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

[Firebrand]

You mean, Apple is working with Consumer Reports to help them understand how they're using the machine wrong.

[...]

If they'd built the laptop properly with sufficient battery capacity, we'd be seeing a laptop that lasts 20-30 hours (!) under light use, and 7-8 hours under heavy use. Then I don't think anyone would be complaining. ~4 hours, however, isn't much, and is pretty inexcusable for what is being sold as a premium device.

No matter how much damage control they engage in, and no matter what they say about these devices or the users, it doesn't change the fact that the design is fundamentally flawed and Apple cannot change the laws of physics.

-SC

But people are buying?!!

 

[Paul Dawkins]

It used to be that Apple PR was proactive, they seem incredibly reactive in 2016, needing to respond and put out fires on their products. While I agree that its probably a software fix, its still egg on Apple's face and it doesn't really help their case in selling laptops.

Given that so many people have reported less then stellar results, why couldn't Apple have uncovered this before rolling it out?

Apple PR is caught between Apple Marketing and Apple Engineering.

 

[tentales]

It used to be that Apple PR was proactive, they seem incredibly reactive in 2016, needing to respond and put out fires on their products. While I agree that its probably a software fix, its still egg on Apple's face and it doesn't really help their case in selling laptops.

Given that so many people have reported less then stellar results, why couldn't Apple have uncovered this before rolling it out?

Because consumers are not "using it right". Guess Apple's lab tests need tweaking.
[doublepost=1482581268][/doublepost]

People likely forgot Consumer Reports was still in business. Nothing gets your stuff read like negative Apple news!

You know, that repeated excuse for valid criticism is getting old. I remember times when plenty of stuff was getting read for positive Apple news. How else did it become the giant it is.

Critical voices are far and wide, from Macworld to CNET. Biggest fanboys like Brian Tong are holding Apple's feet to the fire: https://www.cnet.com/videos/the-highs-and-lows-for-apple-in-2016/

 

[5to1]

You mean, Apple is working with Consumer Reports to help them understand how they're using the machine wrong.

The problem isn't that Apple's power saving features don't work. They work exceptionally well, that's where 16 hours is coming from. The problem is that they work too well and the battery is undersized. The moment you load the machine down, the battery % begins to drop through the floor because the machine quite literally was not designed for that kind of use. The "time remaining" indicator only served to highlight just how fast the % was falling (since it's far more difficult for a user to gauge the remaining time left based solely on a plummeting number), which is why they got rid of it. Apple wanted snazzy specs in a thin package, and this is the end result.

If they'd built the laptop properly with sufficient battery capacity, we'd be seeing a laptop that lasts 20-30 hours (!) under light use, and 7-8 hours under heavy use. Then I don't think anyone would be complaining. ~4 hours, however, isn't much, and is pretty inexcusable for what is being sold as a premium device.

No matter how much damage control they engage in, and no matter what they say about these devices or the users, it doesn't change the fact that the design is fundamentally flawed and Apple cannot change the laws of physics.

-SC

Perhaps we should consider the facts.

We know battery capacity is 2/3 (13" - 49.2/74.9) or 3/4 (15" 76/99.5) against the previous gen.

We also know that all the key power consuming components have become more efficient. On a task for task basis the new machine should consume less power.

However, even if we presume no improvements in efficiency, given the same task the machine should run for 2/3 (13") or 3/4 (15") of the time the previous one did.

As I own a rMBP 13", I can assure you there is no chance of it running for 20-30 hours under light use or 8 hours under full load. Therefore, in order to achieve those runtimes on the 2016 (or as you put it if they'd "built the machine properly"), Apple would need a battery ~3 times the capacity of the 2015.

Of course you could reduce that size by presuming the new machine is more efficient. But it would be inconsistent with your original argument that Apples reduction in battery size was not warranted and is detrimental to the runtime of the 2016 MBP's. Even if we ignore that inconsistency, I would suggest the only reasonable figures we could rely on are Apple's own reductions in capacity. Therefore, if a 2015 machine would require a battery ~3 times its current size to meet your run times, a 2016 would require one between ~2 (for the 13", i.e. 3*2/3) or 2.5 (for the 15", i.e 3*3/4) times that of the equivalent 2015 model.

I don't know the root cause of the inconsistent runtime on the 2016's. Nor do I know the true extent of the problem, anecdotal evidence is usually a poor data set to draw conclusions from. I do believe there is an issue though. Given most people report erratic battery life, with the same person experiencing large ranges given similar usage, I suspect its a software issue. Li-ion batteries and solid state components generally perform consistently, even when faulty.

