Apple Working With Consumer Reports on MacBook Pro's Battery Issue (cnet.com)

Last week, Consumer Reports concluded that it won't be recommending Apple's new MacBook Pro models. The American magazine published since 1936 by Consumers Union, a nonprofit organization, cited inconsistent battery issues for not recommending the MacBook Pro for the first time in its history. Apple's VP of Marketing has since addressed the report, saying they are working with the magazine to understand the results. From a report: Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller followed up with a tweet late Friday saying Apple is "working with CR to understand their battery tests. Results do not match our extensive lab tests or field data." Consumer Reports' review says that in-house testing revealed wild fluctuations in battery life for unplugged MacBook Pro computers. In the case of the 13-inch model without a Touch Bar, for example, battery life ranged from 19.5 hours to just 4.5 hours. Apple says the devices should operate for up to 10 hours between charges.

Comments

I'be been a Mac user for 13+ years

[93 Escort Wagon]

And, even to me, it's obvious if Phil Shiller is the point person on this, Apple is looking for a PR "solution" to this battery life issue.

This is antenna-gate all over again.

Re:I'be been a Mac user for 13+ years

[Hognoxious]

It's spelled Schiller. Freudian slip?

Re:I'be been a Mac user for 13+ years

[Anonymous Coward]

That is nonsense. From Apple's perspective this IS primarily a PR problem at the moment because it is highly unlikely that CR's testing is so advanced and extensive that they would be able to detect issues that Apple internally could not.
Especially things like extremely varying battery life ranging from 4.5 hour to 19.5 hours.

And obviously if they do find reason to think that CR is on to something, a VP will have direct access to all of the companies resources to drive further investigation forward.

Re:I'be been a Mac user for 13+ years

[93 Escort Wagon]

That is nonsense. From Apple's perspective this IS primarily a PR problem at the moment because it is highly unlikely that CR's testing is so advanced and extensive that they would be able to detect issues that Apple internally could not.
Especially things like extremely varying battery life ranging from 4.5 hour to 19.5 hours.

I think you are missing the point, if you think this is about "advanced and extensive" testing.

I don't expect the Consumer Reports' crew to be experts on this sort of thing. I expect they will run things more along the lines of how a typical non-technical Mac user will run things, because CR's team probably isn't that much more knowledgeable about Macs than the typical end user. And many end users - even before CR said anything - had already been reporting these same problems... so it seems darn obvious there is an issue, whatever Apple's "advanced and extensive" internal testing may (or may not) indicate.

That's kind of the point of Consumer Reports... to test things the way typical real-world people do.

And, frankly, we don't know if there was some subset of Apple's internal tests which did indicate this sort of issue, but the company decided weren't critical enough to cause them to hold production. The iPhone 4 antenna issues showed it can - and does - happen. Heck, how did Samsung release an exploding phone, if all these companies' "advanced and extensive" internal testing is infallible?

Working on the report instead of the battery

[lucm]

They are trying to prove them wrong, they are not working on fixing the battery issues. Within a few days we will all learn on Slashdot that Consumer Reports was doing it wrong.

Re:Working on the report instead of the battery

[PolygamousRanchKid]

In other news, Apple has secretly hired a team of "Test Conformance" executives and engineers from Volkswagen, to ensure that the battery lasts longer, when it detects that it is being tested.

Back in my younger days, vendors would add obscure flags to the C compiler, to ensure that it produced code optimized for benchmark tests.

Re:Working on the report instead of the battery

[Anonymous Coward]

they test the devices as bought. who writes the code for safari? the same company that makes the macbook. so you're saying that they should ignore how it works because there might be a problem with software the manufacturer wrote for the hardware being tested? i can't understand your logic. i really cannot for the life of me understand how people rationalize things.

fitting captcha>>>fanatics

Re: Working on the report instead of the battery

[reanjr]

CR is far more trustworthy than Apple. There is little reason to trust Apple on this. CR has been doing this shit for decades on myriad models. To suggest Apple knows better is to suggest Apple game the system.

Re:Working on the report instead of the battery

[thegarbz]

Apple is doing the right thing, by trying to get to the bottom of this in a systematic, controlled, intelligent manner.

By sending in the marketing team instead of engineers?

Up to

[bagofbeans]

Apple says the devices should operate for up to 10 hours between charges

up to 10 hours includes lasting only 10 minutes.

Working with

[Hognoxious]

What a vague phrase - "working with".

Does this mean bribing them to write more favourable reviews, or threatening them with lawsuits if they don't?

Re:Working with

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean bribing them to write more favourable reviews, or threatening them with lawsuits if they don't?

It means Apple is trying to determine the best way to spin this into a story about how CR's test doesn't represent reality. They've got their top spindoctors working around the clock to construct a narrative that'll appeal to Apple fans.

Missing The Big Picture

[RoscoeChicken]

Apple's entire line of laptops is now disposable, and Consumer Reports is worried about the battery life.

Battery life is not the real issue

[dcavanaugh]

Battery replacement is. After a few years, battery life will be half of whatever it started with. At that point, the MBP and its irreplaceable batteries can never stray very far from the charger. Users might accept that, as many people don't depend on the battery all that much. The ultimate deal breaker is soldered SSD. When that fails (and it will), the computer is junk.

If Apple offered a MacBook Pro with HALF of the current battery life, HALF of the memory, and HALF of the storage capacity, but made the components replaceable, they would sell a lot more of them, even if they were TWICE as thick.

Re:Battery life is not the real issue

[dcavanaugh]

You are correct about managing battery charge level, power drain, depth of discharge, etc. But it's not easy to get 4 solid years of service out of ANY battery in a portable electronic device. Does it happen? Sure. Reliable? Depends on who you ask. 1000 cycles is about 3 years of everyday use, maybe 4 years of Monday-Friday use. Managed batteries work reasonably well on phones. Then again, phones take a beating; the average user can be expected to lose or break their phone before the battery dies. Most laptops are not subject to that much physical abuse. I'm OK with a phone that lasts 3-4 years, but I expect more out of a well-maintained laptop.

Apple seems to think that battery lifetime is good enough to limit the number of in-warranty replacements, while not so good as to extend the useful life of the product beyond 4 years. They may be right, but I'm not so sure a 4-year disposable laptop is worth what they ask for it.

Now they are wrong? What about before?

[lucm]

Consumer Reports has recommended the Macbooks for years. And until now you apparently had no worries about their testing methodology. Isn't that an interesting coincidence?

Re:Now they are wrong? What about before?

[lucm]

Why are you trying to put a politically-driven spin on this?

I posted 3 sentences, none of which include anything remotely political. I understand that cognitive dissonance can lead to flawed logic but really pal you're either a lame troll or you're getting into tinfoil hat territory real fast.

The battery life hasn't been...

[Anonymous Coward]

that bad for me, but lack of RAM just makes my new MacBook useless. It has the same amount of RAM as the summer of 2011 MacBook it replaced. It's sad Apple gave-up over five years ago on improving their laptops.