Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Apple removing battery life estimates following MacBook Pro complaints (9to5mac.com)
110 points by zeitg3ist on Dec 13, 2016 | hide | past | favorite | 120 comments



Yeah, having both a new gen Surface book and a new MBP, the difference is stark for CPU and I/O intensive tasks. With battery saver on, the Surface Book can easily last 6-8 hours of use.

To get that far with my MBP I'd need to essentially disable the screen, disable all backgrounding, turn off incremental compiles, and try to be careful about using my clojure repl. You immediately stop using Chrome (despite being a better overall browser) and go to the inferior Safari for battery life, etc.

The tradeoff is that the MBP compiles about 10-15% faster, but as it only lives about 1/2-2/3 as long on a single charge it is not worth it to me.


Wait, you are saying you get less than 6 hours for average use?

Everytime there is a macOS vs Linux thread it is repeated that things are quite bad on Linux. I kind of accepted it as the major downside.

I easily get 6h on my Ubuntu machine (Dell XPS 13, 2015) though. If others don't, the difference must be TLP?

Edit: answered in another response (older MBP)


Linux and Windows suffer on Mac Hardware. You get a hotter laptop with much less battery life due to the firmware not working as well.

Though Arch linux has an amazing trove of documentation on installing Arch on a Macbook. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/MacBook


I get about 10hours on a 2013 MBA (and the battery must be degraded after 3 years of intense use!).

It might go down to about 7hs of intensive work, or about 4hs gaming.


This is why the MBA may still be a good option for a lot of people considering upgrading and concerned about battery life (assuming they don't have a MBA now).


You should upgrade to the 2014 or 2015 MacBook Pro, battery life is easily 8 hours.


It is most definitely not. I can barely squeeze 6 hours out of mine. Running chrone, small node servers, and mongo processes, keeping background processes to a minimum and screen brightness as low as I can stand. It's deplorable, and I'll be switching to the Surface Pro to run linux as my next machine. At least then I'll get a proper command line for 'meh' battery life.


In my tests Chrome uses far more power than Safari and significantly more than Firefox.


Yup, Chrome does that for me, too. But I find firefox's UI just...so fucking awful. And the dev tools are simply inferior. Need chrome, if only Apple would pay attention to user needs.


I'm not sure exactly what the difference (if any) is between Chrome's dev tools and Chromium's dev tools, but Opera AFAIK uses Chromium's tools and the battery life on my 12" Macbook under normal web browsing in Opera (with adblocker and battery saver turned on) routinely exceeds 10 hours.

I do a bit of light web development work every now and then but I'm not really qualified to comment on how good the developer tools in question actually are. To me, they seem to have some nice features and they do what I need.


I switched to Opera a long time ago. It has the same backends as Chrome (webkit/v8), and the same developer tools but muuuuuuch better battery life.


I haven't used Opera. I'll check that out, thanks.


There's also an Opera extension to install Chrome extensions for the Chrome marketplace, it's really awesome so you don't need always need Opera specific extensions...most of the super popular ones like ublock, https everywhere, etc. are already there.


I found that modgod used to cause my battery life to suffer. Completely idle, it hovered around .5 - 1.0% CPU. Looking at the issue [1], it seems that they solved the issue this summer (I haven't been doing anything with mongo lately, so I can't say if it helped my battery life or not).

[1] https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/SERVER-2114


You'll see the same problems of short runtime. All those processes are causing the CPU and hardware to wake up more frequently, tanking your battery life.


> At least then I'll get a proper command line for 'meh' battery life.

I'm aware, as I stated above. I know they consume a lot of power, but I'm tired of the apple ecosystem being like '__NEW THING__ that doesn't actually help me in any measurable way.! Buy now for only two easy payments of 1 arm and 1 leg.!'

I'm switching because I can get hardware that's just as good with the surface, and still keep my linux environment, and not have to worry about some fucking stupid ass touch bar and shitty specs being forced down my throat come upgrade time.


I don't begrudge you the best hardware to scratch your particular itch. But if I may ask what's improper about bash on a Mac?


