The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded an investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot driver assistance system after reviewing hundreds of crashes, including 13 fatal incidents that led to 14 deaths. The organization has ruled that these accidents were due to driver misuse of the system.
However, the NHTSA also found that “Tesla’s weak driver engagement system was not appropriate for Autopilot’s permissive operating capabilities.” In other words, the software didn’t prioritize driver attentiveness. Riders using Autopilot or the company’s Full Self-Driving technology “were not sufficiently engaged,” because Tesla “did not adequately ensure that drivers maintained their attention on the driving task."
The organization investigated nearly 1,000 crashes from January of 2018 until August of 2023, accounting for 29 total deaths. The NHTSA found that there was “insufficient data to make an assessment” for around half (489) of these crashes. In some incidents, the other party was at fault or the Tesla drivers weren’t using the Autopilot system.
The most serious were 211 crashes in which “the frontal plane of the Tesla struck a vehicle or obstacle in its path” and these were often linked to Autopilot or FSD. These incidents led to 14 deaths and 49 serious injuries. The agency found that drivers had enough time to react, but didn’t, in 78 of these incidents. These drivers failed to brake or steer to avoid the hazard, despite having at least five seconds to make a move.
That’s where complaints against the software come into play. The NHTSA says that drivers would simply become too complacent, assuming that the system would handle any hazards. When it came time to react, it was too late. “Crashes with no or late evasive action attempted by the driver were found across all Tesla hardware versions and crash circumstances,” the organization wrote. The imbalance between driver expectation and the operating capabilities of Autopilot resulted in a “critical safety gap” that led to “foreseeable misuse and avoidable crashes.”
The NHTSA also took umbrage with the branding of Autopilot, calling it misleading and suggesting that it lets drivers assume the software has total control. To that end, rival companies tend to use branding with words like “driver assist.” Autopilot indicates, well, an autonomous pilot. California’s attorney general and the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles are also investigating Tesla for misleading branding and marketing.
Tesla, on the other hand, says that it warns customers that they need to pay attention while using Autopilot and FSD, according to The Verge. The company says the software features regular indicators that remind drivers to keep their hands on the wheels and eyes on the road. The NHTSA and other safety groups have said that these warnings do not go far enough and were “insufficient to prevent misuse.” Despite these statements by safety groups, CEO Elon Musk recently promised that the company will continue to go “balls to the wall for autonomy.”
The findings could only represent a small fraction of the actual number of crashes and accidents related to Autopilot and FSD. The NHTSA indicated that “gaps in Tesla’s telematic data create uncertainty regarding the actual rate at which vehicles operating with Autopilot engaged are involved in crashes.” This means that Tesla only receives data from certain types of crashes, with the NHTSA claiming the company collects data on around 18 percent of crashes reported to police.
With all of this mind, the organization has opened up another probe into Tesla. This one looks into a recent OTA software fix issued in December after two million vehicles were recalled. The NHTSA will evaluate whether the Autopilot recall fix that Tesla implemented is effective enough.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/nhtsa-concludes-tesla-autopilot-investigation-after-linking-the-system-to-14-deaths-161941746.html?src=rss
Wacom displays and tablets have been handy tools for artists and designers since the 1980s, offering to swap a mouse for a pen for drawing, photo editing and more. That lineage includes pen displays: screens that connect to your computer that you draw on directly with a stylus. But, Wacom says it has created something entirely new just a few weeks before Apple is set to upgrade its iPad displays. The latest pen display model is called Movink, and it's the company's first with a OLED screen. It's also Wacom's thinnest and lightest option ever, while still offering 13 inches of work space.
Inside, a Samsung-made OLED panel offers full HD resolution with 10-bit color and a 100,000:1 contrast ratio. Thanks to the qualities of OLED, you can expect "perfect black point," according to Wacom. Since color accuracy is paramount for artists, the Movink covers 100 percent DCI-P3 and 95 percent of Adobe RGB, with a Delta E difference of 2 or less. The company says the pen display is factory calibrated to industry standards and stores up to two custom color profiles. It's also validated by both Pantone and Pantone SkinTone, with further calibration available in the Wacom Color Manager.
The OLED panel has benefits besides just appearance. Wacom says Movink has the fastest response time of any of its pen displays and offers increased pen detection height. The company promises no ripples or light leakage and the device runs cooler and quieter than other models. Movink is a touch display too, with two customizable buttons on its thin bezel for quick access to your most-used tools.
