Electronics

[dooBdoo]

I thought this would be helpful to prospective buyers who use Consumer Reports as one of their resources.

~~~~~~~~~~

January 10, 2017

Apple resolves the MacBook Pro battery life issues found in Consumer Reports testing

"A bug in Safari may be the reason Consumer Reports got such wonky test results.

Apple and Consumer Reports have been working together to determine the issues that Consumer Reports had with the new MacBook Pro’s battery life during its review, and on Tuesday, both issued statements on their findings.

It turns out that Consumer Reports uses a developer setting that typical users don’t use, and also that the same setting has a bug that affects performance.

In its review of the MacBook Pro, Consumer Reports said its battery life test results varied wildly, from 4 hours to 19 hours.

Consumer Reports explained on its website that its laptop battery tests do not necessarily reflect real-world usage; instead, tests are designed to be consistent across different laptops for comparison’s sake.

In the case of the MacBook Pro, Consumer Reports’ battery tests uses Safari in Developer mode, which is not the default setting. (You might not even know that Safari has such a mode.)

Consumer Reports’ battery test involves downloading “a series of 10 webpages repeatedly,” but the publication turns off Safari’s caching ability in order to load fresh webpages.

Caching is on by default, and the only way to turn it off is by using Safari in Developer mode.

“This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage,” Apple said in a statement.

During their research, Apple and Consumer Reports discovered a problem when you use Safari with the cache disabled.

Said Apple, “[Consumer Reports’] use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab.

After we asked Consumer Reports to run the same test using normal user settings, they told us their MacBook Pro systems consistently delivered the expected battery life.”

In its statement, Consumer Reports said that when it turned caching on and did an initial set of retests, the MacBook Pro produced “consistently high battery life results.”

Consumer Reports said it is retesting the MacBook Pro and will update its review.

As for the bug, Apple has created a fix and it’s currently being tested as part of the Beta Software Program.

Once the beta run is complete, the fix will be issued publically through Software Update... "

COMPLETE ARTICLE AT THIS LINK:

http://www.macworld.com/article/3156350/macs/apple-resolves-the-macbook-pro-battery-life-issues-foun...

[FrostyBabe1]

Interesting. I noticed that my battery life decreased significantly when I upgrade my OS to Sierra. I don't, and have never used Safari as my browser. 

[Lilysmom]

@dooBdoo, thanks for posting.  The battery on my MacBook Pro is great.  I have almost stopped using my ipad.  I love this 13' computer!  LM

[gardenman]

The numbers they got for battery life were kind of hard to explain. You expect minor variations in battery life, but those weren't minor variations.

[dooBdoo]

---

@FrostyBabe1 wrote:

Interesting. I noticed that my battery life decreased significantly when I upgrade my OS to Sierra. I don't, and have never used Safari as my browser. 

---

          @FrostyBabe1,  I'm  sorry you're having problems.  Do you have the new MacBook Pro, or an older one?

[dooBdoo]

---

@gardenman wrote:

The numbers they got for battery life were kind of hard to explain. You expect minor variations in battery life, but those weren't minor variations.

---

          Exactly.   That's one of the reasons the "wonky" results were so unusual.   I'm glad they found the source of the problem and it will be interesting to see Consumer Reports' new test results and new, updated review.

[Cats3000]

What troubles me is that CR publishes the "Do Not Recommend" article, THEN gets Apple involved and finds out it's what CR is doing rather than a hardware problem.  That's not the kind of consumer-oriented journalism that helps anyone.  If CR had first done it's due diligence with Apple, it would have been a better fit.

[dooBdoo]

---

cats01 wrote:

What troubles me is that CR publishes the "Do Not Recommend" article, THEN gets Apple involved and finds out it's what CR is doing rather than a hardware problem.  That's not the kind of consumer-oriented journalism that helps anyone.  If CR had first done it's due diligence with Apple, it would have been a better fit.

---

          I agree with you, @Cats3000.   I do think Consumer Reports tries to provide solid advice but their limited funding (they don't accept advertising, and they purchase the products they test) can be a major hindrance.   They're still a good point of reference, and I'm glad they respond when challenged.   The problem is that even if they update with a positive review,  many people won't see it and will remember the initial one.   Much like the mistakes published in news sources, with the corrections not as memorable or noticable as the error was.

[dooBdoo]

Update from Consumer Reports:

Consumer Reports Now Recommends MacBook Pros

1/12/17

"Consumer Reports has now finished retesting the battery life on Apple's new MacBook Pro laptops, and our results show that a software update released by Apple on January 9 fixed problems we’d encountered in earlier testing.

With the updated software, the three MacBook Pros in our labs all performed well, with one model running 18.75 hours on a charge.

We tested each model multiple times using the new software, following the same protocol we apply to hundreds of laptops every year.

We first evaluated the MacBook Pro laptops in December, and found that battery life results were highly inconsistent from one test to the next.

(They ran anywhere from a low of 3.75 hours up to 19.5 hours between charges.) That led the laptops to receive low overall scores, despite strong showings in areas such as display quality and performance.

The process we followed with Apple is the same process we follow with any manufacturer when we discover a significant problem.

We shared our test results with the company so it could better understand our findings and deliver a fix to consumers.

Since Apple made a fix, we retested the laptops.

Now that we’ve factored in the new battery-life measurements, the laptops’ overall scores have risen, and all three machines now fall well within the recommended range in Consumer Reports ratings.

The three MacBook Pros in our labs include two 13-inch models, one with Apple’s new Touch Bar and one without the Touch Bar; and a 15-inch model. (All 15-inch MacBook Pros come with the Touch Bar.)

The new average battery-life results are, in order, 15.75 hours, 18.75 hours, and 17.25 hours.

We bought the three computers at retail, as we do with other products rated by Consumer Reports, to ensure that we are testing the same models a consumer would buy... "

article at link, or search for article title:

http://www.consumerreports.org/apple/consumer-reports-now-recommends-macbook-pros/

[gardenman]

The numbers on those initial tests were a bit eye opening. Lithium Ion battery design is probably 95% science/engineering and 5% voodoo, but to get that kind of a range in tests results under controlled conditions was highly unusual. Typical battery issues involve overheating, breaking down of the insulating barriers internally, or similar issues, not wildly varying battery life.

Pretty much every company that uses lithium ion batteries has an embarrassing goof in their history. Sony with combusting laptops. Boeing with the backup batteries in a jetliner over heating. Samsung most recently with their cell phone batteries exploding. If you use lithium ion batteries in a product, you either have had or will have issues at some point. The one issue you generally don't hear though is wildly varying charge times. I'm a little surprised it was simply a software issue, but that made it a lot easier (and cheaper) to fix. Samsung's smartphone recall cost them $2.6 billion.