The iPad Pro has always struck me as a baffling device. It's significantly more expensive than the (very capable!) iPad and iPad Air. iPadOS still isn’t a great environment for multitasking. And Apple hasn't yet justified why, exactly, you'd want a super-powerful tablet in the first place (simplified versions of Final Cut Pro and Audition aren't enough!). If you're trying to get serious work done, you're better off buying a slightly used last-gen MacBook Pro, instead of shelling out $1,000 or more on a souped-up tablet.

And yet, something about this year's iPad Pros compels me.

Apple

Taken individually, most of the tablet's new features seem inessential. It's the first device with Apple's M4 chip, which has vastly better AI performance than its earlier M-series hardware. It has a "tandem" OLED display, which stacks two OLED panels together for better performance. And both the 11-inch and 13-inch iPad Pros are incredibly thin and light (the latter model is the slimmest device Apple has ever made, measuring 5.1mm).

But when you wrap all of those advancements together and pair them up with a redesigned, MacBook-like Magic Keyboard, the M4 iPad Pro is starting to look more and more like the ultra-light computer of my dreams. A super-powerful machine that's easy to take anywhere, with a gorgeous screen for binging TV shows and a capable keyboard for writing on the go. Maybe I'm just charmed by the side profile of the iPad Pro with the Magic Keyboard, which looks like it could have been designed by Syd Mead in the '90s, imagining how laptops could be transformed in a few decades.

I'll admit, the new iPad Pro looks very similar to the 2022 model. But, as the kids say, it just hits differently now. This year’s iPad Pro is thinner than I ever thought possible, and the revamped Magic Keyboard solves most of the problems I've had with earlier versions, thanks to its aluminum top cover, function keys and larger touchpad.

Part of the appeal, for me at least, is that Apple has also taken the idea of a tablet PC a step further than Microsoft's Surface tablets. While those devices can function as genuine PCs and run full Windows apps, Microsoft hasn't improved its keyboard covers or overall design in years. If you want to hold a Surface on your lap, you'll still have a kickstand digging into your legs and a pretty flimsy typing experience. The M4 iPad Pro, on the other hand, now more closely resembles an actual laptop.

Now I realize part of this gadget lust comes from covering Apple's recent launch event. I've been thinking far too much about iPads over the past few days, and it's taken a toll. You could potentially get a laptop-like PC experience from either the entry-level iPad or iPad Air when paired together with a keyboard case. But, then again, I’ve already bought a 10th-gen iPad with Logitech’s Slim Folio keyboard and I don’t actually use it much for typing. It’s fine for jotting down something short like emails, but the unsatisfying keys makes it tough to get into a writing flow.

I'd also feel better about jumping on the iPad Pro bandwagon once iPadOS becomes an even better platform for multi-tasking. Stage Manager is a start, but it's a bit clunky and hard to navigate. Sure, Apple is constrained by what's possible on smaller displays, but I could imagine iPads (along with iPhones and Macs) becoming far more functional once the company starts rolling out its rumored local AI models.

What if Siri could accurately note down your shopping list, pull in prices from local stores and share it with your friends. What if it could automatically edit your vacation videos to post on Instagram? Now imagine you could do those things without losing focus from the email on your screen, or your company’s Slack channel. Multitasking doesn't necessarily need to involve jumping between several apps. With AI enhancements down the line, we could potentially complete complex tasks with natural language, and our devices could better anticipate what we actually need.

Apple

The iPad Pro M4’s price problem

Price is another obvious problem facing the iPad Pro. It has always been expensive, but Apple is really pushing the boundaries of acceptability with these new models. Both the 11-inch and 13-inch tablets are $200 more than before, starting at $999 and $1,299 respectively. While it's nice to see them come with 256GB of storage by default (up from 128GB), creative professionals will probably want to spend another $200 to get 512GB.

If you want the full 10-core CPU power of the M4 chip, though, you'd have to shell out for at least 1TB of storage, which makes the 11-inch iPad Pro $1,599. Want nano-textured glass for additional glare reduction? That's another $100. Oh, and don't forget the Magic Keyboard! That's $299 or $349 more, depending on the size. If you actually wanted to spec out the iPad Pro like a laptop, it's easy to hit a price near $2,000.

Alternatively, you could just get a $1,299 MacBook Air, or $1,599 14-inch MacBook Pro. Maybe add another $200 to get 16GB of RAM. At least with those machines, you've got larger screens, excellent keyboards, the full desktop power of macOS and more than a single port for connectivity. If you really want an iPad Pro experience, you could always keep an eye out for used or refurbished 2022 models, which come with the very capable M2 chip.

Given just how expensive it is, I likely won't be buying a new iPad Pro anytime soon. But the desire is certainly there, sitting somewhere deep within me, ready to take over my cognitive functions the minute these tablets get cheaper.

Apple's new iPad Pro models are its most laptop-like tablets yet. They're the first devices powered by the company's M4 chip, which is said to deliver more AI capabilities. And, for the first time outside of the iPhone and Apple Watch, both the new 11-inch and 13-inch iPad Pros will sport OLED screens. That's a step up from the LCD and Mini-LED displays on the previous models, and it should lead to bolder colors, inky dark black levels, and far better contrast. 

These aren't your typical OLEDs, either: Apple says the iPad Pros feature "tandem" OLED screens for 1,000 nits of typical brightness and 1,500 nits of peak brightness. That solves the brightness issues facing earlier OLED screens, and it means you likely won't miss the extreme brightness of Mini-LED.   

Developing...

Follow all of the news live from Apple's 'Let Loose' event right here.

More than anything, Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace is a fascinating cultural object. It's been 25 years since I saw the film in theaters, and over a decade since I last rewatched it (in a vain attempt to help my Trekkie wife catch up to the prequels). I've had enough time to process the initial disappointment and embarrassment of introducing my wife to Jar Jar Binks. So when Disney announced it was bringing the prequel trilogy back to theaters, I was practically giddy about revisiting them to see how George Lucas's final films compared to the onslaught of Star Wars media we've experienced over the past decade. Was The Phantom Menace as bad as I'd remembered? Well, yes and no.

Disney/Lucasfilm

Boring but full of imagination

In 1999, I knew Episode 1 would be a bit of a slog as soon as we hit the second line of the opening crawl: "The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute." Really, George? This was what Star Wars fans were waiting for since 1983's Return of the Jedi? During this rewatch, I was more tickled than annoyed by the many baffling narrative choices: The empty drama of a trade blockade; the confusing decision to establish a romance between a literal child and an older teenager; and throwing in Jar Jar Binks to appease kids amid the hideously dull dialog.

It's as if The Phantom Menace was written and directed by an alien who hadn't actually seen a movie, or engaged in any aspect of pop culture, since the early '80s. At the same time, that near-outsider perspective is part of the film's charm. Seeing a society slowly lose control of an idealistic democracy to a power-hungry dictator is a lot for a PG-rated fantasy film. Yet that also sets up the first two prequels to feel eerily-prescient beside the global response to 9/11.

By the time we reached 2005's Revenge of the Sith, the allusions to George W. