Consumer Reports Stands By MacBook Pro Battery Test Findings

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Dec 30, 2016.

  1. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Consumer Reports is standing by its initial findings that caused the agency to not recommend the MacBook Pro due to battery concerns. The agency said that it is confident in its results and won't be rerunning its tests.

    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. 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.
     
    Vercinaigh likes this.
  2. maclem8223

    maclem8223 Case w[H]ore

    Messages:
    1,404
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2013
    Gotta love non-profits sticking to their guns... good on'em.
     
    Madoc, Sharps97, F.E.A.R. and 4 others like this.
  3. Jim Kim

    Jim Kim 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,307
    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Steve, against my better judgement, get one of these toys and test it.
     
    captaindiptoad likes this.
  4. DPI

    DPI Nitpick Police

    Messages:
    10,955
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    So Apple lawyers tried to muscle these guys. Comedy.
     
  5. JosiahBradley

    JosiahBradley [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,712
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Clicked link without checking destination first, of course a pro Mac website would call out a valid third party's results. Apple could sell a toaster that sprayed water onto bread without any heating and call it magic toast; and, when people tested it and said their bread actually got soggy instead of toasty they'd claim you tested it wrong.
     
    captaindiptoad and Vercinaigh like this.
  6. sir-gold

    sir-gold Gawd

    Messages:
    931
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Only a bad scientist refuses to rerun a test.

    I think they are afraid a second test might give a different result, and would require them to apologize to Apple.

    Consumer reports feels that its better to be confident than correct
     
    jeremyshaw likes this.
  7. JosiahBradley

    JosiahBradley [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,712
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    That's some fucked up logic there. If you conduct an experiment thousands of times over years and years well over the normal sample size and one product fucks up, you blame the experiment? Go back to the Apple forums.
     
    amddragonpc, Madoc, Jim Kim and 3 others like this.
  8. sir-gold

    sir-gold Gawd

    Messages:
    931
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    First of all, I am by no means an Apple fan. I would have said the same thing if it was Lenovo or Dell or some other brand of laptop

    It doesn't matter if they have run the same test on thousands of other computers before. It's possible to screw up even with something that is almost routine. Maybe they stumbled on a CPU-eating bug that didn't exist in previous versions of the OS or something?

    If you perform a standard test and get an unexpected result, the correct response to the skeptics is "let us run the test again, just to be sure" instead of CR's response of "screw you, our testing is ALWAYS perfect the first time, we don't need to waste time with a retest."

    It just comes off as extremely egotistical of CR to refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that there could have been something wrong with the test, especially when their results were wildly inconsistent (somewhere between 4 and 19 hours of battery life) and differed greatly from other similar tests.
     
  9. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,283
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    No they didn't. 9-5 Mac suggested the results were wrong, but all Apple did was announce that they are working with CR to determine what the problem is.
     
  10. Derangel

    Derangel [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    17,095
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    No, they're response is saying "We're confident in the accuracy of our tests and here are the reasons why". They clearly explain steps they took to verify things were working right. And, as the article states, Apple is working with them to verify everything. If we assume for a moment that your speculation is right and it's a hardware or OS bug then well too bad. That isn't CR's fault and the results are accurate to the system as it was given to them. In that situation CR did nothing wrong and a no retest is warranted. Reviewers are not obligated to retest products after bug fixes are done. Now if it was a problem with how the test itself was performed Apple's people will help them figure it out and correct it. But until they actually know for a fact that something they did was wrong then I see no reason why a retest is warranted. It wastes valuable time and money, neither of which are in infinite supply.
     
  11. Poik

    Poik [H]Lite

    Messages:
    99
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    They shrank the battery size by around 25% on each model because the flat cells they wanted to use couldn't meet their validation process so they had to revert to normal cylindrical cells. They also claimed that 16GB was a power saving feature. Then when reports of wildly fluctuating run times started flooding in Apple sent out an update to remove the run time left indication.
    IMO this launch shows what happens when a company is led purely by design. GM showed us the results of accountants running everything, and now Apple has shown us designers running the show. Neither is good.
     
