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?

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

[TheFakeTimCook]

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.

I think that is jumping to conclusions.

Phil is definitely "on" this, even reaching-out to individual Users who have Responded to his Tweet on CR, asking them to send him certain specific Logs to help Apple diagnose this problem.

The difference is, Uncle Phil is doing this on a one-on-one, direct basis, rather than issuing some "Press Release" explaining why MBP Users are just "charging it wrong", or something.

I honestly think that, while it is true that Schiller wears a Marketing hat, he is high-enough up in the Organization that if he wants to take this on as a "Personal Project", nobody inside Apple is going to question his sincerity; and if you look at his bio, he has enough "tech" chops to understand and appreciate the possible software (and likely some of the hardware) causes for all this.

Behind the scenes, I am also sure he has someone(s) on the Mac Dev. Team working over Christmas on this, even if he is engaging in a little direct communication with individuals, CR, and possibly the media in general.

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

[fluffernutter]

But the company, especially one that charges premium prices like Apple, can and should control the number of 'failures' that occur. They have a lot of control over the quality of the parts that are put in, and they are supposed to be the one you go to if you don't want problems.

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

[swb]

I'm kind of mystified by the abuse of CR testing here. There's kind of a meme that CR can't test anything besides blenders, AFAICT it originated back in the day when they started testing stereos and audiophiles got bent that their testing wasn't judging whether exotic equipment produced the exotic sounds or wasn't using the requisite 00 gauge welding cable to connect the speakers.

They're not disassembling the batteries and running the cell material through a mass spectrometer or conducting elaborate electrical tests of the batteries themselves; they don't need to.

What they do need to do is design reasonable structured tests of laptop usage and keep track of the battery's lifespan during these tests and compare it to the manufacturer's claims. That's well within CR's ability and it's perfectly valid. Either the computer battery does what the manufacturer claims it will do or it doesn't.

What CR is likely complaining about is that Apple modeled their battery life on some average use pattern that's not very realistic or very easy to deviate from in ways that seriously affect battery life.

What Apple should have done was modeled their battery life based on more intensive use cases. But of course then you can't make the laptop even thinner and the battery even smaller and then make long life battery claims. IMHO Apple is a victim of their own thinness obsession and is fudging the numbers to make it look positive.

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

[ddtmm]

This is not new news. People have been complaining of bad battery life well before Consumer Reports: http://www.macrumors.com/2016/.... The bottom line is it shouldn't have such drastically different test results with the same repeated tests. Whether it's the batteriesSafari or otherwise, it should be at least consistant. http://www.macrumors.com/2016/...

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?

Re:Working on the report instead of the battery

[fluffernutter]

Well I use Firefox on a brand new Macbook pro and my battery sucks. So, no that's not it.

Re: Working on the report instead of the battery

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Even if the unpredictability ends up being a software issue that can be ironed out, so that repeated runs of the same workload at least produce the same results; it's hard to imagine the overall story on battery life is going to be a happy one. The 13in model was cut from 74.9WHr to 49.2; and the 15in from 99.5 to 76.

Apparently they've improved the efficiency of the screen; but more or less all of the efficiency improvement in the move from Broadwell to Skylake CPUs has been in the low power modes; and how quickly the CPUs can move in and out of them; but draw when under load is pretty much the same. In the models with a discrete GPU that might kick in, the difference between idling and load will be even more dramatic.

The new ones might well sleep more soundly than their predecessors; but Apple hacked off 25-30% of the battery capacity without being able to do much about consumption under load. That is going to make them more sensitive to what you are using them for than previously, even assuming perfect avoidance of unnecessary load, spurious wakeups, etc.

Re:Working on the report instead of the battery

[TheFakeTimCook]

If I get the new MBP, then I would be running the new version of Safari, naturally, so my MBP would not be providing the advertised battery life If I have this issue!!

It doesn't really matter if the underlying reason is Hardware or Software problem, As long as there exists a problem, then the Unit does not provide the battery life promised, and CR's test results would still be valid, if they show the issue.

Yes, it matters. A LOT. You're an idiot if you don't understand why; but here goes...

If it is a software issue, then that should be fairly straightforward to diagnose and fix, and the fix can be instantly rolled-out to all existing users, and included in the software build of all machines being built from this time forward. Problem solved! And meanwhile, the "workaround" could be as simple as using Chrome instead of Safari until the fix is available. Most reasonable people would understand. But I'm sure you would act like using another Browser for a couple of weeks would be a crime against humanity...

Conversely, if it is a Hardware issue, the fix may be difficult, could temporarily halt production while updated hardware is designed, qualified, sent though agency approvals, etc, and would most likely result in a recall of all units already sold.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

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?

