I will post more in a day or two after I get more of a handle on it. I had the tbMBP for a full moth, so I used it quite a bit and know what it was giving me, typically 4-5 hours of actual usage. So far the drain on the percentage seems to be 10% per hour, which is all that I asked for given that is what Apple stated. Even if the tbMBP got 7-8 hours consistently I would've kept it; that aside it also had major graphics issues and the touch bar frequently went black and caused the machine to freeze up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Battery life for 13" and 15" Macbook Pro
- Thread starter fokmik
- Start date
-
- Tags
- batteries macbook 15"
- Sort by reaction score
I will post more in a day or two after I get more of a handle on it. I had the tbMBP for a full moth, so I used it quite a bit and know what it was giving me, typically 4-5 hours of actual usage. So far the drain on the percentage seems to be 10% per hour, which is all that I asked for given that is what Apple stated. Even if the tbMBP got 7-8 hours consistently I would've kept it; that aside it also had major graphics issues and the touch bar frequently went black and caused the machine to freeze up.
I've been paying a lot of attention to power usage as reported by coconutBattery today. The productivity apps I usually run are all text-based. The draw runs around 5 watts, even with a lot of activity. That's consistent with a 9-10 hour battery life, which what I've actually gotten. Firing up Safari or Keynote bumps it up to 8-10 watts, which is consistent with the 5 1/2 hours I got looping several YouTube videos a couple of weeks ago.
I can live with these results, but do I want to with the likelihood that Apple will release a refresh with a better battery and Kaby Lake in 2017? Apple may be able to come up with a software update to address the inconsistent results that Consumer Reports published recently, but they're not about to pull a rabbit out of a hat. The battery is what it is. I wish we knew more about the battery that didn't make it into production. Specifically, what was its rating and how serious was the issue that caused Apple to pull it?
I was leaning strongly toward keeping this computer, but now I'm on the fence. It took me hours to set it up, installing everything from scratch, and I already deleted my stuff off the old one. But I may just bite the bullet (or battery in this case) and return the MBP before the deadline.
I can live with these results, but do I want to with the likelihood that Apple will release a refresh with a better battery and Kaby Lake in 2017? Apple may be able to come up with a software update to address the inconsistent results that Consumer Reports published recently, but they're not about to pull a rabbit out of a hat. The battery is what it is. I wish we knew more about the battery that didn't make it into production. Specifically, what was its rating and how serious was the issue that caused Apple to pull it?
I was leaning strongly toward keeping this computer, but now I'm on the fence. It took me hours to set it up, installing everything from scratch, and I already deleted my stuff off the old one. But I may just bite the bullet (or battery in this case) and return the MBP before the deadline.
Yeah. I assumed as much. Hmm. I am feeling like maybe it's a RAM thing? I dunno. Honestly I wanna do more tests, but every time I look at the specs on the box and see 10 hours, I get frustrated.
If anyone has a clear cut way to test the battery, I'm all ears. I have a few days until it has to be in fedex hands.
I'm getting around 5 hours, using only safari and spotify
I did a full fresh reinstall, the battery life is slightly better. And those were actual numbers I got after timing my usage --> the time figure was actual usage not estimates from any software.
I'll see if I can take it to Apple soon before I make the decision to return it. I appreciate your feedback. I restored the computer and its working far smoother and better in terms of battery life, still not as good as it once was though.
I love the laptop in all other factors, its just the battery.
If you don't like the battery life, return it. Apple will not listen otherwise. I returned my 3,300$ machine and will wait until Apple comes to it's senses.
What are you talking about? Apple hasn't pulled anything yet. That would be big news. Apple claims that there is no problem with their MBPs but how CR is doing their battery testing. I'm eagerly awaiting to see what their findings are. Also, if you received your MBP between 11/10/16 and 12/25/16 then you still have until 1/8/17 to return it. Have you taken your PC into Apple to check it out?
Btw, Apple usually releases updates to the MBP line. But the next yearly release will most likely be an incremental update instead of a major redesign as they did this year. But if you actually are experiencing serious problems and are willing to wait until another model is introduced in last quarter 2017 then most likely that model will probably be somewhat cheaper, more stable and even offer new upgrade options. But it's a long year.
Last edited:
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-working-with-consumer-reports-on-macbook-pro-battery-issue/
"This is the first time a MacBook hasn't received a "recommended" designation from Consumer Reports."
"This is the first time a MacBook hasn't received a "recommended" designation from Consumer Reports."
I just received my fully maxed out 15' MBP. Thankfully no screen issues or scratches when pulled from the box. It came with the newest update. I'll leave it on the charger and test the battery tomorrow or so.
I suggest doing all if your initial setup on AC power. These MBPs tend to do some behind the scenes stuff upon initial setup that can drain battery power initially.
If you really are going to conduct testing then do actual usage testing. I discovered that the battery time remaining estimates shown by tools like Coconut Battery and Battery Health 2 is the same estimate that Apple removed from their Battery indicator screen and which can still be seen at bottom of Apple's Activity Monitor screen.