Wacom
Wacom says Movink is the thinnest and lightest pen display it has ever made, weighing in at just 420 grams and measuring 4 millimeters at its skinniest point. The company explains that this is 66 percent thinner and 55 percent lighter than the Wacom One 13 Touch, a comparably-sized option designed more for beginners. The screen is covered in Corning's Gorilla Glass and the body is made of magnesium alloy, so you can carry it around in a bag with your laptop without worry.
Of course, the pen is a crucial part of this setup. The Movink comes with a specially designed version of the Pro Pen 3, which Wacom says provides the same experience as the one on the Cintiq Pro line of displays. More specifically, the Pro Pen 3's sensitivity and tilt detection assists with everything from detailed digital painting to fine line work. Wacom refined the pen nib design to increase visibility, which should improve the overall drawing experience. The nib remover and replacement nibs are stored inside the pen, so you can quickly fix any issues even if you're working outside of your normal studio space.
The Movink is also the first pro-grade pen display to support Wacom's Dual Pen tech, allowing you to use styli from other companies. The list of supported devices includes pens from Samsung, Staedtler, Lamy, Dr. Grip and more. Plus, you can use Wacom's UD pens from the One line of devices as well as older versions of the Pro Pen with the Movink. The display is compatible with Windows, macOS, ChromeOS and Android, connecting to your laptop or desktop machine via a single USB-C cable (15-watt power delivery required).
Wacom Movink is available now from the company's online store for $750 (€850 and £730). The company will also offer a foldable stand for $80 and for $45. However, both of those items are currently listed as out of stock.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/wacoms-first-oled-pen-display-is-also-the-thinnest-and-lightest-it-has-ever-made-145234664.html?src=rss
Earlier this week, noted Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo posted an updated forecast for Apple’s Vision Pro headset, claiming production was being cut to 400,000 or 450,000 units compared to a previous market consensus north of 700,000. This came after a related report from Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, who said in his Power On newsletter that demand for Vision Pro demos is “way down” while sales in some locations have significantly slowed.
Naturally, this incited a lot of panic and hand-wringing among Apple enthusiasts who feared that the headset that was supposed to change VR forever might not have the staying power they expected. However, before anyone else starts clutching their pearls, I want to let you in on a secret: It doesn’t actually matter how many headsets Apple sells.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
First, let’s talk production numbers. Is it 400,000 or 800,000, or something in between? Back in January, the same Ming-Chi Kuo estimated that the company sold between 160,000 and 180,000 units during its initial pre-order weekend, which was up from previous production predictions of around 60,000 to 80,000. But if we go back even further to last July, the Financial Times cited two people who said Apple only asked its supplier to make fewer than 400,000 units in 2024 while other sources put that number closer to 150,000. Now obviously numbers are subject to change over time as Apple responds to feedback and interest from developers and the public. Regardless, trying to predict the exact number of devices to make is extremely tricky, especially for an attention-grabbing and innovative product that has been the subject of rumors dating back to 2015 (and even before that, according to some very early patent applications).
Still, let’s take that 400,000 number and see how far it goes. Without factoring in accessories (some of which are very important, especially if the owner wears glasses), the Vision Pro sells for $3,500. Rough napkin math suggests that Apple is looking at around $1.4 billion in sales. That’s a pretty big number and for a lot of other companies, that would represent a banner year. But this is Apple we’re talking about —it raked in $383 billion in 2023 with around $97 billion in net income. And that was considered a down year. So we're talking less than one percent of the company’s total revenue, which is basically a rounding error for Apple’s finances.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
That figure looks even less impressive when you consider all the research and development that went into making the Vision Pro. Apple is always cagey when it comes to revealing how much money it invests into various departments. But if we look at another major player in VR, Meta, we can get a better sense of what Apple’s VR budget might look like. According to Business Insider, based on an analysis of regulatory findings, Meta’s Reality Labs has lost nearly $50 billion since the start of 2019. That’s a serious chunk of change and more than enough to cause some consternation among investors, with Meta’s stock recently falling big after its most recent earnings report.
But all these numbers are just noise. Analysts like to look at this stuff to help predict company growth, though they’re so busy focusing on quarterly numbers that they often miss the bigger picture. Depending on who you ask, Apple has more cash on hand than any other company in the world, with upwards of $165 billion sitting in a bank somewhere. And with recent reports claiming that Apple has canceled its secretive car project, I’d argue that the company may want to double down on its headset endeavors.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
That’s because the Vision Pro might be the first step towards a platform that could reshape the company’s entire trajectory like the original iPhone did back in 2007. From the start, it was clear Apple’s first handset would have a massive impact. But when people look back, they never cite the iPhone’s first year of sales, which according to Statista only amounted to around 1.4 million units. Sure, that’s more than 400,000, but that was also for a significantly less expensive device and a drop in the bucket compared to the HUNDREDS of millions Apple has been selling more recently. Those figures were meaningless.
The Vision Pro is Apple’s Field of Dreams device for virtual reality, spatial computing or whatever you want to call the category that encompasses head-mounted displays. Apple had to build it so developers have actual hardware to test software on. Apple had to build it so there’s a platform for people to download apps from. (If you remember, the original App Store didn’t arrive until July 2008, more than a year after the OG iPhone went on sale and on its own made an estimated $85 billion in 2022.) Apple had to build it to plant a flag, lest they cede the first mover's advantage completely to Meta or someone else.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
Even though I’d posit that the Vision Pro is a glorified dev kit (it was announced at WWDC after all), there are features that evoke the magical feeling I had the first time I used an iPhone. The Vision Pro has possibly the best optics I’ve seen on any headset, including enterprise-only models that cost way more than $3,500. It also has the best eye-tracking I’ve experienced, and it makes navigating menus and apps incredibly intuitive. It just kind of works. And slowly but surely, it’s getting better, as my colleague Devindra noted in his recent two-month check-in.
Just like Apple’s first phone, though, the Vision Pro isn’t without its issues. It’s heavy and not super comfortable during long sessions. Its wired battery pack isn’t the most elegant solution for power delivery. Its front visor is prone to cracking, typing still feels clunky and there aren’t enough bespoke apps to make it an essential part of your everyday tech kit. But those are fixable issues and there’s clearly something there, a foundation that Apple can iterate on. Even in its infancy, the Vision Pro brings enough to compel hundreds of thousands of people (or developers) to buy a device that doesn’t make much practical sense.
The focus should be on what upgrades or additions Apple can make in the future, not on how many units it does (or doesn’t) make. So don’t let analysts or other noisemakers convince you otherwise.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/it-doesnt-matter-how-many-vision-pro-headsets-apple-sells-ming-chi-kuo-production-numbers-143112470.html?src=rss
If you’re in the market for a new smartphone that balances performance with affordability, the Realme C65 5G could be exactly what you need. This device comes packed with features designed to cater to the tech-savvy user looking for value without compromising on capabilities. Power and Performance At the heart of the Realme C65 is […]
The world of smartphones is ever-evolving, and the latest addition to this dynamic market is the Honor 200 Lite. This new smartphone promises to blend robust features with sleek aesthetics, appealing to tech aficionados and everyday users alike. If you’re wondering about the details, here’s everything you need to know about the specs and functionalities […]
Most of our modern infrastructure and architecture is bad on concrete, and the production of cement used in concrete is one of the biggest causes of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. This constitutes a serious issue that must be addressed, especially with the current state of our Planet Earth. In this effort, Nendo displays a specimen of a greener and cleaner way to construct and build with its Block-Wall House. The Block-Wall House is partially built using a new concrete that captures carbon dioxide instead of emitting it!
Tucked away in Japan’s Nagano Prefecture, the Block-Wall House is located next to a rural road. The house features a lot of glazing, to offer privacy against pedestrians and passing vehicles. The home is equipped with an angled screen which lets residents look out but makes it quite difficult for a passerby to glance inside. This screen is made using 2000 blocks which have been arranged in parallel rows to form five walls, with a length of 360 feet. This screen is made from the aforementioned sustainable and novel concrete!
This newly developed concrete is made by the Kajima Corporation in collaboration with the Chugoku Electric Power Co, Denka, and Landes Co. The concrete is named CO2-SUICOM, and for its production, a special cement mixture is placed in a curing chamber, and carbon dioxide is pumped into the chamber for absorption. This absorbed CO2 gets stuck inside the concrete and is not released. It is as strong as regular concrete!
