Consumer Reports Fails to Earn MacBook Pro Credibility

MacBook Pro setup
MacBook Pro setup (Image credit: iMore)

Update, January 12, 2017: Consumer Reports now recommends the MacBook Pro.

Consumer Reports has now finished retesting the battery life on Apple 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.

No specific author is credited with the update, which seems strange. Consumer Reports also seemingly still doesn't recognize the problem with the original article, which led to as many questions about their testing and publishing methodology as it did MacBook Pro battery life.

Also: Can I get a MacBook Pro that runs 18.75 hours? Pretty please?

Update, January 10, 2017: Apple provided me with the following statement on Consumer Reports' test:

"We appreciate the opportunity to work with Consumer Reports over the holidays to understand their battery test results," Apple told iMore. "We learned that when testing battery life on Mac notebooks, Consumer Reports uses a hidden Safari setting for developing web sites which turns off the browser cache. This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage. Their 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. We have also fixed the bug uncovered in this test. This is the best pro notebook we've ever made, we respect Consumer Reports and we're glad they decided to revisit their findings on the MacBook Pro."

Update, December 23, 2016: Apple's head of worldwide marketing, Phil Schiller, posted the following statement on Twitter:

See more

Here's hoping Consumer Reports shares their test method with Apple so the results can be vetted and, if necessary fixes can be made. That's what's best for the consumer.

There's been a lot of discussion around MacBook Pro battery life. For some people it's been fine. For others, problematic. Some reviewers have had a great time. Others have had a bad experience. Apple is sticking to their original estimates, but given the ongoing debate, it's something that needs a deeper look. Sadly, Consumer Reports hasn't done that. If anything, they've only increased confusion.

in a series of three consecutive tests, the 13-inch model with the Touch Bar ran for 16 hours in the first trial, 12.75 hours in the second, and just 3.75 hours in the third. The 13-inch model without the Touch Bar worked for 19.5 hours in one trial but only 4.5 hours in the next. And the numbers for the 15-inch laptop ranged from 18.5 down to 8 hours.

What was the test?

For the battery test, we download a series of 10 web pages sequentially, starting with the battery fully charged, and ending when the laptop shuts down. The web pages are stored on a server in our lab, and transmitted over a WiFi network set up specifically for this purpose. We conduct our battery tests using the computer's default browser—Safari, in the case of the MacBook Pro laptops.

Was it because some tests used Chrome instead of Safari, which previous tests have shown can greatly reduce battery life?

Once our official testing was done, we experimented by conducting the same battery tests using a Chrome browser, rather than Safari. For this exercise, we ran two trials on each of the laptops, and found battery life to be consistently high on all six runs. That's not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn't affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it's something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.

If I were running the tests, that right there would be a red flag. A huge, glowing, neon red flag.

Those results make very little sense and I'd take apart my chain, link by link, until I found out what was going on. I'd check and re-check my tests, I'd watch the systems like a hawk, and I'd do everything possible to find what was causing the variance. I'd even — gasp — try testing different machines and something other than web pages to see if that revealed more information.

Inconsistent results from battery life tests, for responsible publications, aren't a reason to rush out a headline in time for the holidays. They're a reason to start questioning everything, and to diligently retrace every step along the way, until you can get repeatable, reputable results.

What did Consumer Reports do?

However, with the widely disparate figures we found in the MacBook Pro tests, an average wouldn't reflect anything a consumer would be likely to experience in the real world. For that reason, we are reporting the lowest battery life results, and using those numbers in calculating our final scores. It's the only time frame we can confidently advise a consumer to rely on if he or she is planning use the product without access to an electrical outlet.

As someone who's been using a new MacBook Pro since the event back in October, and seldom with an outlet nearby, I'd laugh at that if I wasn't so busy crying. Then again, I know how to use Activity Monitor... My anecdote isn't data, though, and neither is Consumer Reports'.

Sadly, we now live in a world filled with manufactured controversies and, quite often, fake news. It's fake claims about real sapphire, cancelled watch apps that ship on time, and the perpetual rush not just to find the next "gate" but, in many cases, to create it.

"Bendgate" and "chipgate" showed there was blood in the pageview water, so now the click sharks are circling.