The best test is an actual usage test and the best tool to help with that is the app named Battery Logger that actually automatically tracks the time that your MBP is on battery before it shuts down or is plugged back into AC outlet. A very useful app in the Mac store. Good luck! Please share your findings.
I'm referring to this Bloomberg article that claimed that Apple had intended to use a sculpted, higher capacity battery. It reportedly failed a key test, so Apple went with an older design. This sounds plausible to me, since Apple uses a terraced battery in the MacBook. We don't know how much extra power this would have provided, but when Apple released the MacBook in 2015, they claimed that the new battery offered 35 per cent more capacity than a traditional design. That level of improvement applied to the 2016 15" MBP would equate to 103 watt-hours, which is higher than the previous model. This is speculative, of course, but it suggests that Apple could have avoided much of the current angst if they had shipped the MBP with a terraced battery.
Me too. The wildly variable results that Consumer Reports got suggests something odd is going on. Apple may address the inconsistency with a software update, but I doubt that they'll be able to substantially improve battery life across the board.
I know. But that gives me a bit less than two weeks, and it won't be an easy decision. I've owned dozens of Macs since 1984, and this would be the first one I've ever returned.
No, because I think that the results I'm getting are consistent with the capacity of the computer's battery. They're not terrible, but I wouldn't mind a few additional hours of headroom.
Btw, Apple usually releases updates to the MBP line. But the next yearly release will most likely be an incremental update instead of a major redesign as they did this year. But if you actually are experiencing serious problems and are willing to wait until another model is introduced in last quarter 2017 then most likely that model will probably be somewhat cheaper, more stable and even offer new upgrade options. But it's a long year.
This cycle was an exception, as 527 days had passed since the previous release per the Buyer's Guide. I don't think that it'll be Q4 2017 until the next update, though. It's my understanding that U-series Kaby Lake processors, which are already appearing in other laptops, should work in the MBP without a board redesign. Although not a major step forward, they'll offer better battery life and other improvements over Skylake.
The bigger question will be whether Apple can overcome the problem that led them to use a non-terraced battery for the 2016 MBP. But if they can, the case is apparently already designed to accommodate it, so no major re-tooling would be needed. So a mid-year refresh wouldn't be out of the question.
I realize that there's always something better on the horizon, but if a Kaby Lake laptop with an improved battery ships around June/July, I suspect it'll be labeled as the computer that the 2016 MBP should have been.
The article points out what Apple intended but couldn't get to work in the 2016 version of the MBP. But design plans don't always work out. For example, Apple wanted to deliver a low energy cellular chip in Series 2 of the Apple Watch but there was no such low power chip available for them to use. Still the Series 2 Apple Watch is better than Series 1. Consumers don't buy products for what could have been delivered but for what is being offered in the here and now. Even though Apple failed to deliver the better battery design as they had hoped, they went with an alternative design that they ultimately tested in their labs before they formally introduced and marketed the 2016 MBP. Based on the testing of the fallback battery design, they still claimed (in their presentation and advertising) that this battery design should deliver around 10 hours under a mix of light usage. If this is not true then Apple is blatantly committing fraud. They don't get a pass because their supposed better battery design proved to be unsuccessful. Consumers take them at their word when they proudly proclaim 10 hours should be delivered with the fallback battery design.
Last edited:
Thats why i'm gonna wait and putting on hold my money.Great Job Apple.What are you talking about? Apple hasn't pulled anything yet. That would be big news. Apple claims that there is no problem with their MBPs but how CR is doing their battery testing. I'm eagerly awaiting to see what their findings are. Also, if you received your MBP between 11/10/16 and 12/25/16 then you still have until 1/8/17 to return it. Have you taken your PC into Apple to check it out?
Btw, Apple usually releases updates to the MBP line. But the next yearly release will most likely be an incremental update instead of a major redesign as they did this year. But if you actually are experiencing serious problems and are willing to wait until another model is introduced in last quarter 2017 then most likely that model will probably be somewhat cheaper, more stable and even offer new upgrade options. But it's a long year.
I just read this http://www.trustedreviews.com/2015-13-inch-macbook-pro-review-battery-life-page-3
which is complete explanation of the situation.
Even 2015 13" MacBook Pro had 7-10hour. And there were also big variations.
In 2016 model with smaller battery, there is even bigger variation - if you use really power demanding App - it drains your battery faster.
I get usually around 8hours right now. When reading a lot of text, or writing using pages - I get 10hours.
I only have a problem, that sometimes some application like iTunes [running background] drains power, before I notice and kill it.
To me, 8hours with light usage is quite ok. I got 6hours with my 2012 retina, so it is an improvement. I love how small the new MacBook is, so I' m keeping it.
but totally understand, that some of you are really angry - having only 3hours [it should be only with medium to heavy usage].
which is complete explanation of the situation.
Even 2015 13" MacBook Pro had 7-10hour. And there were also big variations.
In 2016 model with smaller battery, there is even bigger variation - if you use really power demanding App - it drains your battery faster.
I get usually around 8hours right now. When reading a lot of text, or writing using pages - I get 10hours.
