Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 14 Jun 2012.
Bigger battery, perhaps? That retina display sucks up the juice.
RMPB = 95-watt-hour = £1.67 per watt-hour
MBP = 63.5-watt-hour = £1.55 per watt-hour
50% higher capacity cells for a 60% higher fee, so that does show that the methods of installation or the technology inherent within the specific cells needed is driving up the cost.
IMHO I'd say the installation method has the biggest bearing on cost given that with iPads Apple charge a fixed £85 for a 42.5-watt-hour iPad 3 battery (£2 per watt-hour) replacement and the same figure for an iPad 2 25-watt-hour battery (£3.40 per watt-hour).
Third parties will work something out though, in 24 months there'll be options available for the committed DIYer willing to save a few £ at the expense of a knuckle or two.
My 3yo MBP is showing 85% health on it's battery and that's with a very heavily used machine which hasn't had the battery treated with the best of care (I know!). I doubt I'll need to replace the battery in the time I have this machine in active use.
At the end of the day replacing the battery on my RMBP in five or six years is going to cost me 5% of the original purchase price.... maybe that says as much about the purchase price as it does anything else
i think most ppl had the same thought i had... after steve jobs past away appl would go back to colourful oval shaped macs and other things like this. this time tho, good ol' stevie cant pull them out of the fire again and again.
Good calculations - shows that although there *is* a premium (either because the battery itself is more complex to manufacture or because the bloody thing's glued in place) but it's not as big a premium as t'would first seem.
So in response Microsoft continue with new system and keep the legacy system too - which resulted in an OS that for too long was left to become a mess of legacy APIs and antiquated user interface screens, wizards etc.
They could have made some really important usability improvements years ago, but didn't because of the 'it's just about good enough - don't change it' mentality of... of well everyone. Only now when there are really genuine alternatives do they shake things up a bit. Kudos to them... it's not too little, and it's not too late... but it is very late!
My point exactly. Microsoft have put 'bums on seats' sales as a driving KPI for way too long. It's only now with their signature series that they're offering a Microsoft lead option for a consumer to purchase a windows system with a clear indication (From Microsoft) that it will be a nice experience. They never used to care about the actual experience the user had when they bought a new machine, all they wanted to do was sell an OEM the OS licence.
The experience of the end user wasn't seen as important enough to change their methods. But they've since learned that there is a market for machines 'that just work', have suitable spec for the needs and aren't tainted by the bloatware OEMs install to make an extra few quid.
You betcha. My iPad 3...
- has 60% more battery than my iPad 2.
- Drains it 25% faster.
- Drains it >25% faster when gaming or pushing the CPU/GPU.
- Takes >50% longer to charge.
Retina screen = Win.
Impact on Battery = NOT WIN!
It's a damn good thing that the retina screen is worth it and more than compensates for the negatives on the battery.
And if you feel differently they still sell the iPad 2 which has a refined A5 processor to give even better battery life from the 25-watt-hour cells than the 'old' iPad 2.
It's also worth noting that the iPad 2 had a quoted 10hr battery life but if just web browsing on 1/3 or lower brightness it's not unheard of to get 14hours. iPad 3... You'll be lucky to get much more than the quoted 10hrs. Those retina pixels do block the light somewhat.
I would agree that TR has pretty much gone to the dogs, but i think it is unfair to label BT the same.
Separate names with a comma.