crab fishing, or accounting.
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.
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 listed my facts: "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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
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 listed my facts: "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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
Did you actually read their report? I suspect you did not. They tested Apple's new MacBook batteries with the same procedure they use for all their other laptop battery tests, and described here.
"Battery Testing Details
Consumer Reports tests hundreds of laptops each year, using identical procedures in highly controlled conditions.
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. We conduct our battery tests using the computer’s default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops.
During the tests, we set each laptop screen to remain on. We use an external meter to set the display brightness to 100 nits—a typical level you might use indoors or out. And, we turn off any automatic brightness adjustment in the laptop’s settings.
We also update every computer's operating system before we begin any testing. We began our tests several weeks ago, but repeated the battery tests using macOS Sierra 10.12.2 after it was released. We saw no difference in the results.
Increasingly, we see that the performance of all kinds of products—not just computers and smartphones—can be influenced by software updates. If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests.
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. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.
Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates."
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 listed my facts: "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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
Did you actually read their report? I suspect you did not. They tested Apple's new MacBook batteries with the same procedure they use for all their other laptop battery tests, and described here.
"Battery Testing Details
Consumer Reports tests hundreds of laptops each year, using identical procedures in highly controlled conditions.
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. We conduct our battery tests using the computer’s default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops.
During the tests, we set each laptop screen to remain on. We use an external meter to set the display brightness to 100 nits—a typical level you might use indoors or out. And, we turn off any automatic brightness adjustment in the laptop’s settings.
We also update every computer's operating system before we begin any testing. We began our tests several weeks ago, but repeated the battery tests using macOS Sierra 10.12.2 after it was released. We saw no difference in the results.
Increasingly, we see that the performance of all kinds of products—not just computers and smartphones—can be influenced by software updates. If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests.
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. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.
Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates."
And I say that "we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down" is not a test and how the download of 10 pages would exhaust a laptop battery needs further explanation.
There is only one explanation based on the word "sequentially": they've set up a scripted loop that downloads those 10 pages over and over until the battery gets depleted. Of course an infinite loop can deplete battery. How that fits into the definition of "real world usage", I leave to your consideration.
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 listed my facts: "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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
Did you actually read their report? I suspect you did not. They tested Apple's new MacBook batteries with the same procedure they use for all their other laptop battery tests, and described here.
"Battery Testing Details
Consumer Reports tests hundreds of laptops each year, using identical procedures in highly controlled conditions.
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. We conduct our battery tests using the computer’s default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops.
During the tests, we set each laptop screen to remain on. We use an external meter to set the display brightness to 100 nits—a typical level you might use indoors or out. And, we turn off any automatic brightness adjustment in the laptop’s settings.
We also update every computer's operating system before we begin any testing. We began our tests several weeks ago, but repeated the battery tests using macOS Sierra 10.12.2 after it was released. We saw no difference in the results.
Increasingly, we see that the performance of all kinds of products—not just computers and smartphones—can be influenced by software updates. If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests.
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. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.
Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates."
And I say that "we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down" is not a test and how the download of 10 pages would exhaust a laptop battery needs further explanation.
There is only one explanation based on the word "sequentially": they've set up a scripted loop that downloads those 10 pages over and over until the battery gets depleted. Of course an infinite loop can deplete battery. How that fits into the definition of "real world usage", I leave to your consideration.
It's not that hard to admit you were wrong.
So since it's now settled that you were not familiar with CS, their historically consistent independence, or their battery test procedures, are you suggesting that the testing that's used for all other laptops (including the likelihood of previously released Apple products) should be changed for this new Macbook series? Personally I'd lean towards some specific MacBook software-coding issue since I don't see much in the way of complaints about flawed battery tests with any other tested laptop, do you? Particularly so as the MacBook results were more consistent with Chrome as the browser instead of the default Safari, which screams software IMHO.
CS should be commended for approaching Apple and inviting them to look over the test results in detail. Apple should get kudos for accepting the invite.
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 listed my facts: "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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
Did you actually read their report? I suspect you did not. They tested Apple's new MacBook batteries with the same procedure they use for all their other laptop battery tests, and described here.
"Battery Testing Details
Consumer Reports tests hundreds of laptops each year, using identical procedures in highly controlled conditions.
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. We conduct our battery tests using the computer’s default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops.
During the tests, we set each laptop screen to remain on. We use an external meter to set the display brightness to 100 nits—a typical level you might use indoors or out. And, we turn off any automatic brightness adjustment in the laptop’s settings.
