I have trouble understanding why Apple would make a "pro" machine and then use the excuse that "most users" wouldn't use that feature. With a pro machine, there is an expectation that "most users" won't just be using it to watch cat videos on YouTube.
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.
Consumer Reports Retesting MacBook Pro Battery Life After Apple Says Safari Bug to Blame
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have trouble understanding why Apple would make a "pro" machine and then use the excuse that "most users" wouldn't use that feature. With a pro machine, there is an expectation that "most users" won't just be using it to watch cat videos on YouTube.
The classic "Apple is evil" MacRumors post. They performed a test in a way users don't. They turned browser caching off, which will obviously reduce battery life, and guess what, it reduced battery life. Old joke "Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I poke a spoon in my eye". Don't poke a spoon in your eye then.
[doublepost=1484078711][/doublepost]
It's a hidden Safari setting that you only see if you turn the "Develop" menu on. Normal users will never see this setting. For good reason.
That's not even close to what happened. You're not even trying.
It's a setting for website developers. A debugging feature. It's not just a feature that "most users" don't use, it's a feature that "pro" users don't use either. Only website developers looking for bugs in their own websites.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If you haven't figured it out yet, it's your fault that your computer is exhibiting the issue anyway. The rule is that nothing can be Apple's fault.
So anyone or everyone else must be wrong if they are experiencing some fault. In this case, you must be to blame.
And CR is to blame for a bad review.
And Samsung/Microsoft/Google is to blame for <oh, just anything>.
And your fellow consumers who chime in to share the same experience shall be tagged as trolls.
Why? Reread the rule again.
Well, here is some real life testing.
I have the new brand new 15 inch touch bar . I get 4 hours using safari, some pdfs and some word documents with google drive in sync. no music or videos. with any music and or video , I get just about 3 hours.
Similar to the 2011 MacBook Air I have.
It doesn't matter what CR, Macrumors or Apple says, the above is the fact and I am living with it.
I have the new brand new 15 inch touch bar . I get 4 hours using safari, some pdfs and some word documents with google drive in sync. no music or videos. with any music and or video , I get just about 3 hours.
Similar to the 2011 MacBook Air I have.
It doesn't matter what CR, Macrumors or Apple says, the above is the fact and I am living with it.
oh I was watching a cat video on youtube just now with my MacBook Pro 2016...
I feel guilty..
Where did I say Apple deserved special treatment? I'd be making the same argument if we were talking about a Surface Pro. Anyway a software bug isn't a reason not to recommend a piece of hardware.
I guess my response wasn't written clearly enough as everyone who has quoted me has taken it out of context.
I was replying to a person stating that... oh never mind.
[doublepost=1484079195][/doublepost]
Except on preorder night
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You guys are using it wrong. Apple says 10 hours so it's 10 hours. Have you not been paying attention?
If Apple decides to change that to 100 hours, then it's a 100 hours. Who invented time anyway? Clearly, THEY made some mistakes in what an hour is if it doesn't sync with what Apple says. From this day forward 1 hour on your machines = at least 3.34 hours in how you measure it.
Or maybe your watches are fast (unless they are Apple watches)? Or perhaps you're living in some time distortion field?
Last edited:
I agree with you, it's fine to alter the cache settings. I'm referring to the fact that CR quickly realized a likely issue with Safari (or at least a very curious anomaly), but rather than hold off on an official opinion until they had more information, they appeared to rush the article as if to meet a deadline. As a result, the article has a laughably simplistic conclusion which almost seems to ignore the excellent battery performance under Chrome.
It would have made more sense to write, "The MacBook Pro achieved an excellent 19 hours battery life using Chrome, although we noticed inconsistent results using Safari, likely due to a software issue. As a result, we recommend monitoring your usage of Safari. If you aren't satisfied with results, switch to Chrome until a fix is issued."