Now, I don't think Consumer Reports is faking news here, but I do think they're after attention more than they are answers. Otherwise, I think they would have taken the time to figure out what happened, why, and presented something truly useful. Sadly, I don't think that's their primary concern anymore. And it's why I stopped reading Consumer Reports years ago. (Yes, even their Samsung Galaxy waterproofing report.)

These days, if I'm interested in battery life tests, I go to AnandTech or Ars Technica, where they show their work, explain their methods, and often take whatever time is required to get real answers before hitting publish. Same for other areas. I look to the experts who don't settle for confusion but demand clarity.

If there is something wrong with the MacBook Pro battery, then I want to know about it. Just saying you got inconsistent results is as valuable as telling me it takes 1, 4, or 12 hours to cook a turkey – not at all. I can get food poisoning or burn a bird on my own, thanks.

Rene Ritchie

Rene Ritchie is one of the most respected Apple analysts in the business, reaching a combined audience of over 40 million readers a month. His YouTube channel, Vector, has over 90 thousand subscribers and 14 million views and his podcasts, including Debug, have been downloaded over 20 million times. He also regularly co-hosts MacBreak Weekly for the TWiT network and co-hosted CES Live! and Talk Mobile. Based in Montreal, Rene is a former director of product marketing, web developer, and graphic designer. He's authored several books and appeared on numerous television and radio segments to discuss Apple and the technology industry. When not working, he likes to cook, grapple, and spend time with his friends and family.

  • Consumer Reports has never been a good resource for anything but topical tech info. There's better at cars and appliances and air conditioners.
  • I had the exact same thought when I read about this. I actually saw it at a different site and immediately had to think back to maybe 15-20 years ago when I had a subscription to CR and I realized they didn't have good methodology for testing anything computer related. I want to say it was a bang-for-buck laptop comparison, and the ones they recommended could be summed up as
    1. Bigger screen
    2. Bigger hard drive
    3. More RAM
    4. Lower price. All that said, Apple needs to get a handle on this battery nonsense. There are too many reports from long-time Mac users for it to be imaginary.
  • Besides the dubious battery life of anywhere from 3.5 hours to 19.5 hours Consumer Reports claims, CR also reports that they got better battery life running Chrome browser (which is a known resource hog) than they got running Safari. That finding makes absolutely no logical sense at all.
  • Bc they weren't paying attention to the background processes: Indexing, iCloud syncing, photoslib etc - as I suspect most aren't, and these may be wrongly allowed to run during battery operations.
    Also, perhaps their "in-house" websites were optimized for Chrome, and run like **** on Safari. Sent from the iMore App
  • Really? You think Consumer Reports loaded up enough photos into their libraries to set spotlight off into a battery mongering state? Or optimized webpages for chrome (how does one do that btw?). Regardless of that lack of facts to back up any of your claims, if spotlight demands 5 times the battery power when running something is seriously wrong. And it should be fixed by Apple. I like all this finger pointing at CR, if they had come back with a recommendation (like they usually do) Rene and the rest of the hypocrites would be saying how great Apple is for being recommended by CR. Suck it up sally's, Apple has something wrong with the notebooks and the users all over the forums and CR agrees.
  • I can see how that was misinterpreted- I don't think the issue is CR. I think it's worth checking if one or many background processes could be causing a battery performance problem for so many people. Do we know if CR was watching Activity Monitor for such CPU usage? If there are processes running that shouldn't during battery power, that's on Apple.
    Typically, low-priority processes (Such as those I listed) can and/or should be suspended until connected to a power source. Perhaps there is one or more that aren't suspending during battery power, therefore draining the battery too quickly. I mentioned indexing or iCloud document syncing or photo syncing etc bc they are not user facing, and could easily drain the battery if let run. I don't see why that is so hard to believe. There have been software bugs before, right?
    I don't know what CR loads onto their computers for testing, but loading photos is high up on the list of things a consumer would do with a computer, therefore doing so would be a good "real-world" test, IMO.
    Sorry I don't know HOW to optimize a web page for safari vs chrome, but they are two different programs, and I know certain types of websites run differently on different browsers. Code does just work with everything. A sentence spoken in Mandarin may translate differently to Russian that to English.
    But we don't know what they did and didn't do, which is why Apple is looking into it. I feel it was irresponsible of CR to publish without talking to Apple about such wildly varying times, but the responsibility of correcting any rogue process causing problems certainly belongs to Apple. And who knows, maybe CR did contact Apple about it first, but didn't respond in the right way. Sent from the iMore App
  • I think they were pretty clear that they ran these tests on all 3 laptops and all of them had wildly varied results. They even stated: "This is a real departure from past MacBooks. Most Apple laptops have scored well in our battery test, typically lasting much longer than the manufacturer has claimed. For instance, a previous 13-inch MacBook Pro model lasted an exceptional 19 hours in Consumer Reports testing." So they appear to be runnng the same tests they always have. To say it was irresponsible of CR to not recommend them is a misunderstanding on your part. They aren't a tech review site that defers to the company to resolve issues. They purchase items as the normal public would and then recommends based on their testing.
  • I get your point about the CR's responsibilities, but if this a software bug, and Apple fixes it, and CR changes their recommendation, it will certainly not make as many headlines as it has in its current state. I just hope CR & Apple have done their due diligence.
    I presume Apple will not really be hurt by this, TBH. Personally, I'm not a fan of this MacBook Pro, not that I'm in the market for an Apple laptop anyhow, so judge the follow considering that. The type of people who would buy it already have to consider the list of complaints from other reviews (dongles, not "pro" enough for the price, etc). If someone was waiting for the MacBook Pro to be updated, they are likely going to get it, regardless of CR's recommendation, and "normal" users seem to lean towards the cheaper MacBooks anyhow. Those who do rely on CR were likely not in the market for said laptops, IMO, but I could be wrong. So this may sway a few people, but I would be curious to know how much this actually hurts Apple.
  • You're right, but Consumer Reports does have some pull and is vocalizing the cries of MB users for the past 2 months. While I agree this might not convince people not to buy it, it certainly is a big red flag for Apple.
  • Could help explain the record setting holiday purchases... ;-)
  • I think there's a bigger distortion field coming from the trolls on iMore like yourself, who can't even capitalize "Apple" or "iMore" correctly…
  • I agree
  • Comsumer Reports hasn’t been reliable (or unbiased) for many decades now. I find it rather humorous that a dinosaur like CR is reviewing a Mac, and that anyone would base a technology decision on Consumer Reports!
