4 ms·

71.8 watt-hour: 2013 13" MacBook Pro [1] 49.2 watt-hour: 2016 13" MacBook Pro Touch [2] Why are so many people surprised that the battery life went down f

by alberth 10y ago

71.8 watt-hour: 2013 13" MacBook Pro [1] 49.2 watt-hour: 2016 13" MacBook Pro Touch [2] Why are so many people surprised that the battery life went down from ~10 hours down to ~7 hours? When the physical battery size is only ~70% of the previous model, it's no surprise the new MacBook Pro only gets ~7 hours of battery life. [1] https://support.apple.com/kb/sp691?locale=en_US https://support.apple.com/kb/sp691?locale=en_US [2] http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/

rayiner 10y ago
The really disconcerting thing here is that this is the first macbook in 10 years to be a major regression on key points. Since the first Intel macbook, Apple has focused on core competencies: good touchpad, good screen, good battery life. Every generation got consistently better on those dimensions. PC vendors will do stuff like ship a great touchpad one generation and a shit one the next, but you could generally count on each successive Apple laptop to meet or beat its predecessor on those core metrics.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- grandalf 10y ago
  If you work at Apple there are likely chargers all over the place so you don't realize that some people actually do care about battery life.
- slantyyz 10y ago
  The problem is that reducing thickness is a selling point/feature for a lot of people on Apple products, but the compromises made in exchange for thinness cause problems for people who don't value thinness over other things. Having said that, it's important to note that CR did not give the Macbook Pro a Recommended badge (think of it as the equivalent to "Editor's Choice"), it doesn't mean they're telling people not to buy them either. The headlines are somewhat misleading about this. Personally, even though I've left Macs because I don't like the direction Apple has taken, I'm still hard pressed to say that the current crop of Macs are horrible just because they don't cater to my specific needs. For the vast majority of people looking for a higher end laptop, they're perfectly fine (albeit pricy). I've gotten over the fact that "Pro" in Apple speak no longer means "Workstation Class" (or something close to it).
  - srssays 10y ago
    > The problem is that reducing thickness is a selling point/feature for a lot of people on Apple It's the Peter Principle for laptops. Laptops are made thinner and thinner, which is always an improvement, until the point when they no longer function properly. Fundamentally, people expect a certain amount of travel in their keyboard for comfort, and long enough battery life. Apple made a big mistake thinking these were mere "nice things to have".
    - slantyyz 10y ago
      With respect to the keyboard, at least in the reviews I've been seeing, a lot of people seem to be OK with it after an adjustment period. In terms of battery life, I'm with you, I'd rather see Apple get as much life out of the maximum sized battery that the TSA will allow on a flight (100Wh), but I don't know that I would call it a big mistake, since it hasn't hurt the sales of the new MBPs. I think they could do that in a chassis the size of the 2012 and earlier 15" unibodies. They'd also have plenty of room for legacy ports too. Those 15" unibodies were the sweet spot for me in terms of size and user upgradability.
      - srssays 10y ago
        Still, the computer costs thousands of dollars, and most people's purchase decision will be informed by their 15-minute experience of using it in the Apple Store. I tried it, the keyboard was uncomfortable, and I decided not to buy it. It would be nice if Apple would make an international version of the 15" that has more than 100Wh!
        slantyyz 10y ago
        I'm generally flexible when it comes to keyboards. The only keyboard (if you can even call it that) I've ever hated is the Surface Touch cover keyboard. As long it has some type of switch (scissor, cherry, dome, etc) I don't find that my speeds are affected too much.
  - rayiner 10y ago
bnycum 10y ago
Apple claims a 10 hour battery life on the 2016, and 9 hours on the 2013 for both the wireless web and iTunes playback tests. Judging by the Comsumer Reports tests though, they would get a shift of 6+ hours from test to test on the 2016 model.
- benashford 10y ago
  Apple appears to be banking on software efficiency gains offsetting the reduction in battery capacity. They've done this with various iPhone and iPad releases several times. But the trouble with trying the same thing for the Mac is the wider variety of software people run on macOS. Third-party software may not have got any more efficient, meaning the battery doesn't last as long. But if you stick to Mail.app and Safari then, in theory, you'll get the expected battery life.
  - jasonlotito 10y ago
    Except that's exactly what didn't happen. They tested with Safari. "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." CR goes into great detail about their methodology and reasoning for their results.
- acqq 10y ago
  We all know that the webpage content, when the ads are presented, actually changed since 2013. Has anybody measured the resource stress of the pages used for tests in 2013 compared to these used for the tests now? Is it apples to apples? iTunes test is less controversial. But "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" seems to dramatic to be due to hardware -- here it seems something kept some CPU's at 100% in the last case or something like that?
slantyyz 10y ago
Just speaking for myself, I'd want a 15" MBP with a 99 or 100 Wh battery even if it meant a slightly larger laptop (I'd be perfectly happy with the old unibody 15" chassis size).
dep_b 10y ago
Raw battery specs are meaningless when the underlying hardware and software is different. Battery specs on iPhones look pretty bad too compared to a lot of Android phones, real world performance is a different thing. Intel has been working on more power efficient CPU's more than faster CPU's the last years. Same goes for RAM. I guess Apple did the same on the software side. I still think something isn't completely like the engineers wanted it to be if I look at the way the batteries are fitted inside the chassis. And I am happy I am in a position to skip this year's version because I expect there will be an improved model that will deal with a lot of these smaller issues that weren't fixed in time before Christmas. But I don't think there's a dramatic decrease in real world performance at all. Just that with a better battery design it would clearly improve instead.