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

[Solandri]

This problem (after a few years, battery life being half what it was when new) has pretty much been solved with larger battery capacities and lower power components. Lithium-ion batteries do degrade this way based on the number of charge/discharge cycles. But the depth of discharge matters more. A battery which will only last 300+ cycles when charged to 100% and discharged until dead, can last 1200+ cycles when charged to 75% and discharged to just 25% before being recharged. The relationship is non-linear - reducing the cycle depth by half results in about triple the battery longevity. So it isn't just a matter of shallower discharges using the battery less. In other words, the worst thing you can do to the battery is to charge it all the way to 100% and discharge it all the way to 0%.

Most newer batteries integrate this into their design. When they report 100%, the battery is actually at 80% or 90%. When they report 0%, the battery is actually at 10% or 20%. The Li-ion battery packs in EVs are a good example - they're limited between 20%-80% charge, or 15%-85% charge. Many laptops also add software which further limits the charge - stopping the recharge process when the battery reads 80% or 90% (which probably corresponds to 65% - 80% of the battery's real capacity). Couple this with the user making sure s/he never discharges the device completely, and you've eliminated the deep charge/discharge cycles which degrade the battery the most.

In the old days, laptops used a lot of power and batteries were bulky. So manufacturers had to use 100% of the battery's capacity just to eek out 2-3 hour battery lives. This is what led to many of those batteries dying after a few years. Nowadays, battery energy density has improved, and mobile electronics use a lot less power. So manufacturers can put in a small or medium-sized battery in a laptop and still get 5-8 hours using only 60%-80% of the battery's capacity. So they've taken advantage of this to replace the swappable battery with an integrated battery and cut down on weight and size. The charging circuitry limits it so it can't actually charge to 100% or discharge to 0%, thus allowing these integrated batteries to be used for well over 1000 cycles - usually more than enough to last the lifetime of the device.

Re:Battery life is not the real issue

[dcavanaugh]

Even if people are dumb enough to buy laptops with irreplaceable batteries/memory/storage (as marketing research suggests they are), competitors will be quick to point out why that's not such a hot idea. Three years from now, AppleCare will be running out on these machines (assuming everyone is smart enough to buy extended warranty coverage). At that point, customers will be howling about how their investment decision worked out. I can get 3 years out of a mid-grade Windows or Linux machine and spend a lot less. Or I can go with a top-of-the-line machine and get 4-5 years. If Apple wants to sell disposable hardware, they need to price it as such.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see a state (maybe California) require a consumer warning label about computers with no serviceable parts inside. If it breaks out of warranty, repair is impossible. Most customers don't realize they are buying a disposable computer. Let's see what market research says when the warning labels start to appear.

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.

Re:Battery life is not the real issue

[TheFakeTimCook]

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.

Sorry to burst your fantasy-bubble; but my 2012 MacBook Pro gets indistiguishably-differernt battery life from when it was new. If it is "down" at all, it is only by a few minutes, and nothing I could ever put a finger-on, given varying workload.

As far as soldered SSD, I'm more with you on that one. But I will bet you will find that less than 1% of MBP owners suffer a catastrophic SSD-failure before they are ready to replace their machines anyway. I believe that this is essentially what Apple is using.

Also, the iFixit teardown uncovered a "connector to nowhere", that appears to be a way for at least Apple techs to access the SSD of an otherwise dead MBP directly, for data-recovery purposes.

As far as the batteries go, they are glued-down as usual; but are reasonably replaceable, considering you might have to do it once before the laptop is due for replacement.

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.

Last mac has me sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at alternatives for the first time in 16 years.

Apple doesn't want to be a computer company anymore.

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.

Re:Do all companies 'work with' CR after a bad rev

[Solandri]

CR will work with companies regarding details of test conditions and procedures to help them isolate any problems the testing might have turned up (which is probably the case here).

The actual products that are tested though are bought off of store shelves by undercover CR employees posing as regular customers. That way a company can't rig the actual sample of the CR product being tested, unless they're specifically invited by CR to see if the product is defective (which has happened a few times with cars which failed some of CR's minimum safety tests.)

This is one of the reasons I maintain a CR subscription even though the vast majority of their testing is too "average user" to be relevant to me. I think it's incredible valuable to have at least some published reviews based on random samples, instead of manufacturer-provided samples.

Make it bigger with more room for a bigger battery

[Joe_Dragon]

Make it bigger with more room for a bigger battery.

This thinness is killing the mac! the mini, mac pro, imac, laptops have all been hit by must look good and be thin. If they want to be thin why not have a 1u mac pro?