Only if you went to "Settings", "Advanced", ticked "Turn Development Menu On", and then chose "Disable Caches" in the Develop menu (that normal users will never see). That option will waste battery life by reloading your websites again and again, so you get shorter battery life because you asked for it. On top of that there is a bug that reduces battery life more than intended.
I probably should have put an /s tag haha. I'm typing this on my 13"tb model incredibly happy.
Apple isn't making that "excuse."
If you are one of the small percentage of Apple's customer base who needs that feature, simply turn it on. It's an option. That's why they put it there - for web developer testing purposes.
Most people won't need to, and as a result, will likely enjoy longer battery life. A good thing.
Apple's published battery life test specifications are targeted towards their largest user base. Which makes sense.
I am very happy with the same Mac
Maybe someone should create a support thread for those of us with the tb model. Obviously, we don't know what real happiness should be because we bought the tb model. We are taking whatever Apple shoves down our throats.
I can't exactly speak for Safari and issues that this article is claiming. But chrome isn't necessarily coded correctly, which most have stated it affects the battery usage and how it's managed. I refuse to use Chrome for reasons listed above.
My wild-assed guess is that it's a combination that includes the smaller battery capacity, problems with the MBP 15 engaging its discrete graphics when they should not be, and possibly other things. I don't think the TB has much effect.
I have zero desire to beta-test my MBP in the hopes that it reaches its stated capabilities, so I decided to return it and revert to my trusty old 2013, remaining hopeful that the issue is ultimately resolved or the next iteration of the MBP corrects it.
I have trouble understanding how many people don't understand the term "pro" ... it stands for professional.
9 out of 10 professionals (yes, salesmen, middle management, hotel front desks, and every other office worker in america) never leave word\excel\powerpoint\safari\exchange or mail. To suggest that the bulk of mac professional users don't fit this category is ludicrous. It's a TINY fraction of the pro base who is doing development, rendering, video editing, etc on a mac laptop.
So to you I say yeah, MOST professionals are "just watching cat videos on youtube" (and facebook, word, excel, email, etc). Don't like that? Look up software sales and see what sells by percentage, it'll tell you EXACTLY what people use their macs for.
Because the new ports are better, more flexible, with great bandwidth. Some of us are glad to see T3/USBc standard.
After you hook up your one external display to the mini display port on a competing machine, what are you left with. A couple of USB3. What if you want a second high resolution display, a high speed SSD raid array or 3, or a PCIe expansion chassis? The MBP can handle it.
Competitors give you legacy ports for your legacy peripherals. That's an OK choice for some. But not better.
No, they used a setting that users _can_ turn on but that users will not turn on because it is in a development menu that is hard to turn on, and that is only useful to certain developers in very specific situations. No developer has this feature turned on permanently - because most of the time it's useless and eats battery life. You would turn it on to find certain bugs in your own website, or test how fast your website loads. And when you're done testing, you would turn it off.
CR had the idea that this could be used to simulate a user who goes from page to page to page. Which is not a bad idea. Of course it will cost battery life. Website caching is a Safari feature that is intended to improve battery life for many users, and that was disabled. And then disabling website caching had a bug - which cost battery life when you tried to simulate a user jumping from site to site, but not when you were a real user jumping from site to site.
It's debatable. The plan was that this would simulate users who go from page to page to page (if you visit 1000 pages in an hour, website caching wont' help much. If you visit a few pages only, it helps a lot). The problem is that they tested a _simulated_ heavy user and not a _real_ heavy user, and they ran into a bug that killed battery life for _simulated_ heavy users but not for real ones. Without that bug, it would have been useful but I think it should have been mentioned in the test.
What some people don't understand is that saying "10 hours battery life" is as useful as saying "my car drives 8 hours on a full tank". My car can drive about 20 hours at 30mph but will go less than 5 hours at 100mph. It depends on what you do.
Last edited:
Misleading headline. The root cause was Consumer Reports' idiotic use of an obscure setting meant only for developers, not the even more obscure bug that it triggered.