Consumer Reports Stands By Its Verdict, Won't Recommend Apple's MacBook Pro (mashable.com)

Consumer Reports took many by surprise last week -- certainly Apple -- when it said it doesn't recommend the company's new MacBook Pro models. The American magazine, which has garnered credibility over 80 years of its existence, said battery life on Apple's new laptops was all over the place -- hitting 19 hours in a test, but less than four hours in another. Last week, Apple's VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller insisted that Consumer Reports' findings didn't match the company's field data, and that Apple was working with Consumer Reports to understand its review. Now Consumer Reports has responded: The nonprofit organization is standing by its initial verdict in which it did not give the MacBook Pro (2016) its "recommended" rating. The organization has now said it doesn't think re-running the tests will change anything. "In this case, we don't believe re-running the tests are warranted for several reasons. First, as we point out in our original article, experiencing very high battery life on MacBooks is not unusual for us -- in fact we had a model in our comparative tests that got 19 hours," it said. "Second, we confirmed our brightness with three different meters, so we feel confident in our findings using this equipment. Finally, we monitor our tests very closely. There is an entry logged every minute, so we know from these entries that the app worked correctly," it added.

Comments

Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumer Reports has no incentive but to produce accurate reports on consumer products. Apple on the other hand has a motive to produce positive results with its product tests. But this is not the first time Apple has over inflated battery life and I am sure it's tests were done to provide a good specification under certain conditions. But my own experience with devices today has tended to be overly optimistic battery life tested under not so realistic conditions. Consumer Reports has always provided more accurate battery life results.

Re:Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple

[93 Escort Wagon]

The problem is not "over inflated battery life" - and actually, Apple has (in the past) gotten kudos for being one of the few companies that consistently provided reasonably accurate battery numbers for their products.

No, the issue is there's something as-yet-unexplained which, under some circumstances, causes the battery life of the newest MacBook Pros to plummet to ridiculously low levels. Consumer Reports saw it in their testing; but, even before that, some customers were experiencing it (and justifiably complaining).

Re:Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not CR's job to find out why the product isn't working as expected/advertised. Their only job is to test the system in controlled and repeatable ways that can be demonstrated and are consistent with current quality assurance methods, and then to report on those tests to their paying subscribers. CR does not take money from anyone but their subscribers and buys off-the-shelf/lot products in order to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety.

In this case, they were comfortable enough with their results, even after Apple contacted them, to keep them. If they felt that the consistency was in issue with the tests (the same tests/test-systems that are run/used on other computer systems) then they would have stated that and reworked the tests. They have done this in the past when their tests were not working as expected.

What that tells me

[Sydin]

Is that Apple had no interest in actually sending the logs and test data to their engineers to figure out what went wrong and develop a solution. Instead, they wanted to solve the issue with PR: insist that CR somehow ran incorrect or non-stringent testing, have them re-run the tests according to how Apple wants them to be run, and have them revise their recommendation. Obviously I'm extrapolating a bit here, but it feels consistent with Apple's action up till now. Not to mention they put their head of marketing on the case, not any actual engineers. Good on Consumer Reports for sticking to their standards instead of caving to pressure.

Re:I don't see why they would change

[ilsaloving]

I've been waiting since 2011 to upgrade but every model they put out has been more and more retarded. Soldered memory. Proprietary storage. Removing ports even when it destroys compatibility between the few products in their own meagre lineup.

Apple has basically abandoned the professional market, and are now exclusively catering to rich people who sit all day in Starbucks looking at Facebook. I can think of no other reason for their direction in the last few years.

Re:So now, they're digging in their heels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't sound defensive to me. Why should they re-run the tests for one particular company?

Re:I don't see why they would change

[Gaygirlie]

What exactly does Consumer Reports have to lose by a re-test?

Time. If they start giving some companies special attention, then everyone else will start demanding that, too. If, on the other hand, they stick to the "We give you one chance and that's that" they can actually get a lot more work done.

Re:I don't see why they would change

[Sebby]

Time. If they start giving some companies special attention, then everyone else will start demanding that, too. If, on the other hand, they stick to the "We give you one chance and that's that" they can actually get a lot more work done.

Not to mention credibility.