Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Computing
  3. Apple
  4. News

Consumer Reports recommends MacBook Pro after Safari fix and battery life retest

Add as a preferred source on Google

The 2016 MacBook Pro has caused consternation among Mac fans and racked up less-than-favorable reviews, including ours, which describes the new laptop as taking “a significant step back” in battery life. That also initially included Consumer Reports, which refrained from recommending Apple’s newest laptop for the first time ever, in part due to the laptop’s performance on Consumer Reports’ battery life tests.

After some back-and-forth with Apple, however, Consumer Reports agreed to retest the MacBook Pro battery life, amid concerns that the initial results might have been skewed by an elusive bug. According to 9to5Mac, Consumer Reports’ decision to retest the battery was the result of Apple presenting evidence that the results were caused by a bug that may have negatively impacted the initial testing.

Recommended Videos

Consumer Reports completed its new round of testing on Thursday and the results are significantly improved. Not only was battery life consistent, but it was also highly competitive. The 2016 models of the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch bar, the 13-inch version without Touch Bar, and the 15-inch MacBook Pro were all retested, and battery life was 15.75 hours, 18.75 hours, and 17.25 hours, respectively. Given the new results, Consumer Reports has now added the 2016 MacBook Pro line to their list of recommended machines.

Consumer Reports was generally positive about the 2016 MacBook Pro’s display quality and performance in its initial review. The machines fell down in battery performance, however, an area that has been a complaint of numerous buyers (apparently the result of the choice of a lesser design).

According to Consumer Reports’ first round of testing, the most significant issue with battery life wasn’t specifically how long the computers would run before shutting down but rather their inconsistency. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, for example, ran for 16 hours, 12.75 hours, and 3.75 hours on subsequent tests. The 13-inch version without Touch Bar ran for 19.5 hours and 4.5 hours in different trial runs, and the 15-inch machine showed a range from 8 to 18.5 hours.

The organization notes that laptops usually vary by less than five percent between tests; Consumer Reports said it was able to replicate the MacBook Pro’s inconsistent results via repeated testing. The reviewers requested a response from Apple and at first received a typical canned statement: “Any customer who has a question about their Mac or its operation should contact AppleCare.”

Apple Vice President of Marketing Phil Schiller responded via Twitter on December 23 that Apple is taking things a little more seriously than that, however:

https://twitter.com/pschiller/status/812461342728695808

Consumer Reports cannot be faulted for its testing methodologies, which seem rigorous. The group upgraded its test machines to MacOS Sierra 10.12.2 and tested again to determine if Apple had resolved any battery issues in the latest update. The results were the same.

Apparently, similar concerns about the 2016 MacBook Air’s battery life are not without merit. While lower battery life could be expected given their smaller battery capacity versus previous MacBook Air models, the incredibly inconsistent results suggest a problem.

If you want to install the Safari bug fix that resolved the issue that interfered with the original round of tests, then you will need to first sign up for Apple’s Beta Software Program. Then, you’ll be able to download and install the fix. If you’re a little more patient, then you can wait for Apple to roll out the update to all users in “several weeks.”

Updated on 1-12-2017 by Mark Coppock: Added information supporting Consumer Reports’ new recommendation of the 2016 MacBook Pro line.

Mark Coppock
Former Computing Writer
Mark Coppock is a Freelance Writer at Digital Trends covering primarily laptop and other computing technologies. He has…
Google’s new Magic Pointer Play Store listing reveals a Gemini shortcut built for Googlebooks
The unannounced app turns the cursor into a contextual AI tool for search, image creation, and shopping
Plant, Text, Business Card

Google has quietly published a new Play Store listing for Magic Pointer, an unannounced app built for Googlebooks. Updated on July 10, the app turns the cursor into a Gemini shortcut that can act on whatever a user selects on screen.

Magic Pointer can send an image to Lens, generate a related image, or surface a shopping action without forcing users to open a separate chatbot. Regular Android devices currently show as incompatible, so the listing offers an early preview rather than a broad release.

Read more
You can stop using AI, but this new report says you probably can’t escape it
A UK survey found that most people feel AI exposure is unavoidable, raising harder questions about consent, privacy, and whether opting out is still realistic
AI Chatbots

More people are trying to use less AI, but avoiding it altogether may already be impossible.

A survey of 2,055 UK adults found that 42% deliberately limit how much AI they use. Another 70% said avoiding AI exposure would be difficult or impossible, even when they actively wanted less of it.

Read more
The face on an AI interviewer may matter as much as the decision it makes
Researchers found that race and gender matching changed how fairly rejected applicants viewed an automated interview, even though everyone received the same outcome
File, Computer Hardware, Electronics

An AI hiring system can treat every applicant the same and still leave some people feeling targeted. Researchers found that rejected candidates judged an automated interview differently depending on the race and gender of the avatar delivering the result.

Around 220 participants completed a simulated interview for a fictional customer support role with one of four photorealistic AI avatars. Everyone was rejected, yet perceptions of fairness shifted with the interviewer’s appearance. An algorithm audit could miss that reaction because candidates don’t experience the system as raw code. They experience a face asking questions and judging their answers.

Read more