  • Anyone else notice that on the internet now "unbiased" means "tells me what I want to hear"?
  • I think you are confusing the terms "unbiased" and "fake news."
  • Exactly. I trust CR because they buy their test units and don't worry about event invites or early prototype demos. Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • Same with AnandTech or Ars Technica.. only they actually .. you know .. TEST.
  • This Posted from my Nexus 6P
  • CR has been reviewing Macs for a quarter century now. It's funny how you don't like the reviews as soon as they are negative.
  • I think CR has been showing the limitations of their approach for a while now, and they need to get out of computing technology. CR is intentionally ignorant of the details of the thing they're testing. It's a test. You poke it and see what happens. And there's any number of things that approach works well on. If you want to test the durability of a wall, by all means bang a rock on it. You want to calculate a good battery life estimate, though? You're going to have to put more effort into understanding the system than that.
  • Why? Apple advertises it as having 10-hour battery life while browsing the web. If CRs test does that, why should they delve further. Apple isn't living up to their claim. It's not up to CR to figure out why or what component is failing to deliver. Their job is to see if the product lives up to the advertised claim.
  • It's a fairly common opinion that these computers have bad battery life... Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • Don't let Rene hear you say that, he might blow a gasket. No Apple product could ever be less than what Apple says it is.
  • Obviously neither of you read the article you are commenting on. yet you posted anyway. That's called trolling.
  • I guess it's trolling if one disagrees. I've read from many objective pro Apple sources how battery life is inconsistent when this was NEVER. An issue in previous MBPros. I
  • Actually, i would just call it not bothering :) Either sounds good to me.
  • Ah the diehard apple fans go to. It is "trolling" if one does not agree with what you believe in. Ha nice try.
  • You already know he's fast to write Apple defense articles for anything semi negative that spreads online.
  • No, it's not, iHater. Go cry to your 💩 SurfaceBook that Microsoft promises 16 hours! Ars technica, NotebookCheck, LaptopMac/Tom's all concours that the battery life is correct, and they all got the promised 10 hours. None of the got the 16 hours for the latest and most expensive Surface, and none of them got more from the Surface than from the MBP.
  • If that were true, then Apple would not have removed the "battery remaining" from 10.12.2. Fact is, the remaining battery on the new units is not consistent and cannot be calculated reliably. This is a problem with the unit. Period. Like it or not.
  • Rene is definitely in the back pocket of Apple. Guy just can't be an honest "journalist".
  • That gasket has flown long ago.
  • @rebornaggie2013 So you did a test yourself to find out the cause or just repeating whatever and wherever you got the news from.
    Yes Ignorance is bliss.
  • Was wondering when we are going to see Apple PR's response to consumer report. Thanks for putting the Apple's response Rene.
  • I work in a lab, and we wouldn't dare publish a report with such a variance in the results until we were absolutely sure we were correct, and understood the reasons behind that variance. This is the 'Samsung' of publishing - rush to get it out before it's ready.
  • Yup, but expected from CR.. AnandTech or Ars Technica articles on battery for rMBP were more complete.
  • It should not be CR's duty to troubleshoot and bug report Apple's product. Their job is to report what they found. They did that.
  • And because of their results disagree wildly with everyone else, and wildly vary within their own report, there is no reason to believe them.
  • 3 tests with no conclusions but that the results are inconsistent is hardly a worthwhile report.
  • Are you saying that if you were testing a car and 1 out of 10 exploded, you would think it best to spend a few months investigating before letting anyone know? If CR completely fabricated their results this would be concerning. If they happened to get a few defective units this may be quickly resolved. Otherwise it's good to know for anyone considering buying a Macbook. It seems that sales won't suffer among readers of this site either way.
  • Exploded? That's your analogy? Perhaps better to say the very same test revealed gas mileage of 5 mpg, 30mpg, and 50mpg. That's a decent analogy. And, if that were the case, because inconsistencies like that just don't usually exist, I'd want to investigate to see if the testing methodology didn't work or that it didn't work well with this machine for some reason. If I couldn't figure it out myself, I'd likely want to contact the car manufacturer because those results just don't make sense. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bug found in Apple's software that led to these very strange results. I'd also not be surprised to find out there was in issue in the testing software when used with this specific product. Even if it a bug found in Apple's software, perhaps a simple point release addresses it and the product then gets fantastic battery life like some of the tests. It would seem somewhat silly to have the print article giving the product a thumbs down on battery life when it might actually overachieve in that area in two weeks. The point is, when test results within consistent conditions show wildly inconsistent results (in a field that shows very consistent results otherwise), anyone not rushing a story out would vigorously try to figure out why before publishing. If I was writing for CR, I'd get Apple involved right away because the results don't make logical sense. I'd definitely agree with Rene on that part. However, he may be stretching to presume he knows CRs intent. However, fake news, hoax news, and misleading click-bait stories have been my number one concern about the internet that last couple of years and it's danger is completely underestimated by almost everyone. All of us need to ask writers and sites to do their due diligence and write accurate headlines to stem this very dangerous tide.