Tbh, it's mostly the lack of a full keyboard. I'm kinda irked by not having the key combinations and shortcuts I'm used to. Also, I use Vim as my editor and it's impacted similarly.

There are, however, things like ack, that I have running linux (out of the box, btw) that I had to find a replacement for on macOS.

It's mostly small stuff.


I still get between 8-10 hours on my 2013 15" MBP. The new one does seem like a major downgrade, which is too bad as I was thinking about a replacement.


What's your pattern for charging? Almost always plugged in? Use until dead then recharge and only plugin until full, etc?

I just had my late 2013 MBP batteries replaced by Apple 2 months ago (machine purchased July 2014). Battery life is already dropping precipitously - so perhaps it's how I charge the machine? I can't find any background services that should cause this to happen. When I got the machine I could easily do 8 hours now 6.5 if I'm very lucky


I'm very rarely on battery. Cycle count says 180, but I've likely only full discharged a dozen times. But if I'm running Safari, VSCode and then a few background build watch tasks, it just sips juice from the battery.


I have a Macbook pro purchased this year. I didn't notice substantially better battery life with the older ones.


Used to be that osx was far better at this than windows. How times have changed. Also: You lucky git.


Why do you think Chrome is a better browser? Better for what? I find Safari more responsive, and since I'm already all in on the Apple ecosystem, the handoff, and iCloud syncing of bookmarks etc, works better for me. It also feels a bit faster to start up for me. Not sure what chrome is better for, except as a way to cast videos to a Chromecast on my TV.


To be fair, SurfaceBook has a 15W TDP dual core CPU.


"To be fair" if I can observe at most a 10-15% difference on my primary CPU+IO bottleneck with power consumption on then I do not care much about the specifics of the underlying hardware.

Ironically, the only thing my MBP is better at is gaming.


Your personal workflow isn't really a generally applicable benchmark, and if Apple had gone with the 15W TDP processor people would just have more ammunition for the "it's not pro enough" argument.

The Surface Book is probably a better choice for you, though. My workflow sounds pretty similar to yours (maybe not quite as heavy a background load, though I do some incremental compiling and whatnot), and I have the mid-spec 12" Macbook which routinely gives me 10+ hours of programming and web browsing (I use Opera with the adblocker and battery saver turned on). I simply didn't need more power; this little machine handles everything I throw at it. I think a lot of people fetishize computing power to the detriment of their own convenience.


> Your personal workflow isn't really a generally applicable benchmark,

On the contrary, I think many developers here would be interested in the actual difference observed as opposed to benchmarked. My workflow is unusual in the wider world, but compiling Clojure, running webpack, compiling Android executables with Gradle, and running ocaml's compiler are all somewhat unique to this sphere. I feel comfortable talking about it.

> I think a lot of people fetishize computing power to the detriment of their own convenience.

I agree with this. That's why I think my surface book is a good compromise. A nice medium of a lot of things, acceptable speed at standard tasks with excellent battery life, a touch laptop for when touch-centric work and usability arises, and for my eyes the nicest screen shipped on a laptop right now.


>"To be fair" if I can observe at most a 10-15% difference on my primary CPU+IO bottleneck with power consumption on then I do not care much about the specifics of the underlying hardware.

To be fair, others dont have the same workflows, and see far greater than 10-15% CPU+IO improvements.

And people got enraged when the new MBPs wasn't that faster compared to last year. Imagine if it merely had that Surface cpu...


> To be fair, others dont have the same workflows,

""To be fair"" I don't think my workflow is exceptional for this environment. It varies from big compiles (android) to small compiles (webpack) and web work. It's quite normal for this audience, as far as I can ascertain.

But... I'm not sure why you are commanding me to imagine something here. I have 0 interest in imagining what excuses people make to keep or stop buying hardware from Apple.

I have my own reasons, and I've been pretty public with them. They extend well beyond recent hardware revisions, and have to do a lot more with software and the refusal to ship a touch screen.


>It's quite normal for this audience, as far as I can ascertain.

This audience isn't the only audience. Video processing/export pipelines, for one, show more than 10-20% improvement in Premiere, and close to 50-100% in FCPX in the new machines.


