Consumer Reports Retesting MacBook Pro Battery Life After Apple Says Safari Bug to Blame

[BorderingOn]

I don't visit unique websites throughout the day until the battery dies on my rMBP. I don't think anyone visits only new and unloaded websites throughout the day, so the way they executed the test is unrealistic. They should have created a test that loads a series of website, one after the other allowing for one or two minutes on each site (as people would normally do). Even if it were a loop of 10, 20 or 30 sites, it would be more realistic for how people actually browse the web - but they would need to keep caching on, as that is what 99+% of people do.

That is, if Consumer Reports is trying to show consumers what they can realistically expect for battery life. If what they're trying to do is create attention grabbing headlines for a click-bait article, then they can do whatever they want.

Did you miss the parts about there being better battery life when using Chrome and the battery life problem with Safari being due to a bug? Also, Apple is generally recommended. It's clear as day they were simply reporting objective results. And it's cool Apple cared enough to track down the issue and respond. I just don't understand why people are so bent out of shape.

 

[Fishrrman]

I haven't read every post here.
Lots of jabbering, but specifically -- WHAT SETTING did CR choose?

I -assume- that they had the "Develop" menu active in Safari, and then chose "Disable Caches".
Is that correct?

Can any users of the new MBPro who use this setup confirm?

If you choose to Enable caches (default), does that make a difference?

 

[fishmongerer]

Did you miss the parts about there being better battery life when using Chrome and the battery life problem with Safari being due to a bug? Also, Apple is generally recommended. It's clear as day they were simply reporting objective results. And it's cool Apple cared enough to track down the issue and respond. I just don't understand why people are so bent out of shape.

Did you miss the parts about there being better battery life when using Chrome and the battery life problem with Safari being due to a bug? Also, Apple is generally recommended. It's clear as day they were simply reporting objective results. And it's cool Apple cared enough to track down the issue and respond. I just don't understand why people are so bent out of shape.

Apple cool for caring? They didn't have a choice, slammed by CR and them damning Apple. At least CR could have reached out to Apple before reporting this finding.

Also, people were having similar results, they had to get that resolved, a huge deal breaker for inconsistent battery life.

It's obvious it was a software thing. Apple hardware is pretty darned good and consistent, mostly. Well, I guess we have phone battery issues...or had...

 

[aevan]

It's a shame Consumer Reports targeted the battery in their 'not recommended' review instead of the glaringly obvious lack of ports, expandability and user repairability. Maybe then Apple would have got the message.

What lack of ports?

Expandability was never officially supported (you could only do it by voiding Warranty/Apple Care). As for user repairability - I kinda agree, but that's the general trend with premium modern laptops. A Surface Book is also not user repairable.

As for CR, it was obvious their tests were deeply flawed from the beginning. This just explains a bug was the culprit.

 

[leman]

I just don't understand why people are so bent out of shape.

Because a vocal group of Apple critics took these (clearly flawed, from the start) CR test results and blew the story out of proportions. Every single objective test out there, except the CR one, shows that MBP does reach the advertised battery life under the conditions described by Apple. However, because of the unhealthy sensationalism, the CR flawed test results spread around like wildfire and every Apple hater quotes them as their holy scripture. And when it turns out that their results are garbage, due to an obscure bug that doesn't affect a normal user (surprise! folks who retained at least some ability to think critically said so from the start) — its still Apples fault somehow.

 

[kdarling]

At least CR could have reached out to Apple before reporting this finding.

CR _did_ reach out to Apple before publishing. Apple apparently directed them to AppleCare. Most other companies would've instead instantly responded to a request from a respected organization like CR.

-- My Question: did the icon update fix other battery bugs as well?

Interestingly, we're seeing some owners reporting that their battery life is better after the update. And it's doubtful that those owners had turned off their cache.

This makes me wonder if while looking, Apple found more than just a bug in the icon load routines. (From my decades of coding experience, there's a high probability that they did.)

If so, then owners should be thanking CR for forcing a Safari code review. Such checking seems to have taken a back burner at Apple in recent years.