We also update every computer's operating system before we begin any testing. We began our tests several weeks ago, but repeated the battery tests using macOS Sierra 10.12.2 after it was released. We saw no difference in the results.
Increasingly, we see that the performance of all kinds of products—not just computers and smartphones—can be influenced by software updates. If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests.
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. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.
Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates."
And I say that "we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down" is not a test and how the download of 10 pages would exhaust a laptop battery needs further explanation.
There is only one explanation based on the word "sequentially": they've set up a scripted loop that downloads those 10 pages over and over until the battery gets depleted. Of course an infinite loop can deplete battery. How that fits into the definition of "real world usage", I leave to your consideration.
It's definitely a test. No question about it. It might not be the best but if they subject every laptop to the same procedure, Apple should be looking at the results. It's what they are doing.
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 listed my facts: "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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
Did you actually read their report? I suspect you did not. They tested Apple's new MacBook batteries with the same procedure they use for all their other laptop battery tests, and described here.
"Battery Testing Details
Consumer Reports tests hundreds of laptops each year, using identical procedures in highly controlled conditions.
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. We conduct our battery tests using the computer’s default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops.
During the tests, we set each laptop screen to remain on. We use an external meter to set the display brightness to 100 nits—a typical level you might use indoors or out. And, we turn off any automatic brightness adjustment in the laptop’s settings.
We also update every computer's operating system before we begin any testing. We began our tests several weeks ago, but repeated the battery tests using macOS Sierra 10.12.2 after it was released. We saw no difference in the results.
Increasingly, we see that the performance of all kinds of products—not just computers and smartphones—can be influenced by software updates. If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests.
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. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.
Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates."
And I say that "we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down" is not a test and how the download of 10 pages would exhaust a laptop battery needs further explanation.
There is only one explanation based on the word "sequentially": they've set up a scripted loop that downloads those 10 pages over and over until the battery gets depleted. Of course an infinite loop can deplete battery. How that fits into the definition of "real world usage", I leave to your consideration.
So since it's now settled that you did not understood CS and the their procedures are you suggesting that the testing that's used for all other laptops (including the likelihood of previously released Apple products) should be changeed for this Apple new Macbook? Personally I'd lean towards some specific MacBook software issue since I don't see much in the way of complaints about flawed battery tests with any other tested laptop, do you? Particularly so as the MacBook results were more consistent with Chrome as the browser instead of the default Safari.
Stop pushing yourself to your limits and answer my question: Is downloading 10 pages "sequentially" real-world usage or not?
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 listed my facts: "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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
Did you actually read their report? I suspect you did not. They tested Apple's new MacBook batteries with the same procedure they use for all their other laptop battery tests, and described here.
"Battery Testing Details
Consumer Reports tests hundreds of laptops each year, using identical procedures in highly controlled conditions.
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. We conduct our battery tests using the computer’s default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops.
During the tests, we set each laptop screen to remain on. We use an external meter to set the display brightness to 100 nits—a typical level you might use indoors or out. And, we turn off any automatic brightness adjustment in the laptop’s settings.
We also update every computer's operating system before we begin any testing. We began our tests several weeks ago, but repeated the battery tests using macOS Sierra 10.12.2 after it was released. We saw no difference in the results.
Increasingly, we see that the performance of all kinds of products—not just computers and smartphones—can be influenced by software updates. If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests.
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. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.
Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates."
And I say that "we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down" is not a test and how the download of 10 pages would exhaust a laptop battery needs further explanation.
There is only one explanation based on the word "sequentially": they've set up a scripted loop that downloads those 10 pages over and over until the battery gets depleted. Of course an infinite loop can deplete battery. How that fits into the definition of "real world usage", I leave to your consideration.
So since it's now settled that you did not understood CS and the their procedures are you suggesting that the testing that's used for all other laptops (including the likelihood of previously released Apple products) should be changeed for this Apple new Macbook? Personally I'd lean towards some specific MacBook software issue since I don't see much in the way of complaints about flawed battery tests with any other tested laptop, do you? Particularly so as the MacBook results were more consistent with Chrome as the browser instead of the default Safari.
Stop pushing yourself to your limits and answer my question: Is downloading 10 pages "sequentially" real-world usage or not?
Of course it's not "real world usage" but to suggest the test should be "real world usage" would result in no viable test. When AnandTech uses benchmark apps to see the maximum capabilities of devices using both desktop and mobile OSes, they aren't conducting "real world tests" but these tests are viable for understanding the limits of the HW as its paired with an OS.
