So Apple quietly made a move that isn’t endearing the company to some Mac users. In the macOS Sierra 10.12.2 update, the “time remaining” display for notebooks was unceremoniously zapped, or at least the graphical display of that information  The reasoning is evidently that it’s just not accurate, since it essentially displays momentary power usage which is apt to vary considerably during a work session.

But the decision may appear to be a little suspicious, because it comes in the wake of complaints of subpar battery life on the new MacBook Pros. While Apple makes its usual promise of maximum battery life, of up to ten hours, some report barely hitting half that. Indeed, with all the controversy over the new notebooks, having subpar battery life is just one of many.

I’ve already covered the question over whether it should have offered up to 32GB RAM — something not yet provided by Microsoft in its Surface Books — and whether it’s even rightly called a professional notebook. But the fact that the 15-inch version can run two 5K displays with, if you have the appropriate model, a single connector each, does reveal that it’s not just a computer for road warriors.

Now the argument about battery life goes in two directions. So when you’ve got lots of stuff connected to a MacBook Pro, it’s expected you’ll be using regular AC power, not the battery. But for location work, you’ll wan the maximum amount of battery life. This is the argument in favor of an all-around work notebook that can handle a number of tasks well. It also means there have to be compromises, such as the 16GB limit, although only a few PC notebooks give you that option. I suspect with careful adjustment of the apps you run at the same time, it may not be a problem for most.

But it’s so easy to complain.

Back to battery life: Apple’s claims are based on running a selection of apps and tasks and measuring how long it takes from full charge till the time the unit shuts down. I wouldn’t dispute the measurements, assuming you follow the same usage patterns. Obviously, people have different ways of using their Macs, so the battery life Apple and its imaginary ideal user might achieve may be far more than what you or I will achieve.

I wouldn’t suggest Apple’s claims are false, but maybe it would make sense, in the interests of doing fair comparisons, for Apple to separate the measurements into light use, average use, and heavy use patterns, defining each. This way you’d get three measurements rather than one, and, if the conditions are clearly stated rather than placed in micro text as a footnote, there would be fewer complaints.

So maybe the fact that some users wouldn’t get more than five or six hours of use before running out of power wouldn’t be such a big deal. You’ll know the score getting in. It may not be so impressive, but it would be honest.

The other question is whether there are battery life problems on the new MacBook Pros. Some users say the situation improved with the macOS Sierra 10.12.2 update, even though Apple doesn’t list any specific battery fixes. But graphic glitches were addressed, and maybe some of those glitches impacted the dual-graphics models, where there’s a switchover between integrated graphics and discrete graphics. If the computer remains too long in the more power-intensive discrete graphics mode, battery life would suffer. But if it runs more efficiently, the situation improves.

I’m just guessing.

While I’ve not had reason to question the potential battery life of any Mac notebook I’ve owned, I do think Apple made a huge mistake in removing the display of time remaining. Sure, you can call it up with a Unix command in Terminal, pmset -g batt, but what about just making it more accurate?

Why wouldn’t it be possible for Apple to look at the nuts and bolts of this process and finding a way for it to better gauge potential battery life? I am not a programmer, so I wouldn’t presume to suggest the ways to accomplish this task. There are third-party battery life utilities, but I wouldn’t suggest one is better than the other.

But certainly Apple’s developers could devise a way to adjust these readings. Over time, they do come closer to the mark, but gathering an understanding of a user’s typical workday would surely allow the measurement to become reasonably accurate, or adjust itself to different work patterns. I wouldn’t question Apple’s ability to make it so if it chose to do so.

Such a move would make it easier for customers to see if they are getting the battery life they expect. Perhaps the duration between charge and shut down could, over time, be averaged, or displayed in a  list that contains the totals of the last five or ten sessions. That way you could check to see the real results you’ve achieved, and maybe Apple could devise a set of recommendations, based on your usage pattern, to get more battery life.

Sounds like the beginnings of a nifty battery utility to me. If it’s not being done, maybe someone will give it a try. But I’d rather see Apple’s solution, rather than just hiding the numbers for those who aren’t comfortable with he command line. It would certainly answer customer concerns far better than just hiding the numbers.