 

[Weaselboy]

CR _did_ reach out to Apple before publishing. Apple apparently directed them to AppleCare.

I saw in the original article CR mentioned they had reached out to Apple on this, but where did you see Apple just handed them off to AppleCare? I have not noticed that mentioned anywhere?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just have not seen this bit come up before and was wondering where you saw it.

 

[fishmongerer]

What lack of ports?

Expandability was never officially supported (you could only do it by voiding Warranty/Apple Care). As for user repairability - I kinda agree, but that's the general trend with premium modern laptops. A Surface Book is also not user repairable.

As for CR, it was obvious their tests were deeply flawed from the beginning. This just explains a bug was the culprit.

I would like to know what happens when your SSD fails after 4 years and the whole board needs to be replaced.at's that going to cost?

At least on my ancient MBP 2009, I can swap in a new SSD.

 

[Geohord]

Of course the cache has to be disabled, otherwise you are not really reloading the webpage...

 

[Naimfan]

Consumer Reports’ testing methodology is lacking. Continually reloading the same web page, cached or not, is not a real world test. And for someone to believe that Apple just got their battery wrong in the latest rMBP, you’re pretty delusional. Say what you will, but we’re talking about arguably the best computer hardware company in the world. I think they pretty much know what they’re doing. Even if you don’t like their decisions. What I mean by this, is they probably did a bit of testing. And if they say it gets 10 hours with normal use, it probably does.
[doublepost=1484142617][/doublepost]

I believe the tester is called Consumer Reports. How many consumers turn off browser cache? I know you don’t have data. But go ahead. Guess. 5%? Naw. Too high. 1%? Nope, probably still too high. 0.1%? Probably still too high. Unless you have a specific reason for doing so, you’re not going to turn off browser cache. Therefore, the test results, bug or not, are invalid for the intended audience.

Wrong, as pointed out in numerous other posts here. CR publishes its methodology, and uses it for *every* laptop battery test to provide consistency. And you miss the point by arguing against turning off Safari's caching.

 

[cmanbrazil]

I have the 15" 512 version. I unplugged my computer at 8am and it is now 12:33pm and I have 11% battery left. I have mostly been working in word, excel, and putting in data on webforms until a little after 12, when I begin reading on Safari. As I have stated in battery threads, I hope they can at least extend battery life with some software fixes because this will be painful in places where I can't easily plug in. My battery life also varies, and I can't explain why? Now I am at 9%

 

[dv8r]

I saw in the original article CR mentioned they had reached out to Apple on this, but where did you see Apple just handed them off to AppleCare? I have not noticed that mentioned anywhere?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just have not seen this bit come up before and was wondering where you saw it.

The original article[*] had the following quote:
"Apple declined to comment on our test results until they better understand the issue, but emailed this statement: “Any customer who has a question about their Mac or its operation should contact AppleCare.”
It reads both ways...

[*] http://www.consumerreports.org/laptops/macbook-pros-fail-to-earn-consumer-reports-recommendation/

 

[Felix01]

If CR tests all computers this way (in fact I kind of like testing with the cache turned off) then they should wait until Apple fixes this so-called Safari bug and test again with the cache off as before. Otherwise, consumers won't be able to equally compare the 2016 MBP with other Macs or other brands.

 

[Kabeyun]

that doesnt make sense. these options are there, what few we have in OSX, i shouldnt have to be weary of which ones i use because it's not how other people use their computers.

Makes perfect sense, and you don't need to be weary (or wary) of anything. Out of the box, Safari doesn't disable caching, so you don't have to do anything but enjoy your new computer. The only way you could incur a battery penalty for disabling caching is if you're trying to.

 

[moonjelly]

It is a bug that effected battery life. CR basically guesses the exact problem in their original article. Its not their job to figure out why, fix it and rerun tests. CR will rerun tests when the new version of macOS is released, which IIRC they also stated they would do before this new Apple release.

It is their job to understand what's going on with their test. They do guess the problem. Then they make a "Don't Buy" recommendation for hardware based on a minor software bug. It is a dis-service to Consumer Reports subscribers.

