One could make the argument that substandard drivers for the Apple hardware is to blame here, so perhaps battery benchmarks on a Hackintosh vs the same hardware in Windows would settle the debate, but that's some tinfoil hat shit… Apple has been vocal about battery life as a top priority for the company going all the way back to the PowerPC/Intel switch.
Apple didn't write Darwin from scratch, after all.
I use XPS-13 (4k display version), and certainly don't get the battery life promised by Dell.
The XPS 15 has better than a Retina display:
- Reina: 2880-by-1800 resolution at 220 pixels per inch.
- 4K: 3840-by-2160 resolution at 282 pixels per inch (60% more pixels).
So you're comparing apples and oranges (minor pun intended). It is unsurprising that a display which literally has more work to do will consume more battery in the process.
You argued that Apple was the only company able to engineer laptops with good screens, when it was pointed out that in fact it was Dell that had the better screen, you're now using that point to argue that Apple is still superior.
So I guess your only point is that "Apple is superior" and you'll massage the facts to support that notion.
- Earlier argument: Worse screen = Apple is superior.
- Latest argument: Better screen = Apple is superior.
Please don't be personally abrasive on HN. If you take all that rudeness out, what's left is a fine comment.
That is not what he said.
Try using Safari instead of Chrome. And check if you're running a lot of Flash. The usual problem is that Chrome is engineered to gorge power with no regard to your battery. Flash, of course, is pure abuse and stupidity.
It all disappoints me because I prefer Chrome for its tools. But Google simply doesn't seem to care that it goes overboard on power and RAM drain.
Recommended display brightness for standard office conditions is 150 nits. The rMBP goes up to double that, which obviously has a battery life cost. Also Chrome is poorly optimized for Mav, it takes several hours off the total.
Because "retina" in the context of displays is an Apple-trademarked marketing term, which is why Apple is the only one who can build a "retina laptop", irrespective of size or battery life.
More to the point, another manufacturing aping Apple's tradeoffs means the two end up competing on price, which neither wants to. So, naturally, other competitors who are interested in claiming some segment of the price-insensitive market by competing on something other than price make different trade-offs -- in this case, better DPI and shorter battery life. For lots of laptop usage patterns, this is a superior tradeoff; for others, its not.
An easy answer to that question would be to submit for consideration some non-Apple laptop that accomplishes that. I'm sure it must exist, and that would be a good thing to know about.
That there is some random Dell laptop with better resolution than a retina display and worse battery life is simply not responsive to the question.
After the first, short paragraph addressing the strict issue with "retina", the longer, second paragraph of the grandparent post directly answered why that would be the case: competing on different feature trade-offs rather than making the same trade-offs and competing on price allows greater profits because it avoids entering a market with direct substitutes, even if doing so in a way constrained by the trade-offs earlier entrants have made results in entering what is effectively a smaller market without direct substitutes instead of a larger market with direct substitutes.
Why is Apple the only one that can build a 15" retina laptop with 9-10 hours of battery life?
The answer "Dell makes a laptop with a better-than-retina screen with terrible battery life" is not in fact responsive.
Why is Apple the only one that can build a 15" retina laptop with 9-10 hours of battery life?