Very interesting reading the pots here. Early on, a large group was very unhappy with the new MBP performance, battery life, etc. And, there were the defenders of said problems as in no problems existed on their units. If I was going to spend up to $5K for a laptop, it had better be perfect in every way - work fine and last a long time! It is fairly obvious, t me, that the new MBP's were pushed out in order to satisfy criticisms about lack of upgrades to existing lines. The upgrade was a "touch Bar", mainly - or, at least hyped as such, plus being thinner. Consumer Reports, being an independent group, has no axe to grind with any manufacturer and spends its own money on products to be tested. In this case, there were 3 different laptops. CR came t the same conclusion that ,amy of the forum participants had - there are issues with battery life and the latest OS update did not really fix anything. Apple MBP and Dell XPS have always been at the top of ratings and only criticized on their high price. Now, Apple has to deal with the fact that they have produced a product that is not worthy of the dollar amount asked and it is now public knowledge. I would hope this is a factor that will drive Apple to resolve the battery issue and prove that they are a customer driven and oriented company other than a single focused (iPhone) and profit driven corporation. BTW - real happy with my late 2015 MBPr laptop.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2016 MacBook Pro Denied Recommendation From Consumer Reports Due to Battery Life Inconsistencies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And true to the way Apple seems to be going, they even failed at that.
Attachments
Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro has failed to receive a purchase recommendation from Consumer Reports due to battery life issues that were encountered during testing. Battery life reportedly "varied dramatically" from one trial to another.
According to a new report that covers the new MacBook Pro, the machine is the first of Apple's MacBooks that has not received a Consumer Reports recommendation.
Consumer Reports says that a laptop's battery generally varies by less than five percent from test to test, but because of the "disparate figures" found in the MacBook Pro test, an average battery life consumers might expect to see could not be determined.
For that reason, Consumer Reports used the lowest battery score, which prevented the MacBook Pro from getting a recommendation. "Consumer Reports finds that all three MacBook Pro laptops fail to meet our standards for recommended models," reads the report.
Some customers who bought a 2016 MacBook Pro began complaining of ongoing battery life issues with the machine shortly after purchasing, which ultimately led Apple to remove the "Time Remaining" battery life estimate in the macOS Sierra 10.12.2 update.
While removing the indicator didn't fix battery life issues, some other tweaks may have been implemented at the same time, as there have been reports of better battery life following the update.
Apple claims that its own internal testing has seen the MacBook Pro performing up to the company's standards, providing up to 10 hours of battery life when watching iTunes movies or browsing the web.
Apple declined to provide a comment to Consumer Reports, but had this to say: "Any customer who has a question about their Mac or its operation should contact AppleCare."
Article Link: 2016 MacBook Pro Denied Recommendation From Consumer Reports Due to Battery Life Inconsistencies
Who gives a S$&* what CR ever says. Never read or listen to anything they say.
I am waiting on shipment of a new touch bar 15" MBP. Battery life won't be an issue for my usage, but clearly something is wonky both with 1) the variability in battery life many are reporting and 2) the extreme high numbers CR reports from their tests. My take so far is that Apple deserves negative feedback on battery life with these new laptops. Given how long it took for an update, nobody can say these were "rushed to market." And CR loses credibility here. The too good to be true battery life times reported alone say something is wrong in their testing.
I know - every time I go onto an airplane, they think my 2015 MBP is a tablet and let me stow it in the seat pocket or hold it during takeoff and landing. Weight is clearly more important than thickness, and even there, it's relative: To me, the 4.5 pound 15" 2015 MBP is light as a feather because I was used to an 8 pound 17" MBP for so long. And I'd never notice a half pound difference.
Always reminds me of college projects, where the teacher would say "you get ZERO points for bells and whistles until you complete all the BASIC functionality correctly."
Dear Apple designers, thinness in a portable device is a means to and end, not the end in itself. Please put this on a sticky note on your monitor so you can't avoid reading it everyday.
Don't forget something else - did anyone complain about the 2015 MBP keyboard? Does anyone you've ever spoken with actually prefer the 2016 keyboard to the 2015? Did any Apple executive actually type on the new keyboard before the product shipped?