I only have a problem, that sometimes some application like iTunes [running background] drains power, before I notice and kill it.
To me, 8hours with light usage is quite ok. I got 6hours with my 2012 retina, so it is an improvement. I love how small the new MacBook is, so I' m keeping it.
but totally understand, that some of you are really angry - having only 3hours [it should be only with medium to heavy usage].
I believe that Apple designed the new MacBook Pro around a higher-capacity battery that would have stored more energy in the available space. But as you say, they couldn't do it. Therefore, they decided to ship with the older battery so as not to miss holiday sales knowing the extent of pent up demand.
This doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't live up to its claim that the computer will operate for 10 hours under the same test conditions that they used. As well, the lower capacity means that the computer is highly sensitive to conditions that draw more power. Push it slightly, and battery life drops below 10 hours. Push it more, and you end up with runtimes in the 3 hour range or less.
The dissatisfaction about battery life, coupled with user complaints over other changes (no conventional USB ports, removal of MagSafe, absent 32GB option on the 15") has led to criticism in the Apple user community. Bad publicity from the Consumer Reports review certainly hasn't helped, even if it turns out that CR's test procedures were faulty or Apple releases a patch that addresses the inconsistency. Apple may have gambled that positive reaction to the Touch Bar would counterbalance the negatives, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
We don't know to what extent all this has affected sales of the new MacBook Pro. But, as a longtime Mac user and an Apple shareholder, I'm very concerned.
Stop reporting estimated times. They do not reflect the actual usage times. They are misleading.
[doublepost=1482860677][/doublepost]
Good test! That's how you report actual usage. I'm gonna try watching some movies on my 2016 MBP via an iTunes playlist that I set to loop.
Last edited:
I've been on this thread since the early days. Tried everything. What I've found is I can get about 8 hours max if I stick to very light usage with Safari and maybe 2-3 other productivity apps open, and 40-50% brightness. But if I need to use Chrome (which I do for certain work-related websites/apps that aren't compatible with Safari), videoconferencing, or anything else that is even slightly more energy intensive, my battery life drops to more like 5.5-6.5 hours.
I finally decided to order a nTB version so I can do a direct comparison with my average usage. If it gets 8-9 hours (vs. 5.5-6.5), I'll have to return the TB version and give up the fantastic convenience of TouchID + 1Password.
I'll report back, since I know many others are considering a similar switch.
I finally decided to order a nTB version so I can do a direct comparison with my average usage. If it gets 8-9 hours (vs. 5.5-6.5), I'll have to return the TB version and give up the fantastic convenience of TouchID + 1Password.
I'll report back, since I know many others are considering a similar switch.
Light usage is how Apple claimed to get the 10 hours they got during their own internal testing. That will be their defense in the class action lawsuit that I know will be coming if not already.
Btw, for the energy intensive work related stuff you do, why don't you plug it into AC power?
Using a notebook with Photoshop, or Lightroom is not "intensive work related stuff". Its exactly the stuff you use such notebooks for. Thats the kind of stuff professionals earn their money with. Its the stuff this notebook is _supposed to be_ build for. They are not anymore. If you need a 4000$ Facebook and email machine, be my guest. But if you want to get work done, this notebook is a downgrade. As easy as that.
It's not really "extensive", at least not in my opinion. I'm not doing photography, videography, etc. I'm just using a combination of these applications:
- Safari
- Chrome
- Slack
- Polymail (email)
- Fantastical 2 (calendar)
- Messages
- 2Do (to-do list)
- Dropbox
- Evernote
- PDF Expert
In some cases I'm able to plug in for this, in other cases not. It never mattered with my 2013 MBA—it gets >9 hours even now, 3 years later, with this same combo of apps/workload. It was more like 11-12 hours when new.
Actually I said "energy intensive" as in battery draining. The 2016 MBP can get your jobs done but at the cost of battery life. Something like Chrome is well known to drain your battery. But if you plug into AC power then you can last all day with those energy intensive tasks. You can only expect battery life to last only so long using energy intensive software such as Adobe Premiere or Apple's own Final Cut Pro. Those apps require and even rely on a battery draining GPU. Any app that gets that GPU going is gonna consume serious battery life. Period.
[doublepost=1482864425][/doublepost]
I wonder if the new GPUs (discrete or high end graphics card) within these new 2016 MBPs are kicking in unnecessarily for some of these apps you listed. If Apple uses the integrated graphics card then battery usage shouldn't be so high. But when the GPU gets utilized for anything then forget it. Your battery life will start to diminish and fast. I notice sometimes when I'm using Safari that I see in Activity Monitor that the column labeled "Requires High Perf GPU" is "Yes". I don't know why or what Safari is doing that would need the GPU for. I wouldn't be surprised if the OS/software updates that Apple and/or app vendors have yet to deliver has to do with the fine tuning of what apps need the GPU and when they need them. Like I said, when that GPU is enabled then your battery life is most definitely at risk. Correcting that could probably help significantly with the reported dismal battery life issues.
Last edited: