Consumer Reports stands by its weird MacBook Pro battery test results

Consumer Reports has responded to our comment piece on its surprising battery test results for the 2016 MacBook Pro, stating that it stands by its findings,” Ben Lovejoy reports for 9to5Mac.

“I observed that the high-end numbers seemed hard to believe, hitting almost double the battery-life claimed by Apple, and I wondered whether some flaw in the test regimen had led to erroneous results,” Lovejoy reports. “I emailed the organization suggesting that it might like to repeat the tests, but Consumer Reports’ director of electronics testing Maria Rerecich has replied saying that she sees no need to do so.”

“Apple, too, was surprised by the results, Phil Schiller saying that they do not match the company’s extensive lab tests nor field data,” Lovejoy reports. “Rerecich confirmed to me that the organization is working with Apple to try to find an explanation for the highly unusual results.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: We look forward to finding out exactly how Consumer Remorse f’ed up their testing this time.

SEE ALSO:
Consumer Reports says do not buy Apple’s new MacBook Pro, citing erratic battery life – December 23, 2016
Consumer Reports evaluates iTunes Store movie streaming, confusion ensues – August 13, 2012
Is Consumer Reports having its revenge against Apple? – July 10, 2012
How Apple and facts killed Consumer Reports – March 29, 2012
Consumer Reports was no iPhone killer and they’re no iPad killer, either – March 28, 2012
Tests prove Apple’s new iPad heat levels comparable to Android tablets – March 26, 2012
Expert: iPad heat claims overblown, not a real issue – March 22, 2012
What’s the deal with Consumer Reports and Apple? – March 21, 2012
Consumer Reports’ bombshell: New iPad runs hotter than predecessor but ‘not especially uncomfortable’ – March 20, 2012
FUD Alert: Consumer Reports to ‘investigate’ reports of iPad and ‘excess heat’ – March 20, 2012
Consumer Reports hops off free PR gravy train, officially recommends Apple iPhone 4S – November 8, 2011
Why does anyone believe Consumer Reports? – April 6, 2011
Consumer Reports on iPad 2: We didn’t notice any significant speed improvement – March 15, 2011
Consumer Reports was wrong on Verizon iPhone 4; so-called ‘death grip’ fixed by Apple – March 2, 2011
Consumer Reports: Verizon iPhone 4 has antenna ‘problem’; not recommended – February 25, 2011
Consumer Reports continues laughable vendetta against iPhone 4 – January 14, 2011
Android sweeps Consumer Reports’ rankings as iPhone 4 is omitted – November 17, 2010
All of Consumer Reports’ ‘recommended’ smartphones suffer attenuation when held – July 19, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple’s free Bumper case does not earn iPhone 4 our recommendation – July 16, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple’s Bumper case fixes iPhone 4 signal-loss issue – July 15, 2010
Consumer Reports continues harping on iPhone 4 attenuation issue – July 14, 2010
Electromagnetic engineer: Consumer Reports’ iPhone 4 study flawed – July 13, 2010
The Consumer Reports – Apple iPhone 4 fiasco – July 13, 2010
Consumer Reports: Oh yeah, almost forgot, Apple iPhone 4 is also the best smartphone on the market – July 12, 2010
Consumer Reports: We cannot recommend Apple iPhone 4 – July 12, 2010
Consumer Reports does their readership a disservice, says viruses target Apple Macs – December 13, 2005
Consumer Reports: Apple’s new iPod screens scratch-prone like iPod nanos – October 28, 2005
Consumer Reports dubiously finds 20-percent of Mac users ‘detected’ virus in last two years -UPDATED – August 10, 2005

25 Comments

    1. No, it wasn’t.

      Consumer Reports does not accept advertising, and does not allow its reviews to be used in advertising in other media.

      Given the recent attention to the issue of fake news, you would think that people would take the trouble to check their facts before spreading rumors.

      The positive feedback votes are a bit troubling, too.

      1. Yikes. I think Consumer Reports is incompetent in at least some areas, including computers, but there’s apparently never even been credible accusations that they take bribes.

        @macawesome88: You must have heard this about someone else, not CR.

    1. 40 years ago, they were a bit sketchy and I have had no use for them since my first introduction as a young teen. My wife forced me to buy a copy once but otherwise, I have not looked at them since.

  1. I remember CR’s reviews of Mac OS X and such versus Windows over the years, and they clearly had no idea what they were doing.

    If their recent battery test results for the MBP are not repeatable, then they are worthless.

    1. The problem is that the test they used was one, single test used OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER, all the time pretending that their simplistic little single test was any kind of reliable measure of battery life. No it wasn’t. They explained their methods. They were wanting. They didn’t care. They went all defensive about it. They REFUSE to learn from their error. That’s a super FAIL.

      1. The only people apparently complaining are Apple fanboys. No else seems to have a valid complaint regarding CR’s testing methods and analyses.

        Of course, no Apple fanboy has suggested a fairer and more reliable method and analysis which perfectly demonstrates their complete ignorance and stupidity.

  2. When it comes to electronics testing consumer reports has lost any reputation it may have once had when it ranks superior products lower than an inferior one due to some setting just being wrong and they don’t ever correct their methodology. For the record on my new 15″, I’m averaging 9 hours 19 minutes after 10.12.2 update and removing and reinstalling creative cloud. Turns out it was sucking energy in the background because of some bad file from the migration. Much better than before.

  3. Well lets not all blame CR…(not that i love them )
    The battery issues were there from the getgo… people were crying out about this way before CR released their report.
    Even Phil alluded to it when he tried to explain away the 16 gig ram limit on this PRO machine.

  4. I can’t speak for CRs methodology but I do own a Late 2016 MacBook Pro 15″ and I can say without a doubt that Apple is a bit ambitious in their battery life claims. Just surfing the internet with a screen brightness of 75% or so I have NOT been able to get anywhere near their claimed 10 Hr life. I get around 5 hrs at best. In my case I side with CR on this issue. Apple’s quest to have the thinnest and lightest devices at the expense of battery capacity is hurting them. I love the Apple ecosystem and the features of OS X such as iMessage but it’s getting to the point where I’m going to start looking to Windows again because I can get a machine of equal quality for less money that also provides enough battery life to get through a whole day.

  5. Our extended family has used CR for 35 years now (I just checked, they have over 6 million subscribers) and I always laugh when I see comments from ‘CR has no credibility’ people. Rabid fanboys at their finest and blindest, falling over themselves to deride anyone that dares publish something unflattering to Apple.

    Read the forums snowflakes, battery life on the MB’P’ is a fraction of the outgoing model. My wife bought one and aside from a marginal improvement in display quality it’s an absolute joke considering the outlandish price.

    This thing was THE sole Mac of 2016 too, definitely NOT a good sign.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.