Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Test finds Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro only laptops to match or beat advertised battery claims

Apple's MacBooks are the only current laptops to meet or exceed their makers' battery life claims, British testing publication Which? found in a comparison of several major brands.

The site used three different MacBook models including the 13-inch 2016 MacBook Pro, and found that while Apple claimed 10 hours on average, the real-world figure was 10 hours and 15 minutes, easily outranking computers by Asus, Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Toshiba. A 13-inch MacBook Pro in fact lasted for 12 hours.

The evaluation process involved draining each laptop repeatedly in several different every-day tasks, such as watching movies, or loading websites over Wi-Fi.

In some cases there were major discrepancies between results and marketing. HP's Pavilion 14-al115na, for instance, is claimed to run for 9 hours, but in practice lasted just 4 hours and 25 minutes. Similarly, the Dell Inspiron 15 5000 managed just 3 hours and 58 minutes despite nominally being capable of 7 hours.

Image Credit: Which? Image Credit: Which?

"It's difficult to give a specific battery life expectation that will directly correlate to all customer usage behaviors because every individual uses their PC differently — it's similar to how different people driving the same car will get different gas mileage depending on how they drive," Dell told Which? in trying to explain the gap.

HP meanwhile said that its battery testing "uses real life scripts and runs on real applications like Microsoft Office," and that particular specifications — like resolution — can impact power consumption.

The Which? results are in some ways actually more conservative than ones generated by U.S. magazine Consumer Reports when it retested Apple's 2016 MacBook Pros. In the latter case, one unit managed nearly 19 hours.

Consumer Reports originally delivered scathing numbers, suggesting that battery life could fluctuate wildly from as much as 16 hours to less than 4. Apple then intervened, pointing out that the publication had an obscure developer setting turned on in Safari that was triggering a bug and hence bad battery readings. The glitch was later resolved in macOS 10.12.3.



51 Comments

dbeats 13 Years · 26 comments

Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?

4 Likes · 0 Dislikes
rotateleftbyte 13 Years · 1630 comments

That 15 minutes will make all he difference :)   :)  :wink:

seriously, all that bad press when they were introduced seems an awful long time ago.
But will it matter in terms of sales?
Apple being Apple may not be shouting this from the rooftops whereas if it was the other way round....

1 Like · 0 Dislikes
freeper 9 Years · 77 comments

dbeats said:
Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?

No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.

5 Likes · 0 Dislikes
lkrupp 20 Years · 10521 comments

dbeats said:
Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?

Oh I’m sure the usual suspects will be here shortly to explain why these test results are bogus and rigged. Remember these are the “Apple can do nothing right” types.

3 Likes · 0 Dislikes
xzu 20 Years · 139 comments

Yippee being underpowered gives you more battery life!!!!

1 Like · 0 Dislikes