“Generally, concrete hardens through a chemical reaction between cement and water,” explains Kajima Corporation. “But with CO2-SUICOM, over half the cement is replaced with a material we call γ-C2S. Instead of reacting with water, γ-C2S reacts with the CO2 in the air to harden. After mixing the materials needed to create CO2-SUICOM, the concrete can be placed in a location with high CO2 levels so it can capture the CO2 and harden, trapping the gas inside. For example, a thermal power plant or other facility that produces carbon-heavy exhaust gases can redirect the gases into a carbon sequestration chamber, where concrete products made with CO2-SUICOM can be placed to capture the CO2 in the gases.”
Currently, the price of producing CO2-SIUCOM concrete is about three times higher than usual concrete in Japan. Hence, work is being done to bring down the price, and Kajima Corporation believes that the concrete will become more economical in the future.
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries across the globe, the need for powerful, portable computing devices capable of handling AI-intensive tasks has never been greater. AI-ready mobile workstations, such as Lenovo’s newly unveiled ThinkPad P series, are leading the charge in this technological revolution. Lenovo ThinkPad P1 Gen 7 Here are some other […]
In the rapidly evolving landscape of smartphone technology, artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the way iPhone users navigate their daily tasks, pursue creative endeavors, and tackle professional responsibilities. This article showcases four exceptional AI applications that harness innovative technology to elevate your productivity and unleash your creativity through a range of innovative features tailored to […]
Google's Pixel Buds Pro remain one of our favorite pairs of true wireless earbuds, offering robust active noise cancellation (ANC), punchy bass, reliable touch controls and a host of convenient features for Android users in particular. That said, given how competitive the wireless market is these days, they aren't the greatest value at their standard list price of $200.
Today, though, Wellbots is running a sale that brings the pair down to a more palatable $135 with the checkout code ENGPIX65. This isn't an all-time low — the buds fell as low as $117 in a similar deal last October and went for $119 for much of the holiday season — but it's the best price we've tracked in 2024. For reference, the device dropped to $139 last month. This offer applies to each of the set's colorways.
Engadget's audio expert Billy Steele gave the Pixel Buds Pro a review score of 87 back in 2022. By default, they have a sculpted, hyped-up sound with thumpy bass and elevated treble. It's the kind of signature that won't suit audio purists but should work well with modern pop music. As with many pairs, though, you can tweak the sound with a graphic EQ. The earbuds themselves have an IPX4 water-resistance rating, so they should be able to withstand typical workouts. Battery life is solid at roughly seven hours with ANC on or 11 hours with it off, while the case supports wireless charging. You can connect to two devices at once, and the pair supports in-ear detection, so it'll automatically pause when you remove an earbud.
Maybe the biggest reason to consider the Pixel Buds Pro is how tightly they integrate with Android. It's somewhat similar to how Apple's AirPods work with iOS: You can call on the Google Assistant hands-free, quickly swap between paired devices, utilize adaptive and spatial audio modes, ring the earbuds remotely and access Google Translate, among other OS-specific features. Last fall, Google also added a "conversation detection" mode that automatically pauses your music and turns off ANC when you start talking to someone. All of this functionality is natively available on Google's Pixel phones; with other Android devices, you can access most of the same tricks through a separate Pixel Buds app.
There are still issues to note. While we didn't have any comfort issues in testing, the fit may be tricky for those with smaller ears. Call quality isn't great, nor is the included transparency mode. For more discerning listeners, there's no support for higher-quality Bluetooth codecs like aptX or LDAC. And again, this is a busy market: Other pairs like the Sony WF-1000XM5, Sennheiser Momentum True Wireless 4 or Anker Soundcore Space A40 can provide better noise isolation, sound quality or overall value in a vacuum. It wouldn't be a huge shock if we saw a new model at Google's I/O conference next month, either. Still, the current model remains a well-rounded choice for Android fans today, and this discount brings them down to a more appropriate price.
Say farewell to the classic XPS 13, and say hello to the spiffy new XPS 13. Dell surprised us at CES by bringing the modern (and somewhat controversial) design of 2022's XPS 13 Plus to its entire flagship lineup, which now includes the larger XPS 14 and 16 models. With this new design, they all have invisible haptic trackpads hidden beneath the glass-covered wrist rest, a capacitive top row of function keys (which can instantly switch to media controls), and wider gap-less keyboards that have no spacing between keys. But do those upgrades actually make them better computers than Dell's previous XPS lineup? Well, it really depends on how much you like the way they look.