The same goes for any testing suite, even those that try to mimic a more realistic usage pattern. They are all lab-based tests. The issue with CR's results is that the fluctuation between tests wasn't within 5%, but had over a 300% difference for what they say was the exact same test under the exact same conditions. Now, I question their methodology since there seems to be indication that they checked the rest of the OS to see if was doing anything different between tests, but their results with Safari, their results with known battery succubus Chrome, and other reports of poor and fluctuating battery life whilst using Safari from other users, does indicate that there is an issue with macOS in regards to this new HW.
I've been involved with verification & validation testing (V&V) of products and systems for more than 30 years and I have no problem with conducting what I would call "informal customer usage scenarios" in addition to formal V&V testing because they can and often do uncover issues that escape more formal forms of controlled lab-based testing to avoid the "you're not supposed to use it that way" absurdity. Not that I don't trust testers, but I've seen testers develop very bad tests on occasion and sometimes a little less control and formality outside of the engineering lab is a good thing. Heck, I'd even encourage a bit of "zoo monkey" testing in addition to controlled testing, but only if the actions of the zoo monkey can be repeated. Additionally, beta testing has its place as long as your beta testers are trustworthy. I suspect Apple's highly secretive nature surrounding new product releases dissuades them from doing much external beta testing with customer representative applications outside of their own labs.
The complex nature of a multitasking and multifunctional operating system like macOS and iOS coupled with equally complex applications like Safari or MS Office means that realistically, due to the nature of probability and statistics, some issues that could have been caught during testing are going to leak out into the field despite how much testing you perform prior to release. It's going to happen but companies like Apple who care about their customers are going to address the issue and make it right. Such is life in the new product development domain. If you can't live with this reality - consider farming, crab fishing, or accounting.
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.
Happy Holidays.
1) Apple is too secretive to test real world? Have you already forgotten the infamous iphone 4 leak when it was left in a bar?
2) Apple's been building computers for 40 years, you really don't think they know how to test?
3) it's not about defending a corporate demigod, which is irrational. it's about highlighting the very fuzzy thinking and thought process on the part of irrational haters and trolls, which come out of the wood work for shit like this.
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 listed my facts: "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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
Did you actually read their report? I suspect you did not. They tested Apple's new MacBook batteries with the same procedure they use for all their other laptop battery tests, and described here.
"Battery Testing Details
Consumer Reports tests hundreds of laptops each year, using identical procedures in highly controlled conditions.
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. We conduct our battery tests using the computer’s default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops.
During the tests, we set each laptop screen to remain on. We use an external meter to set the display brightness to 100 nits—a typical level you might use indoors or out. And, we turn off any automatic brightness adjustment in the laptop’s settings.
We also update every computer's operating system before we begin any testing. We began our tests several weeks ago, but repeated the battery tests using macOS Sierra 10.12.2 after it was released. We saw no difference in the results.
Increasingly, we see that the performance of all kinds of products—not just computers and smartphones—can be influenced by software updates. If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests.
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. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.
Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates."
And I say that "we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down" is not a test and how the download of 10 pages would exhaust a laptop battery needs further explanation.
There is only one explanation based on the word "sequentially": they've set up a scripted loop that downloads those 10 pages over and over until the battery gets depleted. Of course an infinite loop can deplete battery. How that fits into the definition of "real world usage", I leave to your consideration.
So since it's now settled that you did not understood CS and the their procedures are you suggesting that the testing that's used for all other laptops (including the likelihood of previously released Apple products) should be changeed for this Apple new Macbook? Personally I'd lean towards some specific MacBook software issue since I don't see much in the way of complaints about flawed battery tests with any other tested laptop, do you? Particularly so as the MacBook results were more consistent with Chrome as the browser instead of the default Safari.
Stop pushing yourself to your limits and answer my question: Is downloading 10 pages "sequentially" real-world usage or not?
Of course it's not "real world usage" but to suggest the test should be "real world usage" would result in no viable test.
So do you claim that Apple's real world usage test as described in that footnote #2 (browsing 25 sites until battery depletes) is not a viable test?
Now, I question their methodology since there seems to be indication that they checked the rest of the OS to see if was doing anything different between tests, but their results with Safari, their results with known battery succubus Chrome, and other reports of poor and fluctuating battery life whilst using Safari from other users, does indicate that there is an issue with macOS in regards to this new HW.