  • CR doesn't have advertising. iMore does. That should tell you who is click-baiting and who is not. I do not begrudge iMore for ads. We all have to make a living. But to assign that motivation to CR is ridiculous.
  • Except the test is, effectively, a standard script that they ran on the 2015 and previous MBPs, and they passed with flying colors... the same tried and true tests that failed this time. Do you believe they "Samsunged" the previous decade's tests, too? Or is it only this time, when it didn't go so well for Apple?
  • Schiller responded--he is working with CR to understand the meaning of their claim. Remember, Apple cut form corners here and didn't use the proper sized battery .
  • Where was it reported that Apple didn't use a proper sized battery? Also, what is a proper sized battery?
  • "If there is something wrong with the MacBook Pro battery, then I want to know about it. Just saying you got inconsistent results is as valuable as telling me it takes 1, 4, or 12 hours to cook a turkey – not at all. I can get food poisoning or burn a bird on my own, thanks." Wait a minute, you think they (CR) should find out why the computer was burning more juice during their tests and come to some conclusion as to what caused this discrepancy? Are you serious? What if the manufacturer of your turkey put on the label to cook it for 6 hrs and it turned out burned, would you wonder why the oven over cooked it or how the manufacturer got the time wrong?
  • 😂 just believe whatever you read on the label and follow it as gospel truth.
    Don't blame you if you are not a cook. Or one with a very bad nose who can't smell a burnt turkey.
  • The problem lies in that the person that sold you the turkey said it would cook in 6 minutes, yet it stayed raw.
  • "Was is because some tests used Chrome instead of Safari, which previous tests have shown can greatly reduce battery life?" That's not English—fire your copy editor.
  • He is the 'editor' Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • I understood it, and I don't speak Swahili. What was it?
  • Contrary to Rene's opinion, I don't think it is CR's responsibility to troubleshoot the battery life problem. CR setup a test that they describe quite clearly and got very unusual results that are partly in line with what users are reporting. Since Apple has effectively made the MacBook a closed non-user serviceable system, it's Apple's responsibility to take it further and find out what's causing the inconsistency—and suddenly removing the battery time display in 10.12.2 makes me VERY suspicious Apple knows something is not right.
  • Bendgate was real and I see you forgot to mention another real one, Antennagate.
    Not all gates are meaningless.
    But good to come to iMore and get the Apple PR response first hand.
  • Bendgate was absolutely not real.
  • I have to disagree with you on that. My first iPhone 6 plus had a problem with the phone locking up. They were going to replace some of the internals when they notice that the phone had bent a few millimeters. They weren't able to fix. They even saw how I carried the phone. I had on a speck case on it, and that case was put inside a horizontal leather case, which I put in my front pocket. So there was no way it should have ever bent. So my phone bent somehow. Of course they replaced it was no questions. Bendgate was real.
  • Bendgate was completely real as it was the cause of the touch disease problem that Apple (finally) admitted to. Posted via the iMore App
  • There was a website called One of the Nine showing way more than just 9 iPhones bending Posted from my Nexus 6P
  • Yes, Bendgate was real, but it was an incomplete truth blown out of proportion by Apple haters. The complete truth was that Samsung flagship phones of the same era bent at far lower pressure/stress points than the iPhone 6 series did, yet it was Apple alone that received the bad press. There were extensive tests done with industrial equipment to show that other brands of phones were more bendable than the iPhone.
  • Yes, but all of the other handsets that bent continued to function properly. A flaw in the 6/Plus design meant that the touchscreen did not, a flaw that was rectified in the S revisions.
  • I agree with Rene here. If I were CR and running these tests and came across such inconsistent results then I would try to find out why, if only to decide if my test environment was inconsistent. To just publish without working out the reasons behind the inconsistency is bad reporting. I am not a fan of the latest MacBook Pro (I really don’t agree with a lot of the design decisions that Apple made), but this report stinks of poor reporting that is looking for a headline. As a Brit I don’t really know who Consumer Reports are but, judging from this article, it sounds like their reports get more credence than they deserve.
  • To be honest, it's not their job or function to find out why. The product is on the market. If they are testing once and then calling it a day then I would tend to agree that a retest should be in order. But they ran these tests 3 times per trial and ran multiple trials. It's clear, based on this and 'real world' users accounts that something is drawing far too much energy in some circumstances. What they are isn't for Consumer Reports to figure out, it's apples.
  • You’re right that it isn’t the reviewer’s job to find out why the results vary, but they vary so much that any decent reviewer would investigate further to see if they are doing anything wrong, or if the OS is doing something in the background. That would still be an Apple issue but would be the fault of the OS rather than the laptop, which would be good to know. At the very least they should have been watching Activity Monitor to get an idea of what processes were using the power. Most users of any operating system have seen “rogue" processes use a lot of CPU power and know how to track down the culprit, but it seems as if CR didn’t even try to see why they saw such variances, which is poor reviewing in my opinion (although I understand when you say that isn’t their job). However I still think that this laptop doesn’t deserve to be called a Pro machine. Too many compromises to achieve unnecessary thinness.
