It has been interesting to watch the reaction to my recent blog on battery life (if you haven’t yet read that, I suggest you do before proceeding – click here).

 Generally the feedback falls into three groups:

·         Those who support our position;

·         Those who don’t see the need for a change; and

·         Those who agree with the premise but not the proposed solution.

I thought it would be useful to review the discussion and I’d also like to say a little more about what we plan to do next.

The Support Group

It has been very interesting to see how much discussion one blog has created.

My favorite response, not surprisingly, was Darren Murph of Engadget, who suggested that the market should, “… give a serious high five to senior VP and CMO Nigel Dessau on this one.” Thanks – not many of those, so I will take them where I can.

Darren like others also commented on the difference between the MobileMark® 07 (MMO7) and 3DMark06 approaches. As Ed Hansberry from InformationWeek reported, “the tests that AMD is proposing show numbers 42% to 64% lower than current tests show, but at least the tests are closer to simulating real-life usage.”

And this from TechSpot’s Justin Mann, “Dessau calls for a change in industry standards, including ones found in programs like 3DMark06, to give better estimates on battery life. It’s an interesting blog post, and I imagine he’s only one of many in the industry who can recognize the battery meter folly for what it really is.”

On involving consumers, Nedim Hadzic from Fudzilla noted, “While we’re sure that this trend will never stop as it almost goes without saying in the world of marketing, it certainly would be nice if consumers had a say in it for once, as it’s their cash that keeps the industry alive.”

Other asked why we were even bringing this subject up. Shawn Oliver on Hot Hardware explained that no one believes the battery numbers today anyway. He wrote, “[At 6.5 hours] we were just happy that the 1000HE came that close to meeting the ridiculous sounding claim of 9.5 hours, but Mr. Dessau doesn’t think that’s the best way to go about things. And truthfully, now that our eyes have been opened, neither do we.”

In a comment to my blog, John Clifford summed it up well, “I really hope the manufacturers of notebooks and cellphones will start getting more real and transparent about battery life.”

You can read more on the discussion on Icrontic; Cliff Forster is leveraging the community to encourage a “collective effort” to address “the myth of laptop battery life.”

No Need for Change

Given that high-tech is an industry about change, I found it ironic that some suggested there was no reason to change.  Yet, some seem happy with the status quo.

Vijay commented that MM07 used in several independent reviews is, “a hell (of a) lot better than any of those battery life claims made on the notebooks by the manufacturers.”  I think this misses the point as MM07 is not done the same way by each manufacturer even though it is typically what manufactures cite ― and that’s just confusing. 

And I did point out that we weren’t suggesting MM07 is not a useful benchmark.

William Maher of PC Authority wrote, “Nigel, we admire your efforts, but the real problem is getting the industry to adopt a more accurate method. AMD can talk all it likes about 3DMark, but until the notebooks manufacturers all agree on a better system, then we’ll still see misleading numbers.” I’m hoping this doesn’t suggest we should just give up.

On the subject of giving up, our competitor’s stated response to our suggestion that the industry needed to embrace a discussion about this issue was, “the best way to determine how to measure battery life is by making proposals and debating it in industry consortiums and not via blog post.” Noteworthy: this was first reported by The Wall Street Journal’s Don Clark in ― yes ― his blog.  It seemed to rub a few reporters (and readers) the wrong way.

Murph on Engadget blogged, “Oh Intel, could you possibly be any more corporate?” While Sylvie Barak of The Inquirer (am I quoting the Inquirer?) snapped back, “Does this imply Intel is suggesting we completely ignore corporate blogs? … Should we ignore Intel blogs from now on?” While Barak notes that without Intel coming to the table to discuss the issue there likely won’t be much traction, she does note, “a sit down for open discussion would certainly be a good thing.”

On Twitter, @IntelNick suggested we work through BAPCo. We do of course work with BAPCo but we also know, which @IntelNick undoubtedly also knows, that BAPCo is chaired by Intel and the group unfortunately does not seem in hurry to make any policy changes related to battery life information.

With all due respect, I submit that my blog did more to move the needle than BAPCo has in some time.

Right Idea, Wrong Benchmark

Many of those who posted comments to my blog expressed general support for the idea while exploring the question of what other factors should be included when measuring battery life. For example, John McElhenney commented that, “In terms of reporting battery performance, doesn’t some of the problem originate with the battery itself?” Snappy commented that it would be, “meaningful to show suspend battery life.”

And there was misunderstanding as to why we chose 3DMark06. Some lost sight of the fact that 3DMark06 highly utilizes the processor in a repeatable way (which MM07 does not), and instead focused on the fact that 3DMark06 is a graphics performance metric. For example, Jimmy Tang commented, “I think the idea of using 3DMark06 is only addressing a tiny aspect of battery life, and that is gaming. We all know very well that when you run the machine with full 3D graphics, you’re only going to load the GPU.”

But our intent was to drive toward a model that emphasizes utilization of the system – we believe the industry needs something that drives the systems more than 5% (which is what MM07 does).

Others wanted a broader rage of metrics. Bryan Bartow posted a comment suggesting a more flexible approach would be good and that he would, “love to see a suite of benchmarking apps that emulate several different typical usage profiles. For example, Home, Work and Play.”

In the end many echoed Cliff Forster who suggested, “Surely, an independent organization to test battery claims can not be too far off.”

So, What’s Next?

We are working with a number of our OEM partners to get their views and further encourage the discussion. Like Cliff Forster, we believe that there is a role for an independent organization, and we hope that could be BAPCo. I will keep you up to date with how that is going.

Also you can ask BAPCo yourself – visit their website here; I am sure John Peterson the BAPCo Operations Manager would love to hear from you. J

At the end of the day, our aim is to support consumers in the most transparent way. Ed Hansberry at InformationWeek for one hopes we succeed and that we make, “some progress getting other manufacturers to use more reliable battery tests for mobile computers and that the cell phone industry will take note and give us better tests for modern smartphones that more closely mimic their real-world usage patterns.”

As I said earlier, high-tech is about change and progress, and this too will pass. As pepoluan suggests in a comment on my blog, “I personally look forward to the day when fully-charging a laptop’s battery takes no more than 1 minute.”

Amen to that.

Nigel Dessau is senior vice president and chief marketing officer at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such links sites and no endorsement is implied.