Some people who bought new MacBook Pros have been complaining about poor battery life. While Apple claims up to 10 hours, there are reports of users getting as little as half that. Some of these reports indicate that the display of estimated battery usage descends rapidly under normal use.

The Tuesday launch of the macOS 10.12.2 update included references to fixes for graphic problems, which appear to make good on the promise from Apple software VP Craig Federighi a few days ago in an email to a Mac user. As you recall, one online blogger made a huge deal of allegedly canceling his order for a 15-inch MacBook Pro and replacing that order with one for the 13-inch model as the result of the fear or expectation of such problems. He also seemed blissfully unaware that similar problems had been reported with the smaller model.

In any case, it’s early in the game, so it may take awhile for the affected users to report on whether the problems have been solved. I’m sure people will want to test the situations where it happens.

One fix not mentioned in the release notes is battery life on the new MacBook Pros. Instead, Apple removed the “Time Remaining” display, apparently under the theory that it only shows momentary and rapidly changing numbers and is thus misleading. Perhaps, but it’s a feature that has existed for a number of years, so why did Apple suddenly decide it had to go?

After all, the allegedly inaccurate display of remaining battery life was as inaccurate for previous Mac notebooks as it was for the Late 2016 models. Or does power management on the new models make it even less accurate that it was before?

As usual, these are the kinds of fine details you will not receive from Apple. So you’re left to theorize, or do lots of testing to see what’s really going on.

In saying that. it appears that there may have indeed been battery life improvements as the result of the 10.12.2 update. As I said, it’s not in the release notes. But published reports indicate that some users are reporting that the problems they experienced previously are gone. Now I suppose the loss of the remaining time display might have caused them to focus on actual battery use throughout the day, rather than a momentary indication.

But users who are reportedly running third-party and more detailed battery life apps claim that the MacBook Pro isn’t discharging as quickly due to lower power consumption. So the battery doesn’t run out of juice so quickly, and it’s more in line with Apple’s 10-hour estimate.

In a statement to Jim Dalrymple’s The Loop blog, Apple stood behind the 10-hour estimate as the result of “lots of testing.”. But evidently nothing was said about any change in the OS that would improve or change the situation. So why are battery apps revealing lower power utilization? Why are people saying that the problems were solved?

Is it a case of the right hand and the left hand being out of sync at Apple? It’s not unheard of for a large corporation to deliver mixed messages, sometimes contradictory statements. But Apple usually is consistent about what it tells the public once the message is nailed down.

Now I suppose it is possible that fixes Apple made for other macOS Sierra problems had the side effect of improving power efficiencies in some areas, and thus battery life. But since Apple isn’t talking, we’ll just have to keep guessing. For the time being, I’ll assume the claims of improved battery life, and the reports of what battery apps are showing, are accurate.

Time will tell what’s really going on, and whether the new OS update delivered a placebo effect for some, or corrected an incorrect estimate of battery life in  apps that measure such qualities. Obviously the best measurement is the stopwatch. Take a fully charged Late 2016 MacBook Pro still running 10.12.1, perform a given set of tests, perhaps using Automator to keep it consistent, and see how long it takes to shut down. Then apply the update and see if anything has changed.

Now Apple lists the conditions under which it tests battery life on the pages that describe its mobile products. I suppose if you follow those conditions, you should be able to approximate Apple’s estimates. But it’s been years since I followed their terms and conditions to measure Apple benchmarks. When I did, it was more about verifying performance claims of new Macs, not so much battery life. For me, so long as the battery seemed to hold on within the range of Apple’s claims, I was pretty satisfied. I never ran into a situation where my Mac portable or iPhone disappointed me, or maybe I have lower expectations than some.

In any case, I do hope that Apple will be more forthcoming about preparing OS update release notes. But that assumes there is a mysterious battery fix that has, so far at least, remained under the radar.

Meeting customer demands for new products is an impossible task. But some companies try, with loads of products in their lineups that differ only slightly. So normally a TV maker will have several groups of products at different price ranges with various features and specs to separate the cheap, cheapest. mid-priced and the high-end, with possible variations between these broad categories. Each of those product lines will feature TV sets with different screen sizes. I suppose that makes sense, although the actual improvement between adjacent categories might be little or non-existent to most people.