  • 'Scottish Captain' on MacRumors posted this; 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.
  • going on a week with my new Macbook 13 2016 and absolutely no issues at all ! This is my second Macbook the first is a mid 2014 which is still going strong, the new one is a better machine all around you cant go wrong.
  • Now, I don't think Consumer Reports is faking news here, but I do think they're after attention more than they are answers. I beg to differ. Plenty of users are reporting horrible battery life (c) reddit, macrumors, and other technology forums. I for one is glad that Consumer Report is bringing light to this situation. With that being said, I'm enjoying my 2016 non tb MacBook.
  • But they aren't Facebook Pros like the iMore gang so there's going to be a discrepancy. Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • Consumer reports is correct on this Sent from the iMore App
  • The relationship between sites like iMore and Apple is disgusting. Rene Ritchie writes this drivel defending Apple so Apple will continue to send him invites to events. Who would actually come to iMore for a serious take on anything? These sites are extensions of Apple's PR machine. iMore praises everything that Apple does, the fanboys flock here so as not to have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of reading something that challenges their beliefs, and iMore makes money off the ad sales. How is this any different than the whole "fake news" debate going on elsewhere? The you-say-nice-things-about-us-and-we'll-help-your-site-sell-ads relationship survives, whereas the sites that did real journalism die.
  • Yep Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • So true.
  • Then go away and don't come back. Bye. Have a good life.
  • An Apple apologists answer for everything...
  • Good point...
  • I have to agree with this, trying too hard at times to agree instead of reporting. Sent from the iMore App
  • Hi, I'm Rene and MacBook Pro is a Consumer Report champion! You should totally buy it! Hi, I'm Rene, those tests conducted by CR are not reliable! You should not trust CR and judge for yourself. **** will freeze before Rene Ritche throw an honest critic. Sent from the iMore App
  • "Sadly, we now live in a world filled with manufactured controversies and, quite often, fake news" Yeah, and this site is part of the problem by blaming the accurate blamers instead of calling Apple out on their questionable decisions lately across the board. i- and Poke- propoganda at its finest
  • While I understand that this is an Apple fan site I can't get behind simply becoming a marketing arm of a company just to keep early access. Sorry but you as a so called journalist are doing your readers a disservice. I don't agree with blowing every issue out of proportion for clicks. But holding a company accountable for issues will only make them better. We remember the whole antennagate issue; that apple fixed because it was an issue. The bend gate issue that this site downplayed. Yet Apple fixed it and has probably the strongest phones in the business now. If we want better from Apple then we must demand for better. We shouldn't simply settle for a 750p on an $700+ device when we know Apple could give us a more beautiful 1080p screen.
  • This has nothing to do with anything you say. A small sample and a data set of only outliers is a problem. CR cannot and should not draw ANY conclusions from it other than that there is a test problem. Yes one should hold Apple accountable for delivering proper product but one should also hold CR accountable for basing their judgement on solid test results.
  • I would have said this is a software issue from the start had the tests from consumer reports been a slight difference between them, theye these tests are definatly not "slight" in any way. But knowing Apple. they stand by what they always say, and always like to put the shadow on other tests just because its not the testing could have been done vastly differently than Apple does it. Add to the fact battery in Macbook/Pro's vary anyway with what user is doing, but NOT by a wide margin like this. Cleanly shouldn't be happening, so perhaps Consumer Reports should of tested better using "other" Macbook Pro's knows to be ok ..... After al not all are affected right? Consumer reports get their stamp of approval, Apple will be happy, and we can go back to work as usual :)
  • In the meantime, my HP Spectre360x ($1149.00 i7 Kaby Lake with 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD HD, and 13.3" HD Screen, with 4 Bang Olufsen speakers) watched a movie and got over 13hrs of screen on time...did I mention it goes from off to full ON in 8 seconds? Sent from the iMore App
  • Was that a special price? Fantastic specs indeed. I have an hp that's 7 years old still working great and a 2012 MBP going strong as well. It's mainly ecosystem and preference at this point. Now a days the performance and quality gap isn't as marked in Apple's favor as it once was. Preference though still reigns supreme. Enjoy that nice sounding HP.
  • Lol Phil Schiller quotes imore saying they are working with consumer report. Looks like imore and Apple PR are working together. Congrats iMore !!!
  • This article reads like it's been put through Google Translate half a dozen times. Was Rene so seething that he neglected to do any proofreading whatsoever? Posted via the iMore App
  • He typed it from an iPad "Pro" Posted from my Nexus 6P
  • Looks like this is another reason why Safari should not be used on a Mac.
  • In my view it doesn't matter how they did it. If it is a consistent testing suite, and they can kill the machine in 3.5 hours. Then something is wrong with the machine/software, end of story. They say the variance normally is 5% and here we are talking a factor of 5. A variation in battery life has been reported by others.
    Apple back to the drawing board and try to focus in the inner parts and not just thinness and looks. So rather blaming consumer report put the blame where it belongs.