Ah right I confess I wasn't aware of any optimisation across ssd drives compared to non, but It is certainly something else on the new MacBook Pro. Anything I do on the computer, editing, graphics, word processing whatever is such a pleasure to use. I hope I don't regret saying that though as I guess it's still early days ...
I decided to wait for the next generation Intel chips for 17/18 which should allow Apple the use of 32GB ram and a better performance/battery life. Since I am able to work well with my late 2013 macbook there is really no need to upgrade. Especially when you work with a hybrid option that includes faster desktops.
yes, very good keyboard IMHO, I like it a lot in comparison to my former MBP 2013
The most shocking thing for me is that I prefer to type on my iPad Pro's keyboard compared to my Macbook (non Pro)! The new keyboards on the Macbooks are awful. I typed on the new MBP Keyboard at the Apple Store and while it wasn't quite as bad as my Macbook's - it was terrible compared to the previous generation.
When you cannot get the keyboard right in a "Pro" machine, I start to wonder exactly who in the world you think you are designing these things for. Clearly they believe that Pros value thinness over a great keyboard. Which to me shows that they are so backwards in their thinking it is unlikely they will ever get anything right for "Pros".
At least some of those "Pros" that use Macbook Pros are the same people WHO WRITE iOS APPS! If this isn't a total facepalm, I have no idea what is.
I'm not surprised at all. It is and was one of the worst updates for years. I was waiting for new models, but ended up to buy a refurbished Thinkpad T450s. The price was nice and I really like Thinkpads. I still have one iPhone, but gonna be my last one as well. Apple went too far with so many bs-things and I'm not going to support them anymore.
We need a change but its not possible with a "money guy" like Tim Cook and I don't think that there are some really good ppl with visions at Apple anymore.
We need a change but its not possible with a "money guy" like Tim Cook and I don't think that there are some really good ppl with visions at Apple anymore.
No, you should be concerned. What you should not be doing is looking at half of the results and making some sort of conclusion from that. If you don't take the results in their entirety, then you're doing yourself a disservice. If the variability is that great, then somethings wrong. What could it be? IDK. The methodology seemed sound. It's the same methodology they use for every laptop. It's the same methodology they've used for every other Apple laptop that has passed their testing. They purchased off the shelf consumer product; not manufacturer supplied "test" product optimized for reviews. 3 differently configured MBP's. They update the software and run the native browser. They also run multiple tests. Could they have faulty equipment? Sure they could, but it wouldn't explain how simply changing the browser to Chrome got the MBP's to expected battery levels without wild fluctuations. My money is on some software related issue with Safari, but that's just my speculative view. They're sending their data to Apple so I think they feel confident in their methodology and the results.
Not to say that you're doing this, but your quote sort of reads like you feel like the issue is with CR and not the MBP.
The battery test results are more proof that there's nothing "pro" about the 2016 MacBook Pros. Thank goodness I had the common sense to buy a 2015 MacBook Pro instead.
The even bigger FAIL by Apple is the update to Sierra to REMOVE the time-remaining feature for battery life. As users have been complaining (and Consumer Reports testing underscores), there are serious battery life issues with the 2016 faux pros. Apple's band-aid "fix" by removing the time-remaining feature is an insult to the integrity of Apple and to the intelligence of its customers.
I am sad that we are witnessing the implosion of a once-great company.
Mark
The even bigger FAIL by Apple is the update to Sierra to REMOVE the time-remaining feature for battery life. As users have been complaining (and Consumer Reports testing underscores), there are serious battery life issues with the 2016 faux pros. Apple's band-aid "fix" by removing the time-remaining feature is an insult to the integrity of Apple and to the intelligence of its customers.
I am sad that we are witnessing the implosion of a once-great company.
Mark
Someone came up with this comparison, and now you people are repeating it over and over. You're telling me that the difference between a computer and an appliance is "upgradeability"? Then I'm sorry to inform you that you don't know what 'appliance' means. That's ok, you're just repeating the internet, the person who came up with the comparison originally didn't know either.