When I reviewed the XPS 16 last month, I was impressed by its sheer power and attractiveness, but its high price and a few quirks made it a tougher sell than the XPS 15 that came before it. The same is mostly true for the XPS 13 and 14. The smaller model is basically just the XPS 13 Plus with a new Intel Core Ultra 7 chip. The XPS 14 is far more intriguing, since it aims to pack in the power of the XPS 16 without being so damn hefty. I’m reviewing them together because they're gunning for a very similar audience: People who demand both speed and portability. Choosing between them comes down to how much power you actually need and how much weight you're willing to deal with.
Just like their larger sibling, both the XPS 13 and 14 are gorgeous to behold. They're exercises in minimalism, with all-aluminum cases (available in light or dark variants) and clean layouts around their keyboards. And yes, their displays also have razor-thin bezels, something Dell popularized with the XPS line over a decade ago. Rather than try to stand out with extraneous features like dual screens or a plethora of LEDs, the XPS 13 and 14 make more of a statement by what they don't have: visible trackpads and dedicated function keys.
Like the XPS 13 Plus, this year's XPS 13 only carries two USB-C sockets and no other ports — no dedicated headphone jack, not even a dedicated charging connection. But hey, at least Dell put its USB-C ports on opposite sides, something I'd still like to see on the MacBook Air. If you want any other additional connectivity, you're probably better off with the XPS 14, which has three USB-C ports, a headphone jack and a micro-SD card slot. Professionals would be better off with a full-sized SD card reader, though, and it would be nice to have an HDMI port like the MacBook Pro 14-inch.
Weight is the most obvious difference between the XPS 13 and 14: the smaller model comes in at 2.6 pounds (slightly less than the MacBook Air), while the XPS 14 is noticeably heftier at 3.7 pounds. (Dell is following Apple's product strategy a bit, as the 13-inch MacBook Air weighs 2.7 pounds and the MacBook Pro 14-inch sits between 3.4 and 3.6 pounds.) The XPS 13 and 14 are both easy to carry around all day, but the one-pound difference could make the larger model more annoying if you're trying to travel light.
Still, the XPS 14 justifies its additional heft by cramming in more hardware. It can be equipped with NVIDIA's RTX 4050 GPU (running at 30 watts), and also features more robust cooling, which allows it to reach a higher maximum thermal envelope of 47 watts. The XPS 13, on the other hand, can only hit 28 watts of sustained performance. Even though both machines use the same Intel Core Ultra CPUs, you'll end up seeing far better performance from the XPS 14 for prolonged workloads like video encoding or 3D rendering. (Again, that's much like the difference between the MacBook Air and base configuration MacBook Pro.)
The XPS 13 (2024) sitting on top of the XPS 14.
Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
The XPS 14's 14.5-inch screen is an inch larger than the XPS 13's, which makes it more comfortable for multitasking with multiple apps or working on media timelines. No matter which model you choose, though, you'll get a bright and immersive image, along with thin bezels that Apple still can't touch. Both computers offer a variety of viewing options: the XPS 13 can be equipped with Full HD+ (1,920 by 1,200 pixels, non-touch), Quad HD+ (2,560 by 1,600) or 3K+ OLED (2,880 by 1,800), while its larger sibling gets Full HD+ (non-touch) and 3.2K+ OLED (3,200 by 2,000) screens..
Dolby Vision is standard across the board, but you'll only get 100 percent DCI-P3 color gamut coverage with the pricier displays. You'll also get up to 120Hz refresh rates on all of the screens, except for the XPS 13's OLED, which maxes out at 60Hz. (I'd recommend avoiding that option entirely and going for a high refresh rate LCD, which will ultimately deliver a smoother image.)
Both the XPS 13 and XPS 14 I reviewed were equipped with Intel's Core Ultra 7 155H CPU, 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD. The XPS 14 also had NVIDIA's RTX 4050 GPU, while the smaller laptop relied on Intel's built-in Arc graphics. As I expected, they didn't differ too much when it came to CPU benchmarks like Geekbench 6. But the XPS 14 was twice as fast as the XPS 13 in the Geekbench 6 Compute test, which relies on the GPU for more intensive work. That NVIDIA hardware also helped the XPS 14 be more than three times as fast as the 13 in the Geekbench Machine Learning GPU test.