I've got an XPS13 with an i7-6500U. That CPU is surprisingly powerful. I tend to throw quite a bit of multi-core C++ compilation or heavy Java workloads against it and so far it hasn't noticeably faltered once. Don't underestimate them just because of the low TDP!


So does my Macbook pro 2016 =) The touchbar-less model.

I bought this model for the extra battery life. But I'm also far from impressed. It's my main complaint tbh.

I find that my typical usage which is on the heavier side (chrome, + 1hr of facetime) I get about 3.5 hrs battery life.


SurfaceBook is dual core, not quad core (but you'll be hard pressed to find this via any Microsoft marketing of surface - has only been confirmed by PR, no mention on any official press sites)


They keep shrinking the battery to make the machine thinner. Nobody but their internal design team appears to care that the box is getting any thinner than it is already.

But the days of 10 hour batter time are over. Regular use on Macbooks is now around five hours and will continue to fall in future versions.


You say "keep", but the last time the MBP regressed in battery capacity was 2008. Their last major reduction in thinness resulted in a significant capacity upgrade thanks to ditching the optical and 2.5" drives.


They'll probably switch to ARM soon. The "pro" user need not apply.


I have to say, I owned a Samsung ARM chromebook (which I promptly wiped and installed Linux on), and it was great. Fanless, and the battery outlasted me. Performance left a bit to be desired, however, but this was an older ARM chip too.


Good thing you put the "pro" in quotes, because actual professionals of all kinds will apply en masse.

Professional doesn't mean power hungry number cruncher as some people seem to understand it.

A doctor or a lawyer is also a professional.


Steam and other binary-only software wouldn't work, but for developers and alike, this would be a non-issue.

As for designers and their Adobe products, Adobe would probably release an ARM version pretty fast.


>Nobody but their internal design team appears to care that the box is getting any thinner than it is already.

Nobody? Besides the great sales whenever they put out lighter models (the Air, which was booed for not having high cpu, enough connections, etc, Macbook, the same, etc), how's that for "somebody":

"I’m have to admit being a bit baffled by how nobody else seems to have done what Apple did with the Macbook Air – even several years after the first release, the other notebook vendors continue to push those ugly and clunky things. Yes, there are vendors that have tried to emulate it, but usually pretty badly. I don’t think I’m unusual in preferring my laptop to be thin and light. (...) I’m personally just hoping that I’m ahead of the curve in my strict requirement for “small and silent”. It’s not just laptops, btw – Intel sometimes gives me pre-release hardware, and the people inside Intel I work with have learnt that being whisper-quiet is one of my primary requirements for desktops too. I am sometimes surprised at what leaf-blowers some people seem to put up with under their desks. (...) I want my office to be quiet. The loudest thing in the room – by far – should be the occasional purring of the cat. And when I travel, I want to travel light. A notebook that weighs more than a kilo is simply not a good thing (yeah, I’m using the smaller 11″ macbook air, and I think weight could still be improved on, but at least it’s very close to the magical 1kg limit)"

Linus Torvalds, APRIL 24, 2012


Linus isn't _always_ right...


But he's right to a lot of people. The situation was better when there was some market segmentation between the MacBook Air (for those who care about weight and noise) and the MacBook Pro (for those who care about raw performance). Cramming both use-cases into one SKU will cause at least one to suffer.


1. Coldtea seems to have that on hotkey.

2. Its from 2012, and Torvalds has since picked up a Dell XPS13.


No, but the market, who jumps to buy those devices, is.


You say it like it's a con, but this is what makes Apple unique compared to their competitors. The PC market will always be around to make a clunky laptop with a huge battery if the customers want it.

Apple keeps pushing the limits despite annoying some of their customer base. And often times, the bet pays off in the long term - but not always. In the case of battery life, the tech hasn't caught up enough to make it not a problem for customers yet. Example: I have a battery case on my phone that looks like crap.


A smaller battery is less expensive as well. If thinner helps bring the cost down, then I don't think it's just their design team pushing for thinner.


Nah, having done (a little bit) of battery design stuff, there's no way that the cost of the battery is at all a consideration. For reference, when I'm working on a system that needs "expensive", high-performance batteries with the best possible performance, we pay around 35 cents per watt-hour.