Apple attempts to keep it a lot simpler. The current iPhone lineup consists of the iPhone 7, this year’s model, the iPhone 6s, last year’s at a reduced price. plus the 4-inch iPhone SE. Compare that to Samsung and its various Galaxy iterations once led by the now-discontinued and faulty Galaxy Note 7.

But in keeping the lineups a lot easier to grasp than the competition, Apple risks alienating customers who want the configuration that isn’t being offered. They can become quite vociferous in demanding that Apple meet their needs. The compromises don’t matter to them. It’s very much like telling Hyundai or Kia to offer a mid-sized sedan with a six-cylinder engine even though no such models are being offered.

With the arrival of the Late 2016 MacBook Pro, the clamoring for a specific configuration not offered by Apple has become louder than ever. So even though no previous model has come with a 32GB option — and soldered RAM makes it impossible to change that with a third-party upgrade even if it would actually work — some people claim that Apple made a huge mistake by not offering that choice.

As regular readers know, some have expressed their anger. You’ll find some of those comments in our comment section. One of our readers made a huge deal of it across several messages even though he made it clear he actually didn’t need a 32GB MacBook Pro.

But there is a point to this argument, which is that some PC notebooks do offer more RAM, and there are definitely advantages for some users, although the extra memory goes unused by most. That said, Apple has, on several occasions, made a strong case for not taking that route. It would require a slower memory controller and power-hungry RAM. It would mean much less standby time and shorter battery life, and there have already been complaints.

Speaking of those complaints, Apple made a change in there way battery life is displayed in the macOS 10.12.2 upgrade. You still see a graphical display and the percentage, but the “Time Remaining” indicator is history. According to published reports, the measurements weren’t terribly accurate. On a new computer, it supposedly took a month for the estimates to come even close to reality.

That said, it may well be that some of the complaints about poor battery life in the new MacBook Pros are the result of this inconsistent display. The 10.12.2 update reportedly fixed graphics glitches on the new notebooks, but nothing was said about battery life. A key question is whether the complaints are based solely on the estimated time that’s displayed, or someone putting a stopwatch to actually measure how long it takes from a full charge until the machine runs out of juice.

I suppose we’ll see what’s going on here once more people do timed runs as opposed to just reading onscreen battery life estimates. Maybe that explains why most reviewers reported that battery life on these products was within the range of Apple’s 10-hour estimate.

It’s not that Apple doesn’t do things to address complaints. So the new iPhones don’t offer less than 32GB storage, nor does the current configuration of the iPhone 6s. The iPhone SE does come with 16GB, most likely to keep costs down, but it strikes me as more about penny-pinching. Maybe next year.

Now I am concerned about the way Apple managed the last Mac mini refresh, in 2014. The quad-core CPU options were removed, and the ability to upgrade RAM was eliminated. It’s part of Apple’s move to remove most upgrade options on Macs, except for memory on the 27-inch iMac and the moribund Mac Pro.

So why is Apple removing options that that at least some Mac users want?

When it comes to RAM, Apple charges far more for upgrades than third-party options. Only there aren’t third-party options, so when you buy a new Mac — with the above exceptions — you need to make a final decision about what configuration to buy. You won’t be able to change it.

Of course, that’s always been true about the iPhone and the iPad, so Apple is merely expanding the appliance approach to Macs, mostly. But don’t forget that you couldn’t upgrade the original 1984 Mac either.

Now I do not know just how many Mac users want to upgrade RAM. It may be a very tiny percentage, so Apple’s decision makes some sense. Obviously providing an integrated system with soldered RAM and SSDs may result in somewhat more reliability. It shaves a little space too, although I’m not at all convinced that either is a significant factor. The savings in manufacturing costs are probably too tiny to matter.

Regardless, Apple is not going to change its marketing direction or product configurations based on a small number of objections. But if a reasonable number of customers indicate they want something, I suppose Apple might listen.

Perhaps more often than not, when two large corporations merge, the executives speak of efficiencies and “synergies” resulting from the deal. But that usually means that employees considered “redundant” will be given their walking papers. Indeed, I sometimes wonder how many large corporate alignments actually end up being successful, beyond possibly killing a competitor.