Imagine you put an Alienware gaming machine on your Christmas list. You don't get it because CR rates the whole machine as "DON'T BUY" because IE11 has a temporary bug.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

The classic Apple "You were testing it wrong" ploy

How can something be a "classic" if Apple has never said it before. And really didn't say it now. Afterall, they acknowledged that the REAL problem was a BUG in SAFARI. So how does that equate to "You're testing it wrong"?
[doublepost=1484162991][/doublepost]

Clearly not a Pro machine if you are required to use Safari to get best battery life.
The older MBP laptops could use any browser, or amazingly it it could run Pro tools like Adobe products without killing the battery. Apple, if you say it has up to 10 hours for a Pro laptop, then we expect around 8 or 9, not 2 or 3. Safari is no excuse.

EDIT: Could we stop ranting about how Chrome is better. I'm just trying to point out that Apple is no longer designing this laptop to have good power for Pro software like Adobe products. Chrome I would not consider a Pro product.

WHAT are you blathering about???

Actually, Apple was saying that SAFARI was to blame for the poor battery life.

It HAD a bug. Bug is now fixed. Problem solved.

Did you not get that?

 

[Investor27]

I haven't read every post here.
Lots of jabbering, but specifically -- WHAT SETTING did CR choose?

I -assume- that they had the "Develop" menu active in Safari, and then chose "Disable Caches".
Is that correct?

Can any users of the new MBPro who use this setup confirm?

If you choose to Enable caches (default), does that make a difference?

It doesn't matter what setting CR chose, since CR chose the same settings for all laptops they tested, and the Macbook Pros failed the test due to a bug in Safari. People are trying to make it like CR was out to get Apple by using some tricks up their sleeves, but that's not the case at all. CR used the same procedure for all different manufacturers, and that was fair and consistent across the board.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

It still doesn't fix the problem with the 2016 model having 1/3 smaller battery than the 2015 model.

Yes it does, if it gets the same or better battery life under the same conditions than the 2015 model.
[doublepost=1484163224][/doublepost]

Definitely the best MacBook Pro I have owned. Not saying the last generations weren't good either, but these are great machines. Wonder when that Safari fix will make it to us.

Apple has said it will be part of the next Sierra update, which is due pretty soon.

Until then, just don't disable the Browser Cache, and you won't trigger the Safari bug.
[doublepost=1484163361][/doublepost]

so Safari kills battery life and Chrome kills battery life. Basically we shouldn't browse on our new Macs =/

LOLWUT?!?

Safari's bug ate battery. Chrome didn't have the bug.

Please re-read CR's original review.

 

[moonjelly]

People need to try out the competition. I was sucked into the negativity towards the new machines, but playing around with the new ones and looking at the Windows choices, the MBP comes out way ahead in build quality and OS experience.

I like the Dell XPS and the MS Surface Book, but they just don't measure up. I feel like the Dell keyboard and case are just going to look old and worn out in a couple of years. I have the 2009 MBP and the sucker looks like new and it's been around the world.

I wish Apple would lower prices, though. The base 13" is fine for the price, but the others...just a little too high.

I have a 2011 MBAir that's been around the world and still like new. I ordered it max spec. The MID grade 13" MBP is LESS EXPENSIVE than my 2011 MBA that had 4GB RAM max spec! Even so that MBA has more than paid for itself. The best computer buying decision I ever made.[/QUOTE]
[doublepost=1484164099][/doublepost]

I would like to know what happens when your SSD fails after 4 years and the whole board needs to be replaced.at's that going to cost?

At least on my ancient MBP 2009, I can swap in a new SSD.

The same thing that happens when other SOLID STATE SUPER RELIABLE components fail like the motherboard or CPU in every computer made...

 

[Apple 26.2]

No, not at all. It was tested in a manner not typically used by a user. Sure, one wants it to perform as it "should" even with developer settings adjusted, but at least this revealed a bug only seen under these circumstances so it can be retested and verified fixed, or not.

MagSafe. Not sure I'll get over that anytime soon.