The Macbook Pro is around 50 Wh IIRC, which means if you replaced it with the most expensive cells I use it'd cost $17. And although you do pay more for different cell form factors (typically a decent amount more for flat batteries) the enormous scale that Apple operates at means there's no way the batteries are going to be a price concern no matter their size.


Thanks for the information. I was going by my experience of spending $100 on a replacement laptop battery a few years ago. I assumed they were much more expensive.


Margin is margin. Also, they are doing a funky custom battery form factor that probably drives the cost up a bit, even at their scale.


And yet these new "fewer materials" macbooks are significantly more expensive. =)


With the Apple Watch, I'm really surprised that they let the Series 2 out the door being actually thicker than the original. Is that fact causing the thinness-uber-alles contingent of the design staff to spend this year with dark clouds over their heads?


A smaller battery also charges faster.


"This tiny gas tank means I have to stop every hundred miles to fill up," the man said, "but the tank fills up so quickly!"


Better remove your gas gauge!


Gas gauges our pretty inaccurate anyways. So are the "miles left" that newer cars display.


Exactly, it would be better to have no idea how much gas you have. You're driving it wrong. Every few hours, go to a gas station, what's the big deal?


This is not Reddit


[flagged]


We've already asked you not to make personal attacks like this. Please stop.


I think this is not actually true. It can charge to 100% faster, but that's somewhat meaningless. A larger battery can soak up more joules faster. If you want to put "two hours of use" into a battery as fast as possible, you want a large battery.


I honestly wish they'd focus on battery tech instead of whiz-bang features like the touchbar.

Just accept that you're not going to make a touchscreen Mac. Accept it. That's fine. I don't want one anyway.

Give me a quad-core newish processor with 32GB of RAM, the fastest SSD that I can imagine, and ten hours of battery life.

If a 15" laptop weights between 2 and 3.5 lbs I don't care. I'm carrying it in a backpack 99% of the time. I'm not going to notice the difference. I will notice the difference when it stops working because my 2.257lb laptop stopped working after 2hrs because it's thin and light.


It's not a zero sum game.


So basically in response to reports of lackluster battery life on the smaller battery equipped 2016 MacBook Pro, they remove the time remaining indicator? LOL!

It wasn't an issue for 16 years, but now it's a problem? Does anyone buy that?


The time estimates make an assumption that you can use a small sample of energy usage and project it linearly over the remaining battery capacity.

This assumption breaks down on modern processors that get much of their energy efficiency by non-linear usage techniques such as race to sleep, adjusting cpu clocks for workflow, coalescing interrupts, etc.

Additionally, modern OSes are doing more small random background tasks that are invisible to the user. A machine that is temporarily using a lot of CPU to perform a cloud sync or face detection on some new photos will report that at this level of energy usage you might not have much time left, when in reality the background operation is likely to end shortly and battery life estimates might spike up in 5 minutes.

A user seeing a 3 hour estimate (that is probably wrong per the reasons above) when they are doing nothing that seems energy intensive and concluding that their machine is broken is the problem that Apple is trying to solve here.

Might there be a better way of communicating the energy effect of background tasks on battery to users? Probably, but a single number time remaining is going to be a very hard way to do that (basically asking software to predict the future). The battery life graph over time found in activity monitor is much better.

Something else that would help, and would fit into Apple's MO of moving iOS features to macOS would be a method of allowing users to enter a low power mode that would forgo face detection and spotlight indexing temporarily in favor of more consistent battery life. If it could do this for network usage when I say I am on a slow or metered connection that would be super helpful too.


This assumption is quite accurate if the machine is under a relatively constant workload, which it often is. The time remaining is quite accurate in my experience as long as I keep on doing whatever I'm doing. If I'm programming for hours, I'll get about what it says. If I'm playing a game for hours (well, a while, it doesn't really make it to hours with games) then I'll get what it says. It'll only fail if I look at the estimate after programming for a while and then assume it'll last that long while gaming, or vice versa. But, that's easy to avoid, and that doesn't diminish the usefulness of the estimate in the scenarios where it is valuable.

"A user seeing a 3 hour estimate (that is probably wrong per the reasons above) when they are doing nothing that seems energy intensive and concluding that their machine is broken is the problem that Apple is trying to solve here."

I'm sure you're right, and this is a typical Apple move recently. Remove a useful feature because the bottom quartile of their users can't handle it. Never mind the rest of us who can.


> This assumption breaks down on modern processors that get much of their energy efficiency by non-linear usage techniques such as race to sleep, adjusting cpu clocks for workflow, coalescing interrupts, etc.

But uh, my Surface Book's battery indicator is pretty accurate.

This is about changing the estimate to bring it in line with the rest of the industry being a PR disaster. Removing it entirely is esoterica.


Windows seems to have more hysteresis or longer sampling period on their estimates. I can light the CPU up, and battery won't drop from eight hours to two until it's been that way for a while.


A longer sampling period could certainly be a potential solution. It could also cause a different sort of user confusion. If I start up a game, play for a few minutes and then worry about battery life and go check.. If I still see 8 hours I'm seeing the wrong info and may make a decision to keep playing that I will regret in two hours.

I still think something like the battery over time graph is a better solution than a single number with so many assumptions built in that are opaque to the end user. The graph can express "you've not been using a lot of power but whatever you started recently has caused it to drop a lot faster."


The problem is people are saying that the new machines are not living up to Apple's estimate (of around 10h) on a charge. Apple's response is to spin this to be about the battery estimate indicator. Basically, they are insulting their more sophisticated users.


They knew all this before they put it on the market. Why not use some of the hardware development budget - and it's not like Apple has to count pennies - in order to improve upon the existing estimation algorithm?

The battery life graph over time found in activity monitor is much better.

Obviously it isn't or everyone would be using it. It's more informative from an analytical point of view, but people don't want to do that sort of analysis, that's why they spent $$$$ on a fancy computer. To do simple things for them.

Sure, predicting the future is hard. But assessing how different people use their computers, fitting the pattern of a user's activity to an approximate profile, and interacting with them intelligently to discover which features they want always-available vs which ones can slow down a bit needn't be that hard.


That is the worst possible response to the situation. It's an insult to the users. There is a battery life problem. Hiding that issue in this way assumes that the users are too dumb to realize.


>>>> It's an insult to the users.

Can you remember the last time this company did something to delight their users?


Yes, I do buy that. The article makes a good case that features like iCloud document syncing, Photos face detection, etc. make the battery life very unpredictable for the first few days, and it also doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the new low power + high power CPU setup makes battery life harder to predict.


So I'm sure then, that they'll turn it back on in a few days, after everything settles down, right?

Apparently one of the background tasks can't be to do decent modeling of use. That would be too hard to predict, not like face detection...


> the new low power + high power CPU setup makes battery life harder to predict

We've had CPU frequency scaling in laptops for at least a decade. What's different with the CPU in the new MacBook?


RTFA. The problem was specifically that the time-remaining estimate was inaccurate and causing confusion.


Oh but it wasn't a problem in Mac OS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12.0, 10.12.1.

OK, got it. That makes sense.

Thanks I agree with you now. You are right, the battery estimator was a terrible idea. It is causing me confusion right now just thinking about it.


It's not about which version of OSX you're running. It's about the software not adapting correctly to changes in the hardware, as Zaphoyd already explained to you. Yes, they should probably refine the software instead of just removing the display. But that's a different issue.

I don't know why you're so determined to ignore the actual news and get angry at news you made up.


>>> It's about the software not adapting correctly to changes in the hardware

If it's that simple and it only applies to the miraculous battery of the 2016 MacBook Pro, why remove it from older hardware?


Because it's a single update for all platforms that does other things as well, and because Apple makes weird decisions sometimes.

You seem to think that Apple hopes that people will forget that their battery drains quicker if they don't tell them how much time is left in it. I don't think they're that stupid.



That's just BS. It's accurate enough to be useful for many common workloads.


I don't have one of the new ones (yet), and maybe it's just me, but I find the battery life to be completely bananas for the few week or so after a reinstall. Even more so today with iCloud. The amount of background downloading and indexing for iDrive, iCloud, Photos, etc. is bananas for the first week. I recently re-installed on my older MacBook Air and the battery life was like 1.5-4 hours for the first week or so. Now it seems back to the normal range.

I wonder how people are really testing the battery life on these? It seems the only fair way to do it is not log into anything.

Maybe what macOS really needs is a system preference like, "Disable background tasks when running on battery."


I have a full 200 gig icloud drive filled with photos and when I got my 2016 macbook earlier this year it took a couple weeks for it to finally finish processing everything. Here I thought the point of having all the images in the cloud was so the devices didn't have to process all the images every time you re-install/get a new device. Is it really too much to ask for photos to simply pull images only on demand and not try to download as much as it can if there's space available?

This laptop is supposed to have an "all day battery" but in reality I only get 5-6 hours of fairly lightweight usage.


This fits with what I've seen. Got the new 15" a few weeks ago, and transferred my old system over to it. Battery life was 5 hours at best, usually less (actual usage, not estimated). But then just a day or two ago I'm suddenly getting 8-9 hours with no problem, no change in usage or applications. I don't have much data in iCloud either, as far as I know.

If it is related to background indexing, I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be much visibility into it. None of the Activity Monitor tabs or tools such as htop revealed any particular heavy CPU/disk usage to which I could attribute the poor battery life.


I've noticed mds (the spotlight indexer) will occasionally, and randomly peg one or more cores on my machine. It seems to come in fits and starts, but it's definitely a battery hog when it's running.


I thought having some way of knowing "how long can I keep doing the thing I'm currently doing" is basic functionality you'd expect in a laptop (or any powered device, phone, camera, gps/navigation, etc.)


It is basic functionality until it results in bad PR for Apple. :-D

Seriously though, it's pretty insulting to their users to think that removing a basic feature like this is somehow going to change the perceptions about the battery life of the 2016 MBP.


When's the last time Apple introduced a useful feature instead of removing one?


Well, you can still base it on the % indicator for the battery. It may not tell you a time, but those times have always been a guess at best.


Actually, I guess you're right. All the other examples I listed usually only show %. Still, previously I've found the time estimates to be pretty accurate.


The problem as I understand it is that the "thing you are currently doing" is constantly changing due to changing processors, increasing and decreasing network sync activity, and so on.


I almost feel sorry for Apple. Almost.

I think the MacBook Pro actually looks like a better than average machine despite some of the issues.

But they squandered all of their goodwill through years of neglect. If they had a normal release schedule, many more people would be willing to give them a pass about the dongles and the battery or touchbar issues or low Max RAM or anything else that's been annoying people.


It's easy to scoff at the timing, but as someone who's had laptops with Nvidia's optimus tech for the past 5-6 years, I can understand why. When you spin up the discrete GPU, even a weak mobile chipset, you can easily halve your battery life. If Apple hasn't quite perfected the decision around when to switch between the integrated and discrete GPUs, then that estimate won't seem very accurate to the average user. Watching youtube/netflix may or may not wake up the beefier GPU depending on how busy the machine is at the time, that sort of thing.

Personally, I'm starting to think that discrete GPUs are a bit overkill in laptops these days. More and more, I'm finding that modern integrated chipsets are up to the task of basic 3D modeling and graphical programming; the Linux Mesa drivers are even starting to support OpenGL 4.x and Vulkan.


I think this just makes the estimate more important. When your estimated remaining time goes from 6 hours to 3 hours when you fire up a YouTube video, you'll immediately understand that you've started doing something that will greatly impact your battery life.


With a workload of text editing, compiling code, and light web browsing I never saw the new MBP switch to the discrete GPU when I looked at the activity monitor, and I was still getting battery life or 4-5 hours at best (much improved over the past few days though, for some reason). So I suspect this particular issue is not related to discrete GPU switching.


Does anyone make a USB-C battery pack that can put out enough power to sustain the new MBPs during use? IMO that's going to be the fix for Apple's thinness fetish, a return to the days of replaceable batteries except now they're external.