My take on the reduction in battery capacity. I am inclined to believe some of it is justified on the basis of improved efficiency of the 2016. Apple (IME) have generally been reliable on runtime. But equally I struggle to believe the 2016's are more efficient by a factor of 1/3 or 1/4.

I suspect in tasks where the efficiency improvements are fully realised the 2016 may even outrun the 2015. But in other tasks, where the efficiency improvements aren't of use it will lag behind. For most people I suspect they won't notice a huge difference, as Apple will likely have the data to ensure that is the case.

My biggest concern would be as the battery ages and loses capacity. Specifically for those latter task where efficiency improvements aren't as effective. If you're already starting with a smaller battery, as it ages it will likely necessitate a change sooner (assuming you perform such tasks on battery).

 

[Dannejaha]

The battery life is kind of strange... for most times it seem to last about 4h, but 1-2 times it has actually made it up to about 10h (estimate).

Even stranger is the condition it is tested. While i tried today I had no application started and still only around 4h (display brightnes turned down to about 25%). The time i got 10h i was working as normal with web, onenote and such.

 

[maflynn]

People likely forgot Consumer Reports was still in business. Nothing gets your stuff read like negative Apple news!

Very much in business and they're a force to be reckoned with, hence Schiller's coment about working with them instead of just denying the issue.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

Perhaps we should consider the facts.

We know battery capacity is 2/3 (13" - 49.2/74.9) or 3/4 (15" 76/99.5) against the previous gen.

We also know that all the key power consuming components have become more efficient. On a task for task basis the new machine should consume less power.

However, even if we presume no improvements in efficiency, given the same task the machine should run for 2/3 (13") or 3/4 (15") of the time the previous one did.

As I own a rMBP 13", I can assure you there is no chance of it running for 20-30 hours under light use or 8 hours under full load. Therefore, in order to achieve those runtimes on the 2016 (or as you put it if they'd "built the machine properly"), Apple would need a battery ~3 times the capacity of the 2015.

Of course you could reduce that size by presuming the new machine is more efficient. But it would be inconsistent with your original argument that Apples reduction in battery size was not warranted and is detrimental to the runtime of the 2016 MBP's. Even if we ignore that inconsistency, I would suggest the only reasonable figures we could rely on are Apple's own reductions in capacity. Therefore, if a 2015 machine would require a battery ~3 times its current size to meet your run times, a 2016 would require one between ~2 (for the 13", i.e. 3*2/3) or 2.5 (for the 15", i.e 3*3/4) times that of the equivalent 2015 model.

I don't know the root cause of the inconsistent runtime on the 2016's. Nor do I know the true extent of the problem, anecdotal evidence is usually a poor data set to draw conclusions from. I do believe there is an issue though. Given most people report erratic battery life, with the same person experiencing large ranges given similar usage, I suspect its a software issue. Li-ion batteries and solid state components generally perform consistently, even when faulty.

My take on the reduction in battery capacity. I am inclined to believe some of it is justified on the basis of improved efficiency of the 2016. Apple (IME) have generally been reliable on runtime. But equally I struggle to believe the 2016's are more efficient by a factor of 1/3 or 1/4.

I suspect in tasks where the efficiency improvements are fully realised the 2016 may even outrun the 2015. But in other tasks, where the efficiency improvements aren't of use it will lag behind. For most people I suspect they won't notice a huge difference, as Apple will likely have the data to ensure that is the case.

My biggest concern would be as the battery ages and loses capacity. Specifically for those latter task where efficiency improvements aren't as effective. If you're already starting with a smaller battery, as it ages it will likely necessitate a change sooner (assuming you perform such tasks on battery).

Even if it is more efficient it is still pennies compared to how much smaller the battery is. You can't optimise to save 25 watt hours.

 

[Roller]

Consumer Reports' got 3.75 to 16 hours for the 13" with Touch Bar, so they used the lowest number instead of averaging. In my experience so far (13" TB/i7/16 GB), I consistently get 9-10 hours with Mail, Outlook, Word, a file-sharing service, and a couple of other apps based on real-world use, not the time left indicator that Apple removed from Sierra.

I've noticed that the minute-by-minute power draw shown by coconutBattery goes up considerably during some operations, so I don't doubt that the battery can be down in just a few hours. But this doesn't explain why CR's results were so inconsistent, which is what some MR members are also saying. So it's still possible that a software change (OS, Safari, or other) may improve battery life. A higher-capacity battery would have allowed for more headroom, though.

 

[Someyoungguy]

CR was the gold standard.

Actually, the organization used to be highly credible, but it's not so much anymore. A change of leadership a few years ago brought an end to the credibility of its recommendations, which today are sometimes based on political correctness or on what management wishes were so. In 2013 its entire editorial division was eliminated. By 2015, most real journalists had left, and experienced staff had been forced out. This is the outfit that highly recommended the Samsung top-loading HE washer -- the one that rips clothing to shreds, disgorges sheets that don't even get wet (to say nothing of clean), and explodes. If you're looking for assessments of consumer products, you're better off studying the user reviews on Amazon. http://www.alternet.org/media/... and https://www.quackwatch.org/03H...​

Thank you. I had not seen this before.

 

[Mescagnus]

I think Apple should just do the following to clear up this mess, and their mess of a notebook lineup:

- Ditch the current MacBook Air line and sell the MacBook as its successor (name it MacBook Air), while more or less matching the old MacBook Air pricing.

- Make the new MacBook Pro the evolutionary version of the current MacBook, name it simply "MacBook" and sell it at MacBook prices (or slightly higher).

- Continue (re-introduce) the 2015 lineup of MacBook Pro, update their internals and display, keep the iconic keyboard and a good selection of ports, and maybe throw in the SG color option. This would be the true Pro laptop, without compromises. Sell it at 2015 MacBook Pro prices (or +100 at most).

It would be a much better balanced lineup, and I bet their laptop business would see a considerable boost. Most of all, there would be a lot of happy customers – which pays more in the long run than the silly profits they now ask for the new MacBook "Pro", while alienating a lot of their customers.

 

[iSee]

You mean, Apple is working with Consumer Reports to help them understand how they're using the machine wrong.

The problem isn't that Apple's power saving features don't work. They work exceptionally well, that's where 16 hours is coming from. The problem is that they work too well and the battery is undersized. The moment you load the machine down, the battery % begins to drop through the floor because the machine quite literally was not designed for that kind of use. The "time remaining" indicator only served to highlight just how fast the % was falling (since it's far more difficult for a user to gauge the remaining time left based solely on a plummeting number), which is why they got rid of it. Apple wanted snazzy specs in a thin package, and this is the end result.

If they'd built the laptop properly with sufficient battery capacity, we'd be seeing a laptop that lasts 20-30 hours (!) under light use, and 7-8 hours under heavy use. Then I don't think anyone would be complaining. ~4 hours, however, isn't much, and is pretty inexcusable for what is being sold as a premium device.

No matter how much damage control they engage in, and no matter what they say about these devices or the users, it doesn't change the fact that the design is fundamentally flawed and Apple cannot change the laws of physics.

-SC

Such nonsense.

The only way the better life could vary so much from trial to trail is if the testing procedure is seriously messed up or the battery is seriously messed up. (Since it was two separate machines, it's probably the testing procedure).

Neither one of these is a design flaw which is what you're talking about.

What is it about people that makes them (1) come up with some random idea and then (2) fit all facts to fit that random idea, no matter how much truth they have to lose along the way?

 

[FelixDerKater]

How many non-voting shares are included in that "work"?

 

[MarsViolet]

Was Apple not like 500+ days since updating the MBP already. I'm not sure how they could go slower at doing a product refresh!

The best way is to begin sooner.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

Good try Phil, but Steve Jobs is dead and you do not yet have the power to wield the Reality Distortion Field my Padawan.

How about you just fix the problem instead?

 

[maflynn]

Apple PR is caught between Apple Marketing and Apple Engineering.

Yes, but they could have gotten ahead of some of the issues that plagued them. For instance, what if Schiller during the event mentioned the MBPs were 16GB only because of battery and lack of low powered ram. While some people may have groused it would have prevented a large scale meltdown that seemed to occured and required them to be on the defense.

Or if they understood how buying dongles may be an unintended consequence so they're bundling a USB-A to USB-C dongle with the MBP. That would have been a great move. Instead they were reactive and forced to cut the price of the dongles so as not to appear as trying to make a buck on the dongles.

The battery issue is an issue they probably couldn't have gotten ahead of, but the bad luck with this, is that its just another issue and so yet again apple is scrambling

 

[Apple_Robert]

Interesting that he didn't say CR is just wrong. An indication that there really is an issue, though with what we don't yet know.

It would be good to see Apple put more focus on the Mac platform and ecosystem.

Not saying Consumer Reports is wrong, is no indication of there being a problem. The wise thing to do, is to keep one's mouth shut until one has all the facts and meets with the representatives of CR. After a meeting and further review, issue a statement.

 

[MH01]

Except some CR tests gave them 18 and 19 hours battery life. Nothing poor about that.

That's correct, take the anomalies and site them as fact very scientific approach. Care to sure what those tests were? Or are you just siting the video ?

 

[martfin70]

I've owned the base model nTB 13" for about a month now and can tell you I almost consistently get 10+ hours per charge.

But people choose to believe the horror stories over the countless others who have no issues at all. People are aching to make this a huge scandal, just like antenna-gate. Apple has slowly cultivated the most ocd/fanatic/dramatic user base of any company I can think of, and the new MBP launch has showcased it at its ripest. Sad to see so many are disappointed. My experience with this new machine has been nothing short of excellent. But even though you say you trust users' feedback, it seems you (and many others) trust those who have negative experiences more than those who have positive ones.

Bluush, so two questions for you:

1. What is you daily use on your Macbook? I have the same non TB 13" and battery life sucks browsing, at best 5-6 hours. Watching a movie appears to be great though. I watch the battery meter fall through the floor. Been using for 25 mins now and battery life has decreased 12%. Screen brightness is set to medium. I think Apple have some bad batteries if people see different times.
2. Also do you see an issue with the distorted screen after waking from sleep? I do constantly, when I get back to the USA after Christmas I need to schedule a Genius Bar appointment.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

Yes, but they could have gotten ahead of some of the issues that plagued them. For instance, what if Schiller during the event mentioned the MBPs were 16GB only because of battery and lack of low powered ram. While some people may have groused it would have prevented a large scale meltdown that seemed to occured and required them to be on the defense.

Or if they understood how buying dongles may be an unintended consequence so they're bundling a USB-A to USB-C dongle with the MBP. That would have been a great move. Instead they were reactive and forced to cut the price of the dongles so as not to appear as trying to make a buck on the dongles.

The battery issue is an issue they probably couldn't have gotten ahead of, but the bad luck with this, is that its just another issue and so yet again apple is scrambling

Yes, maybe, but how many times Apple mentioned all the little things before this? Even when Jobs was running things. You can always find out something after the keynote that's important, but Apple "forgot" to mention.

 

[MH01]

You don't know those members just like you don't know the people who did this test if they were paid, simply stupid or just biased.

If someone started filtering this member data using a scientific method it would probably turn out to be a complete rubbish almost every time.

I got a fairly good indication of the long term members here who is objective , a hater or an apologists . Plenty here to trust once you get to know they over a few debates .

 

[Apple_Robert]

I've owned the base model nTB 13" for about a month now and can tell you I almost consistently get 10+ hours per charge.

But people choose to believe the horror stories over the countless others who have no issues at all. People are aching to make this a huge scandal, just like antenna-gate. Apple has slowly cultivated the most ocd/fanatic/dramatic user base of any company I can think of, and the new MBP launch has showcased it at its ripest. Sad to see so many are disappointed. My experience with this new machine has been nothing short of excellent. But even though you say you trust users' feedback, it seems you (and many others) trust those who have negative experiences more than those who have positive ones.

I would not blindly trust users reviews. However, I do think that Apple should conduct tests that are more in line with how one might normally use the Mac, instead of the antiseptic / clinical setting that Apple used.

 

[maflynn]

Yes, maybe, but how many times Apple mentioned all the little things before this? Even when Jobs was running things. You can always find out something after the keynote that's important, but Apple "forgot" to mention.

No question, and the iPhone 4 is a great example of Apple needing to react, the issue is that the bad news seems to be a weekly occurrence. When Steve was running the show, Apple was very good at dictating the narrative of how people saw Apple. In 2016 Apple was on the defense most of the time, whether it was removing the headphone jack in the iPhone, or because they kept the headphone jack in the MBP, they were needing to defend their actions more in 2016 then any other time that comes to memory.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

I got a fairly good indication of the long term members here who is objective , a hater or an apologists . Plenty here to trust once you get to know they over a few debates .

I've been browsing this forum for a few years and even if i saw few promising figures everyones bias surfaces eventually.

 

[maflynn]

I've been browsing this forum for a few years and even if i saw few promising figures everyones bias surfaces eventually.

We all have biases, I try to remain objective but sometimes my excitement or disappointment gets the better of me

 

[Paul Dawkins]

We all have biases, I try to remain objective but sometimes my excitement or disappointment gets the better of me

Yes, it is extremely hard.