by alberth 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

The really disconcerting thing here is that this is the first macbook in 10 years to be a major regression on key points. Since the first Intel macbook, Apple has focused on core competencies: good touchpad, good screen, good battery life. Every generation got consistently better on those dimensions. PC vendors will do stuff like ship a great touchpad one generation and a shit one the next, but you could generally count on each successive Apple laptop to meet or beat its predecessor on those core metrics.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
grandalf 10y ago
If you work at Apple there are likely chargers all over the place so you don't realize that some people actually do care about battery life.
slantyyz 10y ago
The problem is that reducing thickness is a selling point/feature for a lot of people on Apple products, but the compromises made in exchange for thinness cause problems for people who don't value thinness over other things. Having said that, it's important to note that CR did not give the Macbook Pro a Recommended badge (think of it as the equivalent to "Editor's Choice"), it doesn't mean they're telling people not to buy them either. The headlines are somewhat misleading about this. Personally, even though I've left Macs because I don't like the direction Apple has taken, I'm still hard pressed to say that the current crop of Macs are horrible just because they don't cater to my specific needs. For the vast majority of people looking for a higher end laptop, they're perfectly fine (albeit pricy). I've gotten over the fact that "Pro" in Apple speak no longer means "Workstation Class" (or something close to it).
- srssays 10y ago
  > The problem is that reducing thickness is a selling point/feature for a lot of people on Apple It's the Peter Principle for laptops. Laptops are made thinner and thinner, which is always an improvement, until the point when they no longer function properly. Fundamentally, people expect a certain amount of travel in their keyboard for comfort, and long enough battery life. Apple made a big mistake thinking these were mere "nice things to have".
  - slantyyz 10y ago
    With respect to the keyboard, at least in the reviews I've been seeing, a lot of people seem to be OK with it after an adjustment period. In terms of battery life, I'm with you, I'd rather see Apple get as much life out of the maximum sized battery that the TSA will allow on a flight (100Wh), but I don't know that I would call it a big mistake, since it hasn't hurt the sales of the new MBPs. I think they could do that in a chassis the size of the 2012 and earlier 15" unibodies. They'd also have plenty of room for legacy ports too. Those 15" unibodies were the sweet spot for me in terms of size and user upgradability.
    - srssays 10y ago
      Still, the computer costs thousands of dollars, and most people's purchase decision will be informed by their 15-minute experience of using it in the Apple Store. I tried it, the keyboard was uncomfortable, and I decided not to buy it. It would be nice if Apple would make an international version of the 15" that has more than 100Wh!
      - slantyyz 10y ago
        I'm generally flexible when it comes to keyboards. The only keyboard (if you can even call it that) I've ever hated is the Surface Touch cover keyboard. As long it has some type of switch (scissor, cherry, dome, etc) I don't find that my speeds are affected too much.
- rayiner 10y ago

bnycum 10y ago

Apple claims a 10 hour battery life on the 2016, and 9 hours on the 2013 for both the wireless web and iTunes playback tests. Judging by the Comsumer Reports tests though, they would get a shift of 6+ hours from test to test on the 2016 model.

benashford 10y ago
Apple appears to be banking on software efficiency gains offsetting the reduction in battery capacity. They've done this with various iPhone and iPad releases several times. But the trouble with trying the same thing for the Mac is the wider variety of software people run on macOS. Third-party software may not have got any more efficient, meaning the battery doesn't last as long. But if you stick to Mail.app and Safari then, in theory, you'll get the expected battery life.
- jasonlotito 10y ago
  Except that's exactly what didn't happen. They tested with Safari. "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." CR goes into great detail about their methodology and reasoning for their results.
acqq 10y ago
We all know that the webpage content, when the ads are presented, actually changed since 2013. Has anybody measured the resource stress of the pages used for tests in 2013 compared to these used for the tests now? Is it apples to apples? iTunes test is less controversial. But "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" seems to dramatic to be due to hardware -- here it seems something kept some CPU's at 100% in the last case or something like that?

slantyyz 10y ago

Just speaking for myself, I'd want a 15" MBP with a 99 or 100 Wh battery even if it meant a slightly larger laptop (I'd be perfectly happy with the old unibody 15" chassis size).

dep_b 10y ago

Raw battery specs are meaningless when the underlying hardware and software is different. Battery specs on iPhones look pretty bad too compared to a lot of Android phones, real world performance is a different thing. Intel has been working on more power efficient CPU's more than faster CPU's the last years. Same goes for RAM. I guess Apple did the same on the software side. I still think something isn't completely like the engineers wanted it to be if I look at the way the batteries are fitted inside the chassis. And I am happy I am in a position to skip this year's version because I expect there will be an improved model that will deal with a lot of these smaller issues that weren't fixed in time before Christmas. But I don't think there's a dramatic decrease in real world performance at all. Just that with a better battery design it would clearly improve instead.