    Madoc, Jim Kim and Vercinaigh like this.
  12. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Apple lost a principle case in Denmark too. They dragged a customer that wanted his money back and had won in the "consumer court" to court. Only to be completely humiliated and now may have to refund countless people that ever got Apple device repaired.
     
  13. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    5,672
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Link? I'd like to read about that!
     
  14. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,962
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    I bet you the problem is charging and the meter saying full when its not.. as in shitty ass devices.
     
  15. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    5,672
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
  16. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2016
  17. mwroobel

    mwroobel [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,901
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
  18. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,962
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Honestly I have mixed feeling about this.. personally I would prefer new new!.. but eco-friendly like refurbished makes sense.
    I changed something with MS once, I think it was re-furb, and it crapped out again quite fast, but out of warranty then.. meh.
     
  19. Shintai

    Shintai [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,691
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2016
    Refurb can mean 2 year old components(Or more I guess). Also Apple doesn't sell refurb for the full price.

    Imagine buying a new car, engine breaks down after a week. The replacement is an engine with 100000km on it. Would you accept that?

    Plenty of people are willing to buy the refurbs. There is nothing "eco" in it. Its just a matter of getting premium price for used components.

    http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/iphone

    Here Apple directly says its worth 15% less than a new.
     
  20. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,962
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Huh! and they argue in court its the same as new :/ no wonder that shit didn't fly :)
     
    Shintai likes this.
  21. Paul_Johnson

    Paul_Johnson [H] PSU Editor & Admin Staff Member

    Messages:
    15,435
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    I seem to remember Consumer Reports saying they would rerun their child safety seat crash tests only for them not to but when the NHTSA did the tests correctly they found Consumer Reports had screwed up. If I were Consumer Reports, I would probably rerun the tests on the Mac. Or are we going to just get a postcard again when someone else does?
     
  22. PimpUigi

    PimpUigi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    303
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    So basically, (correct me if I'm wrong), Consumer Reports reports that the MacBook Pro gets something like 18 hours of battery life - which far exceeds what Apple says. Far exceeds what consumers are reporting. And they refuse to do a retest while people form theories about why and how the test made it that high? Theorizing it was using the integrated graphics chip instead of the nVidia graphics chip?

    And - if that's actually what's going on - doesn't that only stand to make Consumer Reports look bad when in the reality, most consumers are only getting 5 hours of battery life?
     
  23. Jim Kim

    Jim Kim 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,307
    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    No, that's not what this is about.
     
    nilepez likes this.
  24. PimpUigi

    PimpUigi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    303
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    OK, it was very confusing because the linked article didn't explain a damn thing and pretty much left me to fill in a bunch of blanks.
    So I'm still in the dark then.
     
  25. Exavior

    Exavior [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,646
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    going to the linked articles in this article would have given you the back story if you aren't aware of it. The issue is that CR did test with the current models and during one run would get a number lime you said of 18 - 14 (depending on the model). Then during their second test only was seeing something like 5-3. So they recommended people not buy the current mac book pros because battery run time is all over the place. They expect their test to be within 10% of each other and these were more like 1/4 the run time on the second test. Apple questioned the results and wanted them to rerun the test. To which CR said no that they tested everything correctly and that this is a valid representation of what people should expect running a new mac book pro.
     
  26. pxc

    pxc [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    33,064
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2000
    It's not just Consumer Reports noticing the battery problems. It's also being reported in Apple's own support forum, like this one about a month before the CR test: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7755374?start=0&tstart=0 Separate, but other odd battery issues on Touchbar models: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7786627

    It's also not just a single bad test. As CR puts it:

    At this point only die hard apologists still have their heads in the sand. This is fairly significant bad news, and Apple is doing what lots of other tech companies do when there's an unresolved problem in current products: deny the existence of the problem while working on a solution.