Carry as large / as many batteries as you need, and if you're going somewhere with an outlet you get the benefits of thin/light.



That article's geared toward the 12" MacBook, which uses a 29W power brick. MacBook Pro is either 61W (13") or 87W (15"). I'm not sure that any of these are up to the task yet.

Granted you don't need to match the power brick unless you want to run the computer at full load while also charging its battery, but I don't know what the requirement is for the computer's max steady-state power draw.

Going to wait for a similar article written for the MBP.

EDIT: Added benefit, they're generic USB batteries and will charge your phone, tablet, eReader, headphones, and whatever else you've got. All things considered, I prefer this scenario to the directly replacable laptop battery, since you no longer have to use the laptop as a passthrough to charge other USB things.


Reminds me of when they stopped calling the powerpc Macbooks 'Laptops' and started calling them 'portables' everywhere. To avoid customers placing the hot griddles into their laps.


The change was from 'laptops' to 'notebooks' iirc. And those griddles were hot[1]

[1]http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/09/09/blotchy...


You're right. I stand corrected. Funny how 10 years seems like a long time.


Apple's very first "laptop" was called the Macintosh Portable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Portable


I was waiting for an Anandtech review to get definite answers to questions about the new MBP.

Isn't it strange Anandtech hasn't reviewed the new MBP yet?


Still waiting for their review of the iPhone 7 SoC...


Jeez, come on. I mean, maybe I think a lot of the griping about new MacBooks is a bit much, but this is just embarrassing. They really do need to figure out what the hell they're doing with Macs.


It would be ironic if that new touch bar was draining too much power.


I can't help but feel amused that a company that bashes others for battery life stamina has now built a computer with battery life that is so bad that it's removing their claims. This is false advertising at its finest and I expect class action lawsuits to follow.


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13164534 is a related recent thread.


Just installed the update. The "time remaining" estimate is still present in Activity Monitor, it's only gone from the menu.


I got the new macbook pro 15' first two days batter life was really bad, 2 hours most. but on the 3rd day it went back to normal. now I get around 10 hours. I think it had something to do with Firevault. Encryption was running in the background and draining the battery now that it's done it's back to normal.

I think there is no need to freak out over this


Encryption on a brand new Mac typically takes about an hour or so, unless you're dumping a whole load of data. I've always installed (via Homebrew Cask) a bunch of software on my new Macs and FileVault is caught up by the time it's done.

AES-NI - hardware encryption. There's no way FileVault should be taking that long unless you dump hundreds of gigs of data on at once.


To put some numbers on this, `cryptsetup benchmark` on my Linux notebook reports 1329 MiB/s encryption speed and 1346 MiB/s decryption speed for 256-bit AES in XTS mode (which is the default stream cipher for Linux's LUKS disk encryption). And that's on a 2012 Core i3.

If a modern CPU has AES-NI, I would never expect disk access speed to be constrained by the disk encryption. (Unless, maybe, if you're copying from one internal disk to the other, or if you're copying across a 10gig ethernet.)


Customer: My keyboard isn't working right Apple: Give it here (takes it and doesn't give it back) Customer: My Mouse isn't working right Apple: Give it here (takes it and doesn't give it back) Customer: My laptop isn't working right Apple: Give it here (takes it and doesn't give it back)

End


Even on the older rMBP (mine is 2012) my system just goes on suspend mode at 15-20% battery, even when I'm not doing much so the estimates shouldnt have been that far off. Did all the SMC reset steps and same issue.


I do dev work. I easily get all day battery life. People complain, people take those complaints as truth for all the MBP 15". None of those complaints about battery life have proven true for mine.


Would it have killed the author to clarify whether they were over or under estimates?

I can maybe guess under estimates, but people also get really angry when an over estimate suddenly drops to zero.


I get the feeling the estimates were "correct" but the load for background tasks is so volatile (heavy indexing and syncing, then nothing after they complete) that Apple now considers them misleading. I guess technically that'd be an underestimate.


I doubt that Apple provided any info in that regard. The downsides are too large to warrant any further comment from them.


You can still use this though.

   pmset -g batt




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: