Following software fix, Consumer Reports now recommends the new MacBook Pro

By , Jan 12, 2017

Following Apple’s software fix, Consumer Reports has updated its review of the new MacBook Pro, stating that it now recommends the laptop. The publication says the fix corrects the erratic battery behavior it saw during its initial testing, and all MacBook Pro models now fall “well within the recommended range” in its ratings.

The three MacBook Pros in our labs include two 13-inch models, one with Apple’s new Touch Bar and one without the Touch Bar; and a 15-inch model. (All 15-inch MacBook Pros come with the Touch Bar.) The new average battery-life results are, in order, 15.75 hours, 18.75 hours, and 17.25 hours. We bought the three computers at retail, as we do with other products rated by Consumer Reports, to ensure that we are testing the same models a consumer would buy.

In December, Consumer Reports said it could not recommend the just-released MacBook Pros due to inconsistent battery life tests, with each model running between 3.75 hours to 19.5 hours. Apple worked with the outlet and discovered that a software bug in Safari was causing the battery life woes, and immediately issued a fix.

That fix is currently available to developers in the latest macOS 10.12.3 beta, and will be released to the public in a future macOS update.

Source: Consumer Reports

  • Share:
  • Follow:

  • Reilitas

    Fixed? I’ve already bought one of the 2015 models, it was a little too late. At least they still made profit.

  • Javier Gore

    I really hope this fix in safari will boost my 2015 MacBook 12″ battery life which is currently at 6 hours with brightness half way through and light web browsing.

  • Phil Randle

    Is this in the 10.12.3 Beta?

    Because my battery life on the new MacBook Pro on that update is outstanding.

  • Kr00

    Next time the incompetent fools at CR should be more upfront and transparent about their testing criteria which in no way represents actual user conditions. If they truly have the consumer interest in mind, they would never had released the report under such flawed, biased and unprofessional conditions. Egg on face and eating humble pie. CR credibility = 0.

    • Emmanuel

      Consumer Reports are actually a very trustworthy organisation, and they’re filled with qualified people, not “incompetent fools”. If they’re so biased and unprofessional, then how come they’ve recommended MacBooks released before this?

      • Kr00

        I can’t comment on their trustworthiness, just their professionalism to test properly. They have been caught out before doing this, and not just with Apple hardware. To write a negative report based on one laptop while two out of the three displayed no issue is astounding. Do that in the scientific world and you’d be laughed out of your industry.

    • Michelle

      Next time apple should respond to issues instead of ignoring them. This was apples fault for not addressing an issue before it escalated to this.

      • Kr00

        Another fool I see. Read the story PLEASE and stop being such an idiot. Apple helped CR uncover the anomaly that caused ONE MacBook to display unreal battery life. CR didn’t discover this, nor did they even attempt to find out why before writing their first report. Lazy, shoddy and deceptive at best. An obscure software bug is just that, not somebody’s “fault” as idiots like you keep bleating about like dumb sheep. CR have had to admit their failure in testing and have rewritten their report, or didn’t you read the story above? CR tests are not indicative of real world usage, at all. Not one living person on this earth would use their MacBook the way it was tested by CR. So get real. CR made the blunder, Apple helped THEM discover the obscure bug on ONE MacBook out of three CR tested (hardly scientific). The issue is not an endemic problem. CR should post the conditions under which they test hardware given they are meant to be a consumer reviewer not a hardware tester like iFixit are. Now go back under the rock and take your Apple hate elsewhere.

      • Michelle

        I’m sorry but are you that stupid? The bug was a software bug that effects every single new MacBook pro. The only reason it isn’t a widespread isssue was because not every one turns off cache. If apple had responded to CR before they wrote their review they wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.

      • Kr00

        Ha ha, 100% wrong. Read the story, PLEASE!!! Or are you so stupid that you. ant read. CR tested THREE, count it, 1, 2, 3, MacBooks. ONE!!! Only one had this anomaly. One out of three, not “EVERY SINGLE MacBook Pro” as you so stupidly stated. Show where, anywhere all MacBooks are affected. CR reported the issue was INTERMITTENT, meaning it wasn’t each and every time. WRONG again, CR didn’t tell Apple about their testing, Apple only found out once the report was published, and once they found out, worked to uncover the anomaly. It’s professional courtesy to approach Apple about ONE computers performance before publishing.

        CR is totally disingenuous with their account of how this played out. They didn’t contact Apple or share their testing results until after they went to press. The fact that CR couldn’t explain the anomalous results they were seeing brought their credibility into question. Apple’s explanation of finding the bug in “developer mode” when you manually disable cache confirms CR’s incompetence. Yes, Apple had an obscure bug to address, but one that would only be seen by developers and not by consumers. CR’s coverage and handling of this issue was both irresponsible journalism and an exercise in technical incompetence.

        Stop with the lies, and stick to the facts, or is the truth too hard to accept for a troll?

      • Anonymouse

        Callung people fools and idiots when technically they’re correct, telling them to go back under their rocks and to take their Apple hate. Sounds like you have what is commonly known as people hate when they don’t agree with your opinions. You have a nasty streak in you little man when others see things cdifferent to you. Instead of being calm and offering up your views in a calm and constructive manner, you hurl abuse and manner of crap. What’s the matter princess, is the air not circulating there in tne basement?

      • Kr00

        Only because idiots comment about things they don’t understand and only come out looking to bash, so if you bring a baseball bat to a conversation don’t expect a pat on the back from me, I have 0 tolerance for stupidity. That said, how about some truth.

        CR is disingenuous with their account of how this played out. They didn’t contact Apple or share their testing results until after they went press. The fact that CR couldn’t explain the anomalous results they were seeing brought their credibility into question. Apple’s explanation of finding the bug in “developer mode” when you manually disable cache confirms CR’s incompetence. Yes, Apple had an obscure bug to address, but one that would only be seen by developers and not by consumers. CR’s coverage and handling of this issue was both irresponsible journalism and an exercise in technical incompetence.

      • Anonymouse

        “Just like a wop to bring a knife to a gunfight.” Sean Connery: The Untouchables.

      • Kr00

        Nice spelling. I’ll remember to buy you a dictionary on my next visit to the asylum. Technically I’m 100% right, why else did CR change their report to being favourable. Thats what burns you. Ta ta tinker bell.

      • Anonymouse

        Keep your dictionary and refer to its grammar section as it appears you don’t know where to place your question marks. Hint, after the word favourable. As for being burnt, the only burnt I’d ever be is sunburnt,

  • Agneev Mukherjee

    No doubt about it… Apple bribed them…

  • Abhijeet Gupta

    Just wondering how much

  • Natalie

    “Apple bribed them!”
    OR, Apple showed them that a computer sitting idle on the desktop would last longer than a computer running 4K video and a benchmarking test for 10 hours… Maybe…
    Besides the safari bug which I found like a small difference in batter when on certain sites, mine lasted for about 15 hours consistently :/

  • n0ahcruz3

    Money talks the rest is conversation lol