The merger between AT&T and DirecTV, the largest satellite TV provider, was completed in mid-2015. Since then, support systems have been combined, and customers can take advantage of bundling deals where, if they have both services, they can save a little on their monthly bills. AT&T also promises to give you a better data plan for your wireless service.

Now I’ve been a customer of AT&T wireless — then Cingular — since 2007. A major part of that decision was to be ready for the iPhone. In the early days. only AT&T supported that device in the U.S. Verizon Wireless didn’t make a deal with Apple until 2011.

In the early days, AT&T’s service quality was just adequate in the Phoenix metropolitan area. I’d drive through areas where making a connection was difficult, and sustaining a connection was even more difficult. Overall, however, audio quality was a tad less digital sounding than Verizon, and customer service was pretty decent. In recent years, service and support has been mostly good overall, with the emphasis on “mostly.”

Until that merger was completed.

I first encountered trouble when I attempted to see if I could continue to use to DirecTV after moving to a new home in August. The subdivision offered a mid-level Dish Network package free, and I had to get approval from the homeowner’s association to establish service with any other provider. Unfortunately, the restrictions they imposed were so strict that there was no way for DirecTV to actually set up a dish and intercept the wiring to reach the family TV set, which is located in the master bedroom.

In any case, actually cancelling DirecTV proved difficult, since every attempt to reach customer service required talking to multiple people and often making a second call just to get to the right department. AT&T and DirecTV offer the usual phone menus. Press 1 for this, 2 for that. But as often as not, I’d be connected to the wrong division. On several occasions, I reached AT&T U-verse. which is the Internet and cable TV plan offered in some states. Nobody could explain why, since I clearly dialed the DirecTV support line, and I do not live in a U-verse service area.

I finally managed to cancel the service. I hesitate to estimate how much time I spent on the phone dealing with this frustrating endeavor.

The other day I ran into two problems with my wireless service. The first amounted to a billing error, where I was charged erroneously for international data roaming. This despite the fact that nobody on the account had actually used any data roaming anywhere, and I haven’t been outside the U.S. in over 30 years.

Just resolving that problem required multiple calls. In addition to the erroneous connection to U-verse, I kept reaching their offshore support lines, where the reps had serious problems with English. Each time I explained the nature of the billing error, they’d stop in their tracks. On three occasions, they put me on hold, and the music presentation soon ended with a disconnect. I gather this is one way a support person can dispose of a customer with a problem they cannot understand or solve.

I finally reached someone who hooked me up to the “loyalty” line, where they promptly addressed the issue, and gave me a service credit that covered the error plus an additional sum for my time and trouble.

All this after nearly three hours of trying.

The second problem was stranger, but I didn’t encounter a support issue. On a few occasions in recent weeks, I’ve confronted a weird connection glitch with my iPhone. It starts with the ringing tone sounding as if it’s running in slow motion. Imagine playing a recording at half speed or, as I suggested on my tech radio show, playing a 78 RPM record at 33-and-a-third RPM? The voice at the other end of the connection was equally afflicted with this symptom, and I was told that my voice sounded too slow as well.

The quick fix was just to hang up and call again, in which case the problem would disappear. Well, until the next time.

The first tech representative I spoke with did a simple refresh of the network connection, and asked me to power cycle my iPhone. The problem repeated itself a few hours before I wrote this column, and I reached another AT&T rep, someone who said he had been a communications operative with the Air Force before joining AT&T. He had a better handle on the technicalities involved, and did a more advanced fix. He also said that he escalated the matter to AT&T engineering. Give it five days, he said. and if the problem repeats itself after that period, I will need to contact support again and they’ll have information on my account record about what steps to take next.

Since these problems all occurred within 10 miles of my home, I suppose it’s a problem involving the interaction between my iPhone and the cell tower. We’ll see.

Long and short: Getting technical support from AT&T seems easy enough. But dealing with billing and other customer service problems, with AT&T or DirecTV, has become near-impossible unless you have a lot of patience.

Now that AT&T wants to add Time Warner to its corporate roster, I fear things will only get worse.

All right, I suppose I can switch my service to another carrier. I’ll probably save some money, but I wonder if I’ll be confronting a different set of support problems. My previous experiences with Verizon Wireless and especially Sprint were not terribly impressive either.