Phil Schiller: Apple Working With Consumer Reports to Understand MacBook Pro Battery Test

[Ethosik]

You expect Consumer Reports to figure out what was causing the issue? They test products and publish the results.

Yes. I do not mean they should go around and dig through Apple's code. But if you perform any tested and get THAT BIG of a variation, you need to find out why.

If I did that at work, the first question people would ask is "why did you get x on one test but 5 times x on another test?"

 

[unplugme71]

Yep. I'm sure some people get good battery life, but there's been too many stories of bad battery performance for me to take the risk.

Besides, let's not pretend that would be the only reason not to buy it anyway

There's a thing called a return policy. If it doesn't meet your expectations, return it.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

 

[Naimfan]

Forstall worked for Jobs at NEXT, followed him to Apple, and as you know, Forstall headed iOS development. I'm sure plenty of people inside Apple, including Scott, saw him as the natural successor to Jobs instead of a logistics / supply chain expert (Cook).

Cook would have viewed Forstall as a threat to the throne, an ever looming dark cloud that the board of directors could look to the moment Apple started to falter.

I think this is correct. I think Cook was the safer choice, at least initially, for Wall Street, and Jobs and the Board of Directors recognized that. But I think Cook should have stepped back to COO (where his talents appear to be) after, say, three years and let Forstall (or another visionary type leader take over. Apple has fallen into that rut where short-term profits and numbers have taken precedence over all else; history is replete with examples of companies that do that and lose their market position because they forgot what got them there.

 

[H2SO4]

Um, did people forget the keynotes that Steve Jobs made? Seriously, go back and watch them. Even he was going on and on about Thinness. This is not a new thing. People, stop with the 'thinness' crap. This, as thin as it is, was designed for a larger battery that didn't make it through an important test. This device being thin is not the reason for this. So just stop it.

Also, are people really expecting to get the advertised battery life? I have never had that happen on ANY of my laptops. Apple or other PC manufacturers. My 2013 rMBP only gets 45 minutes while working in FCP. Yet I can get 10 hours with web browsing on sites that have no ads or no flash/html5.
[doublepost=1482850718][/doublepost]

Sometimes glitches are found after a product is launched. Take a look at the Surface Pro 4 launch history. It was HORRIBLE and it took A LONG TIME for it to be decent.
[doublepost=1482850969][/doublepost]

Yes because removal of the battery life estimate is the only way to know how long your battery lasts. Really? You can't just time it yourself? Or look at Activity Monitor? This is all just big conspiracy?

Sounds like you’ve had a bit of whiplash there matey. So you don't think the physical size of something, (it’s thickness - not thinness that wa something stupid Apple made up), has any bearing on it’s ability to carry a bigger battery? You don’t think that they might’ve settled on a size and had a light bulb moment when they couldn't get the battery capacity they wanted?
Are people expecting the battery life, yes. Apple push a ‘whiter than white’ persona and because of that their customers trust(ed) them.

I remember broadband companies that used to use the ‘up to’ claims that Apple are using. Apple do not need to be forced into it by the regulators. They could if they chose to, use all the data they have collected over the years to to give an, ‘Up to 10 hours’, and a ‘typically 6 hours for a video editor’. They apparently know their customers, if thats the case they know what they should do.

 

[ENduro]

This almost gave me a chuckle.

A one-time purchase of CR was enlightening. I needed a vacuum cleaner. The more I researched, the less I KNEW. Cue lightbulb over head. Looked at CR computers and software reviews.

Wow, a bunch of people, some with knowledge, most without, posting stuff on the Internets.

Gold Standard for what? Fake News? People spending money to furnish bogus reviews? Someone looking to be a pretentious gate-keeper or create self-importance with their job? I can go to Newegg or Amazon for that.

This cannot possibly be a serious post. There's no way anyone this deep in the reality distortion field could emerge and post something so dumb in the real world.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

I think this is correct. I think Cook was the safer choice, at least initially, for Wall Street, and Jobs and the Board of Directors recognized that. But I think Cook should have stepped back to COO (where his talents appear to be) after, say, three years and let Forstall (or another visionary type leader take over. Apple has fallen into that rut where short-term profits and numbers have taken precedence over all else; history is replete with examples of companies that do that and lose their market position because they forgot what got them there.

There's one big problem with that

Cook can't return to COO because he promoted his friend Jeff Williams to that position. There is only one direction he can go to:

OUT.

 

[Dcplus14]

My view is that it comes down to the OS not knowing/understanding how to effectively measure/predict this battery's life. I initially though the CR story was ridiculous, so I tried to run a similar test.

At home we have the new 15" MBP charging all the time. Using "Battery Health 2", the first iteration showed 19 hours unplugged as an estimation, and lasted that way for the most part. We let it drain down to 6%, and then recharged it in 5 or so hours. Our second attempt showed a 13 hour estimation. Let it drain to 12%, and recharged for a good 12-13 hours. Now the estimation is showing 4.5 hours but in the last 20 minutes jumped up to 5:08 hours.

I am not sure if the system itself is measuring 'complete' charge correctly, nor predicting the effective time remaining. The variability seems less hardware based than software as the issue.

Just my $.02, and by no means is this a 'proper' scientific test.

Device spec: 2016 MBP / 15" / 2.9GHz i7/ 512GB / Radeon 460
Average battery time: 5 - 19 hours
Standby time: Unknown
Programs used with approx time usage: Safari
TM automatic back up ON/OFF: OFF
Approx date purchased: 10/27/2016
Country: USA

 

[rain1ny]

In short, you would take random anecdotes of poor battery life from people on forums and social media at their word? Just like that?

Yes!
[doublepost=1482859186][/doublepost]

Just shows the Mac isn't a big deal to Apple anymore. Some of you people on here should consider Windows 10 devices, it's pretty cool and you can have it anyway you want it.

Whether tablet, 2 in 1, traditional laptop or desktop, your covered, you no longer have to wait on Apple to provide you over priced hardware when you can get a pretty good system for almost half price.

You can get a much better PC system at half the price of a fully loaded mac!

 

[dannyyankou]

There's a thing called a return policy. If it doesn't meet your expectations, return it.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

It's a lot less hassle to not buy in the first place because I know I'd return it anyway.

 

[jscooper22]

Seems like Apple built themselves a little iEchoChamber. They cannot conceive of themselves being anything less than awesome, therefore the tests are wrong.

 

[TechGeek76]

Really?

And by what stats do you make such a claim?

This wiki would disagree with you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

But I guess one can't believe everything posted on the internet!

Try separating iOS and OSX as they aren't the same OS and it's not going to look like you want it too.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Mate, I give you credit, you are passionate and taking the time to rely to people, kudos!

Thanks!

Sure wish I could get paid for all this passion, though!

 

[Ethosik]

Sounds like you’ve had a bit of whiplash there matey. So you don't think the physical size of something, (it’s thickness - not thinness that wa something stupid Apple made up), has any bearing on it’s ability to carry a bigger battery? You don’t think that they might’ve settled on a size and had a light bulb moment when they couldn't get the battery capacity they wanted?
Are people expecting the battery life, yes. Apple push a ‘whiter than white’ persona and because of that their customers trust(ed) them.

I remember broadband companies that used to use the ‘up to’ claims that Apple are using. Apple do not need to be forced into it by the regulators. They could if they chose to, use all the data they have collected over the years to to give an, ‘Up to 10 hours’, and a ‘typically 6 hours for a video editor’. They apparently know their customers, if thats the case they know what they should do.

It was designed at its current size to have a bigger battery. They just put a smaller battery in there. So its CURRENT DESIGN does support a bigger battery, but it failed a test so they opted for a smaller battery. The thinness is not the issue here.

 

[kdarling]

Yes. I do not mean they should go around and dig through Apple's code. But if you perform any tested and get THAT BIG of a variation, you need to find out why.

As they noted, they do hundreds of the exact same laptop tests each year. Yet they have never seen results vary like this.

CR is a consumer test magazine. It is not their job to figure out why a car takes longer to brake than another, or why one gets different gas mileage, or why one laptop gets oddball battery results.

Certainly Apple themselves didn't dismiss the CR tests out of hand. Apple did make a PR mistake by not responding to CR prior to publication.

My view is that it comes down to the OS not knowing/understanding how to effectively measure/predict this battery's life. I initially though the CR story was ridiculous, so I tried to run a similar test.
... snip...
I am not sure if the system itself is measuring 'complete' charge correctly, nor predicting the effective time remaining. The variability seems less hardware based than software as the issue.

Yep, hopefully it'll turn out to be some kind of battery level report glitch.

One thing for sure, 2017 can't come soon enough. 2016 has not been a good year for battery news!

 

[Ethosik]

As they noted, they do hundreds of the exact same laptop tests each year. Yet they have never seen results vary like this.

CR is a consumer test magazine. It is not their job to figure out why a car takes longer to brake than another, or why one gets different gas mileage, or why one laptop gets oddball battery results.

Certainly Apple themselves didn't dismiss the CR tests out of hand. Apple did make a PR mistake by not responding to CR prior to publication.



Yep, hopefully it'll turn out to be some kind of battery level report glitch.

One thing for sure, 2017 can't come soon enough. 2016 has not been a good year for battery news!

You are comparing it to the wrong thing.

These tests are compared to a SINGLE car passing one brake test by A LOT of extra bonus points, and failing another brake test by A LOT of negative strikes. SAME CAR! Not different models. So it is your responsibility to find out why. That data does not benefit ANYONE other than the car manufacturer (what Apple is doing now). It does not say the car is bad, because it DID pass ONE test. It does not say the car is good because it DID fail ONE test. You see the issue here?

They tested the laptop. One test gave around 16 hours of battery life (WAY over the estimated 10 hours Apple gave) and another test was around 4-5 (WAY lower than the estimated 10 hours). Same laptop. Same test. So something happened.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Although I agree with a few of your points, I completely disagree when it comes to workflow.

Myself and many other sports and news photographers constantly edit on the fly during for instance a Premier Legue football match. (If no editor is provided that I can send live to over mobile wifi) So I'm constantly downloading and editing during a match. I shoot XQD so I so won't miss the SD slot, but the loss of USB-A is a pain at the moment as is the loss of MagSafe when you work on location, my various MacBook Pro has been saved countless times by it. The sad reality is that almost every single one of my photographer colleagues are disappointed by the new MacBook Pro. We still have far to many external HD, memory sticks, card readers etc that use USB-A to want a complete swap to USB-C adapters are an absolute pain and not a solution, loss of MagSafe a massive issue. The lack of a 32GB ram option makes it even less of an attractive upgrade. The touchbar is pointless and counterproductive for my use scenario where most f keys are used as shortcuts for photoshop actions. I can use the f keys when I touch type without looking away from the screen where my work is, I can't do that on a touchbar.

With regards to the battery life, it is another big concern for onsite unplugged editing. One can only hope that Apple sort themselves out and the next update of the MacBook will be a true pro machine again.

Ok, so you don't use the SD Slot (like I said was the case with most Pro photogs); so that argument is right-out, and in fact proves my point.

If you think that this < $3 USB-C -> USB-A Adapter is an "absolute pain", then go home and sit on the couch. You just stick it on the end of your USB-A thingy and LEAVE IT THERE. Problem solved!

I'm with you on the MagSafe thing; but fortunately, Griffin has that covered. Nearly $40, and it has a few issues, but cheaper than a new laptop!!!

https://www.amazon.com/Griffin-BreakSafe-Magnetic-Breakaway-Chromebook/dp/B01CQTK6GU/


While I agree that 32 GB would have been nice, it is contingent upon forces that Apple cannot control (Intel), and so will have to wait until Kaby Lake this coming year.

I don't know what to tell you about the Touch Bar. My semi-pro photographer friend nearly jumped for joy when he saw it in person (and says that it was what really "sold" him on the machine). But I believe he uses Lightroom more than PS.

I sincerely believe that 95% of the battery-life issue is software, and will be quickly sorted out. We will all soon see about that one...

 

[kdarling]

You are comparing it to the wrong thing.

These tests are compared to a SINGLE car passing one brake test by A LOT of extra bonus points, and failing another brake test by A LOT of negative strikes. SAME CAR! Not different models. So it is your responsibility to find out why.

As long as all the tests were known to be identical, then no, it's not their responsibility to figure out why the same car acts differently.

Note that they did try a different test outside of normal operating procedures (with Chrome), got a different result, and reported that as well. Yet it's still not their responsibility to figure out why Chrome worked.

That's not their purpose. A tech site that specializes in looking at benchmarks and why they act differently, is what you want.

You're free to think otherwise, of course. I don't think we'll change each other's minds

 

[Ethosik]

It sounds like Consumer Report received a bad batch of Macbook Pros with faulty batteries. Still not an excuse for a $3k+ laptop.

Um, its technology. This happens no matter if it is $5, or $5,000. I had a GTX 680 go bad when it was $500. I have had a Dell die on me when I spent $2,799 for it.

 

[RSMP99]

Yesterday Consumer Reports revealed that Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro became the first MacBook to fail to achieve a recommendation due to inconsistent battery life. Apple SVP Phil Schiller today tweeted that the Cupertino company is working with Consumer Reports to understand the battery tests.

"Working with [Consumer Reports] to understand their battery tests, " Schiller tweeted. "Results do not match our extensive lab tests or field data." Apple claims its internal testing has seen the new MacBook Pro providing up to 10 hours of battery life when watching iTunes movies or browsing the web.

​

Consumer Reports' test has come under scrutiny since publication of the non-recommendation. The tests were conducted by opening a series of 10 web pages sequentially on Safari. This tests' inconsistency had the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar registering 16 hours, 12.75 hours and 3.75 hours of battery life. A 15-inch MacBook Pro ranged from 18.5 hours to 8 hours of battery life.

When Consumer Reports tried the test with Chrome rather than Safari, it found consistently high battery life. "For this exercise, we ran two trials on each of the laptops, and found battery life to be consistently high on all six runs," the report said. Consumer Reports did not think it was enough data to draw a conclusion, though they also point out their test results only take default browsers into consideration.

Critics, like iMore's Rene Ritchie, argue that inconsistent test results require more testing to ferret out whether the issue is easily fixable, like a Safari glitch. Consumer Reports noted in its report that if Apple issues a software update that it claims will fix battery life inconsistency, they will conduct fresh tests.

Article Link: Phil Schiller: Apple Working With Consumer Reports to Understand MacBook Pro Battery Test

[doublepost=1482864818][/doublepost]

Yesterday Consumer Reports revealed that Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro became the first MacBook to fail to achieve a recommendation due to inconsistent battery life. Apple SVP Phil Schiller today tweeted that the Cupertino company is working with Consumer Reports to understand the battery tests.

"Working with [Consumer Reports] to understand their battery tests, " Schiller tweeted. "Results do not match our extensive lab tests or field data." Apple claims its internal testing has seen the new MacBook Pro providing up to 10 hours of battery life when watching iTunes movies or browsing the web.

​

Consumer Reports' test has come under scrutiny since publication of the non-recommendation. The tests were conducted by opening a series of 10 web pages sequentially on Safari. This tests' inconsistency had the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar registering 16 hours, 12.75 hours and 3.75 hours of battery life. A 15-inch MacBook Pro ranged from 18.5 hours to 8 hours of battery life.

When Consumer Reports tried the test with Chrome rather than Safari, it found consistently high battery life. "For this exercise, we ran two trials on each of the laptops, and found battery life to be consistently high on all six runs," the report said. Consumer Reports did not think it was enough data to draw a conclusion, though they also point out their test results only take default browsers into consideration.

Critics, like iMore's Rene Ritchie, argue that inconsistent test results require more testing to ferret out whether the issue is easily fixable, like a Safari glitch. Consumer Reports noted in its report that if Apple issues a software update that it claims will fix battery life inconsistency, they will conduct fresh tests.

Article Link: Phil Schiller: Apple Working With Consumer Reports to Understand MacBook Pro Battery Test

 

[bjet767]

Try separating iOS and OSX as they aren't the same OS and it's not going to look like you want it too.

I did and read the whole article the link is posted to, it does also (eventually) and OSX is strong and not declining as the original poster says it is.

 

[RSMP99]

My experience has been consistently horrible. Even outside the 14 day return policy Apple has offered to buy mine back. On one trip to the apple store the genius reported that other co-workers are experiencing the same issue. Online support is spotty. Some have said that it is a known problem while others have said they have not heard that. The bottom line is that I get 1-4 hours of battery life (consistently worse in every way than my early 2015 model). Best case scenario I cam get 5-6 hours with everything turned off, only safari running one simple page, with the screen brightness below 50%. Since I already sold my older model and I am heavily invested in the apple universe I feel like waiting for some solution is my only option.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

My experience has been consistently horrible. Even outside the 14 day return policy Apple has offered to buy mine back. On one trip to the apple store the genius reported that other co-workers are experiencing the same issue. Online support is spotty. Some have said that it is a known problem while others have said they have not heard that. The bottom line is that I get 1-4 hours of battery life (consistently worse in every way than my early 2015 model). Best case scenario I cam get 5-6 hours with everything turned off, only safari running one simple page, with the screen brightness below 50%. Since I already sold my older model and I am heavily invested in the apple universe I feel like waiting for some solution is my only option.

So, since there is no "magic" here, and the laws of conservation of energy have not been violated, I will ask you for the same information that I have asked everyone else on multiple Forums, and which will only take a couple of minutes to gather and report-on (but which no one seems willing/able to provide):

1. Are the fans spinning pretty fast while the battery is draining at a prodigious rate?

2. Open "Activity Monitor" (In Applications/Utilities). Look at the "Energy" Tab. See if there are any Processes that are suckin' down the Juice. Tell me what those are (a screenshot would be nice, too).

3. If you are interested in actually seeing what is going on, rather than just whining and stamping your feet, Install and Launch the FREEWARE "Coconut Battery" Application. It will show in detail what the charge/discharge rates of your battery are. Let me know what it says (a screenshot would be nice, too).

http://www.coconut-flavour.com/coconutbattery/

If the above reveals nothing remarkable as far as energy input (charge-rate) or output (energy usage), then there pretty much has to be a Defective Battery-Pack. It can happen. Ask Samsung. But obviously, such a thing would be covered under Warranty.

Thanks. We're all waiting with abated breath for your report...

(By the way, no one I have asked has provided this simple information. To me, as an Engineer with decades of embedded design experience, that's very telling.)

 

[Ethosik]

You know that pre-production unit is exactly the same? It's what production unit is built based on. Moreover a battery is a battery. It lasts based on what you are doing. If indeed there is a software bug or bugs that cause the battery to be wasted then it will be fixed. End of story. Otherwise there is no mystery here or conspiracy.

Yeah. Like the NVIDIA reference/Founders Edition cards.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

Yeah. Like the NVIDIA reference/Founders Edition cards.

I don't know what that is, just logically it doesn't make sense for Apple to test battery life on a different hardware than one that they plan to ship then get a better battery life out of it and advertise it. Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Ethosik]

Presumably CR's test suite was rigorous putting the laptop under a standardized reasonable real-life computational load in their battery life test suite.

What you're saying is a 19 1/2 hour result, almost twice as long as Apple's published maximum battery life spec, is a reasonable number and should not have caused CR to blink an eye or wonder in the slightest if their tests and procedures may have been faulty, or if the tests had been properly administered and monitored for accuracy.

What number would pique your curiosity and cause you to wonder? 25 hours? Maybe 40 hours? How about 100 hours?

Go ahead, pick a number that would give pause and motivate you to look even a little bit deeper to try and understand what's going on. If you won't pick a number, I'll assume you're totally fine with 100 hours.

Would any of those results cause you to say, "Hmmm... Something is wrong, the laptop is seemingly executing our suite of rigorous tests as expected (loading web pages, playing video , whatever, etc), but the battery is lasting what seems like (relatively) forever - I wonder if there's something wrong with our test procedures, and if they're being administered and monitored properly." Otherwise, do you see anything wrong with that lack of intellectual curiosity?

It's as if they were saying, well, the laptop was hooked up and turned on doing our standard set of tests as expected, and yes we got a battery life result that's almost twice as large as Apple's published maximum battery life number, but that's cool, it must be true, no need to look further, or even wonder about our test procedures.

What if CR were testing, say a Ford F150 truck with their optional eight cylinder engine, one which might have an EPA mileage rating of, say, 15 - 21 MPG. And they conducted a set of mileage tests over a closed loop course where they got 41 MPG in one set, would you find anything strange about that? If not, why not? Would you expect they might want to investigate the reliability of their test protocols and procedures? If not, why not?

I agree. I just tested a 2016 Macbook Pro and got 100 hours. I am publishing an article about it because it is not my responsibility to determine if it is a legitimate result or not.

Yep, that is what people think here. It is not CR's responsibility to validate their results. Did you guys go to school? If I do an experiment and I get results like this, I needed to explain WHY. Doing what CR did indicates very poor tests or just did it for the clicks.

What would you guys say if I ran a test on a GTX 1080 at 800x600 resolution and only got 10 FPS? Hey, my tests showed it. It is not my responsibility to find out why it happened. The GTX 1080 must be horrible right?

Or is it possible my test was messed up, causing my CPU to be at 100% which caused the test to be CPU bound?