I understand your efforts to see "the big picture", but we see that same "big picture" at every major product launch and every major OS launch. That may be different this time but the signal/noise ratio in that "big picture" still does not help...
Apple may always come with a OS or firmware update to enhance the battery performance, so I keep my claims as small and factual as possible, limiting myself to that questionable report and the test described therein, to state that that test cannot falsify Apple's own real-world testing.
"Either way I'm sticking with my Mid-2011 MacBook air."
Yep. My 2013 MBPr 15" still kills in the battery life department. I can sit at Starbucks and work for about 6 hours straight without issue (with about 10 apps open, running a PHP server, FTPing often, Chrome, Parallels running W7, and so on).
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?
Sorry, as much as I like Apple products, there really isn't anything "high end" about these new laptops.
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?
Sorry, as much as I like Apple products, there really isn't anything "high end" about these new laptops.
That new display is a piece of shit. Who wants excellent color accuracy on a laptop anyway?¡
Comments
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.
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.
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.
The complex nature of a multitasking and multifunctional operating system like macOS and iOS coupled with equally complex applications like Safari or MS Office means that realistically, due to the nature of probability and statistics, some issues that could have been caught during testing are going to leak out into the field despite how much testing you perform prior to release. It's going to happen but companies like Apple who care about their customers are going to address the issue and make it right. Such is life in the new product development domain. If you can't live with this reality - consider farming, crab fishing, or accounting.
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.
Happy Holidays.
"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)"
I just expose one thing: Apple can describe their tests, CR cannot. And that isn't a guess, but a fact.
Did you actually read their report? I suspect you did not. They tested Apple's new MacBook batteries with the same procedure they use for all their other laptop battery tests, and described here.
"Battery Testing Details
Consumer Reports tests hundreds of laptops each year, using identical procedures in highly controlled conditions. 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. We conduct our battery tests using the computer’s default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops. During the tests, we set each laptop screen to remain on. We use an external meter to set the display brightness to 100 nits—a typical level you might use indoors or out. And, we turn off any automatic brightness adjustment in the laptop’s settings. We also update every computer's operating system before we begin any testing. We began our tests several weeks ago, but repeated the battery tests using macOS Sierra 10.12.2 after it was released. We saw no difference in the results. Increasingly, we see that the performance of all kinds of products—not just computers and smartphones—can be influenced by software updates. If Apple updates its software in a way that the company claims will substantively change battery performance, we will conduct fresh tests. 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. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try. Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates."
There is only one explanation based on the word "sequentially": they've set up a scripted loop that downloads those 10 pages over and over until the battery gets depleted. Of course an infinite loop can deplete battery. How that fits into the definition of "real world usage", I leave to your consideration.
So since it's now settled that you were not familiar with CS, their historically consistent independence, or their battery test procedures, are you suggesting that the testing that's used for all other laptops (including the likelihood of previously released Apple products) should be changed for this new Macbook series? Personally I'd lean towards some specific MacBook software-coding issue since I don't see much in the way of complaints about flawed battery tests with any other tested laptop, do you? Particularly so as the MacBook results were more consistent with Chrome as the browser instead of the default Safari, which screams software IMHO.
CS should be commended for approaching Apple and inviting them to look over the test results in detail. Apple should get kudos for accepting the invite.
The same goes for any testing suite, even those that try to mimic a more realistic usage pattern. They are all lab-based tests. The issue with CR's results is that the fluctuation between tests wasn't within 5%, but had over a 300% difference for what they say was the exact same test under the exact same conditions. Now, I question their methodology since there seems to be indication that they checked the rest of the OS to see if was doing anything different between tests, but their results with Safari, their results with known battery succubus Chrome, and other reports of poor and fluctuating battery life whilst using Safari from other users, does indicate that there is an issue with macOS in regards to this new HW.
2) Apple's been building computers for 40 years, you really don't think they know how to test?
3) it's not about defending a corporate demigod, which is irrational. it's about highlighting the very fuzzy thinking and thought process on the part of irrational haters and trolls, which come out of the wood work for shit like this.
4) you're right about haters.
I understand your efforts to see "the big picture", but we see that same "big picture" at every major product launch and every major OS launch. That may be different this time but the signal/noise ratio in that "big picture" still does not help...
Apple may always come with a OS or firmware update to enhance the battery performance, so I keep my claims as small and factual as possible, limiting myself to that questionable report and the test described therein, to state that that test cannot falsify Apple's own real-world testing.