 

[Fall Under Cerulean Kites]

To you and all the others who keep repeating that claim:

See my post #416. Apple also uses a very limited number of canned pages for their own battery tests.

So if you bash CR's test, then you must also bash Apple's test.

--

This all brings up an important question: does Apple allow its own battery test to use cached pages??? If so, then theirs would be a very bad test, because it wouldn't reflect any usage of the internet connection after the first page load.

However, since the bug was apparently about loading a web page icon, it's possible that Apple also turns off the cache, but their stored set of web pages does not load any icons. So they simply never saw their bug in action before.

My criticism of CR’s testing methodology does not automatically presume that (insert company here)’s testing methodology is therefore better.

What’s needed, IMO, is an AI crawler of sorts that falls down the rabbit hole that is the Internet, just as “average” users do.

Wrong, as pointed out in numerous other posts here. CR publishes its methodology, and uses it for *every* laptop battery test to provide consistency. And you miss the point by arguing against turning off Safari's caching.

No, dude. YOU are missing MY point. Whether they publish their methodolog or not, it’s still not a real world test. It very well could be consistent across a product category, but that doesn’t make it a good test. They’re testing reloading the same uncached web page over and over again. Do you do that with your system? I sure don’t. That’s like saying testing tires by running a belt sander across the tread in the same spot is a good test because they do it for all tires. Maybe it tells you something, but as shown in this particular incidence where a bug was involved with the rMBP test, it doesn’t tell us the right thing.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Killer machine.

But 3 hours battery life when using one music pro application, for the princely sum of £3.5k?

Is it April fools ?

This fix does nothing. The battery is too small. End of story.

Love Apple but currently our relationship is taking a time out.

How do you know that the "fix does nothing" when it hasn't been released yet?

And what "music pro application" are we talking about, and is that TRULY the ONLY thing you EVER run?
[doublepost=1484165754][/doublepost]

It's a shame Consumer Reports targeted the battery in their 'not recommended' review instead of the glaringly obvious lack of ports, expandability and user repairability. Maybe then Apple would have got the message.

1. There is no "glaringly obvious lack of ports". You just don't get it.

2. Laptops are generally fairly lacking in INTERNAL expandability; but this happens to be the MOST expandable laptop on the market. See #1 for details.

3. User repairability. That doesn't even rate a response. It is as "user repairable" to most people as their car, Furnace, TV, DVD/BD player, or Microwave Oven. The concept that a computer, especially a LAPTOP computer, is somehow "user repairable" SOLELY because you can swap out the mass storage or RAM is laughable. Because there are still the OTHER 99.9999999998% of components that are in NO WAY "repairable" on ANY computer, laptop or not.

 

[jujufreeze]

Bottom line, Pros require advertised battery life and excellent performance at minimum. This machine, while super thin and pricey, doesn't meet that criteria and tacks on an emoji bar to seem more palatable.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

I hope it is fixed!

Even if it is, too many poor choices to recommend the 15".

Really? Name them.
[doublepost=1484166059][/doublepost]

Do you really care about the battery life for whatever your pro work?
If you are working on anything intensive, you have to plug the power anyway.

Boy, THAT needed to be said!
[doublepost=1484166217][/doublepost]

I'd say CR was testing it right - browsing the internet means loading new pages over the network all the time, not loading a cached page (or pages) over and over again.

They WERE testing it right. BUT, Apple discovered that disabling the browser cache triggered and intermittent bug in Safari that caused the battery drain.

Bug Fixed. CR did some preliminary re-testing. CR is tentatively satisfied with Apple's explanation and fix, and is doing a thorough re-test.

 

[danfromohio]

Makes perfect sense, and you don't need to be weary (or wary) of anything. Out of the box, Safari doesn't disable caching, so you don't have to do anything but enjoy your new computer. The only way you could incur a battery penalty for disabling caching is if you're trying to.

I got new MBP. Surfed with safari and definitely did NOT disable caching. My battery dropped about 20%/hour when surfing basic websites. So there's more to this story than Apple is saying.