While the XPS 14 is far from what I'd call a gaming laptop, its NVIDIA GPU also let me play Halo Infinite in 1080p with medium graphics at 40fps. That's not exactly my ideal Halo experience, but hey, it's playable. In comparison, the XPS 13's Intel Arc graphics barely managed to sustain 25fps. The RTX 4050 GPU is mainly useful for media creation on the XPS 14: I was able to use Handbrake to transcode a 4K clip into 1080p in 26 seconds, whereas that same task took 36 seconds on the XPS 13.
I had no trouble with my daily workflow on either machine, but I enjoyed carrying the XPS 13 around town far more than the XPS 14 simply because it's lighter and easier to maneuver. I could slip it into a tote bag without a second thought, bring it to Starbucks and get up and running easily. Thanks to its additional bulk and weight, II sometimes had trouble stuffing the XPS 14 into the same bag amid the accoutrements of parenthood. This won't be much of a problem if you're using a backpack (and not trying to fit in kids' toys and snacks), but it was a reminder of how useful a sub-three pound notebook can be.
Much like the XPS 16, I enjoyed typing on Dell's lusciously wide keyboards. The large key caps are easy to hit and they have a satisfying amount of key travel. The keyboard is more visually impressive on the XPS 13, since it stretches completely edge-to-edge, while it's flanked by speakers on the XPS 14. The capacitive function keys are fine most of the time, but they still disappear in direct sunlight and other bright lighting.
And then there's the trackpad. By now, I'm used to Dell's invisible design, and I also appreciated the increased size of the XPS 14's trackpad. But it still takes some adjustment, especially for newcomers. I've also noticed that it's sometimes tough to find the line that separates left and right clicks, which led to a few frustrated attempts to copy and paste links from Chrome.
Now that I've experienced Dell's invisible trackpad and capacitive function row across four machines, I'm even more convinced they're a mistake. Sure, they look cool and help Dell stand out in the dull world of Windows laptops, but that doesn't justify the usability issues. On the XPS 13 and 14, I also saw fraction-of-a-second delays while swiping around Windows. The problem went away when I forced both machines to run at 120Hz, but that also uses more battery life than running at 60Hz. It almost feels like I'm trying to swipe through an additional layer of glass. I noticed the same issue on multiple XPS 13 and 14 units, but Dell tells me it hasn't been able to replicate any slowdown in its labs. The company will be doing a further investigation into our review units, and I'll report back later on what it finds.
As for the rest of their hardware, both the XPS 13 and XPS 14 feature solid 1080p webcams with Windows Hello support for facial authentication. You can also use Windows Studio Effects during video chats to blur backgrounds and adjust your gaze, thanks to the NPUs in Intel’s new Core Ultra chips. Their 8-watt speaker setups sound fine for watching YouTube videos or playing a bit of background music, but they’re not nearly as impressive as Apple’s notebooks. There was also a surprising battery life gap between both machines: The XPS 13 lasted 13 hours and 15 minutes in PCMark 10’s Modern Office benchmark, while the XPS 14 ran for just four and a half hours. You can chalk that up to its beefier GPU, as well as its larger screen.
Another downside to the XPS 13 and 14's spiffy look? Higher prices. The XPS 13 now starts at $1,399 with the configuration we tested, while the XPS 16 starts at $1,699. (Our review unit would cost $2,399, thanks to its NVIDIA GPU and OLED screen.) I'll give Dell credit for making 16GB of RAM standard, instead of 8GB like previous models, but for the most part you're paying out the nose to have a prettier trackpad. Is that really worth it? Dell's pricing is particularly wild when you consider you can nab an M3 MacBook Air for $1,099 and a 14-inch MacBook Pro for $1,599. Sure, you'll also need to add $200 to get 16GB of RAM, but even the base configurations are faster than Dell's laptops.
While there’s a lot to like about the new XPS 13 and XPS 14, we can’t recommend them as easily as Dell’s earlier XPS generations. They look attractive and perform well, but that comes at a cost for usability, battery life and, well, actual cost. Simply put, you’re paying more for pretty machines.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/dell-xps-13-and-xps-14-review-2024-gorgeous-laptops-with-usability-quirks-130010912.html?src=rss
