hucom2000

kevin kee said:

I believe what I see, and I see a consistent 10 hours battery daily use with my new MBP. This is the results that matter for average consumer I believe. As for CR, I don't care how they did their test, but I care that instead of contacting Apple for a questionable results they see, they went and published this to the media, resulting in a high profile media publication that is unfair to Apple.

As one of the people who actually had these issues and returned the laptop because of it... YOUR post feels somewhat unfair... 10 hours consistently? Are you just letting your laptop sit in a corner?

StrangeDays said:

lorin schultz said:

3. According to APPLE, not CR, the problem is the result of a BUG, not the testing methodology per se. The testing method merely exposed it. How long would it have gone on unnoticed and unfixed if the test hadn't uncovered it? It may not have affected me or you, but obviously some people would suffer from it. This is a positive outcome.

Actually I think Apple blamed both the methodology and the bug. See their statement:

“We learned that when testing battery life on Mac notebooks, Consumer Reports uses a hidden Safari setting for developing web sites which turns off the browser cache. This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage. Their use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug..."

Note that they use the word "also triggered" the obscure bug. "Also", not "subsequently" triggered the bug. Right or wrong, they seem to be saying both conditions are responsible for the results.

That's interesting. Maybe THAT's how Apple arrived at these unrealistic runtimes of "up to 10 hours" in their own testing: by visiting the same pre-programmed websites over and over again, allowing the usage of cache? That would be a typical "lab test" for marketing and not real life, where we visit a multitude of different websites that require constant loading of content.

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

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

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

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

While this CR sucks for Apple, maybe some good will come of it: Apple will try harder once again.

I too wonder about the credo:

"Short term profit maximisation at the expense of the most loyal customer base on the planet"

maybe?