An appliance is a device designed to perform a specific task. It can be upgradeable. You can buy accessories for certain appliances, you can sometimes replace their insides with better ones, in modern appliances you can even upgrade the software - they are still appliances.
A computer is a device designed to perform a multitude of tasks. It has nothing to do whether it's upgradeable or not. There are computers that can be upgraded with new hardware components, there are computers that cannot. Almost every computer can have software upgrades, adding new and better functionality. In fact, most of the hardware upgrades just offer faster operation or more memory, which do not, by definition, expand functionality and have nothing to do performing multiple tasks. Computers usually get more features with software upgrades than with hardware ones - so, in fact, software upgrades are more relevant for this comparison.
In other words - appliances: one specific task. Computers: multitude of tasks. MacBook Pros, for example, are used for various content creation, content consumption, management, scientific research, communication, etc. They are by definition - not appliance. They are computers. Damn good ones, too.
Also - MacBook Pro's haven't been hardware-upgradeable since 2012. You've only noticed it now?
Or what, exactly?
"You don't like the keyboard" does not equate to "the keyboard is designed bad". I love it, and many people I know do. The new MBP keyboard, alongside the Apple Magic Keyboard are the most enjoyable keyboards I've used, and I type a lot, each day.
You don't have to like them, that is perfectly fine.
TL;DR Version:
Consumer reports bases their recommendation on Forum Whiners and Trolls, runs a few tests (probably not wanting until the indexing and other system startup issues that happen) claims it's all over the place. Then (probably after indexing finishes) they decide to use Spyware, uhm I mean Chrome, to run the same tests and they get better results. So Consumer Reports bases their recommendations on Forum Trolls, tests poorly, and gets a false positive on a piece of software that invades your privacy and causes your laptop to run like a heater.
Great job CR, great job...
Consumer reports bases their recommendation on Forum Whiners and Trolls, runs a few tests (probably not wanting until the indexing and other system startup issues that happen) claims it's all over the place. Then (probably after indexing finishes) they decide to use Spyware, uhm I mean Chrome, to run the same tests and they get better results. So Consumer Reports bases their recommendations on Forum Trolls, tests poorly, and gets a false positive on a piece of software that invades your privacy and causes your laptop to run like a heater.
Great job CR, great job...
I agree completely. Tim says innovation is "making things better" but you have to listen to your customers to know what "things" are important to them. Years ago, when laptops were 2.5" thick, weighed 5+ lbs, and had 3.5" floppy drives built into them, customers wanted thinner and lighter laptops... and we got them. For me, Apple has passed the point of diminishing returns in their pursuit of thinner laptops. Today I really don't want them to make a laptop 2 mm thinner if it means reducing battery life, performance, and having to carry a bundle of adapters.
But I'm not doing that. I'm looking at all of the results and condemning their overall test procedures. And I do believe a lot of the issue should be placed with CR. Unless you believe reported data points of 19.5, 18.5, 16, and 12 hours are reasonable results within the realm of reality for their battery life tests.
If that aspect of the overall test was flawed, why should we have any confidence in their overall results?
As a design engineer (one who has written and conducted a lot of acceptance test procedures for products in the past), I wouldn't. Before releasing any results I would investigate to understand what happened to insure that test procedures and measuring equipment were sound, and that procedures were properly followed. And not be satisfied until that is understood. Once that is understood, then start again from scratch with better procedures. The abnormally high numbers casts a ton of suspicion that the overall testing was flawed. Those are numbers you can't simply choose to ignore.
There was no curiosity on their part to understand or determine what happened; was it an issue with their suite of tests, did they accidentally let the laptop sleep for awhile unnoticed, did their screen luminance measuring device report faulty values in some cases, did test personnel set the display brightness to the correct value for every test or were they lax, along with many other possibilities. If there were any rigor or intellectual curiosity to investigate, any flaws leading to one of those (and more) issues should have scrapped the whole test.
Last edited:
I have a new MBP and luckily have not had any issues with my battery; however, I did a custom build. Does anyone know if one configuration is more susceptible to the issue than the others?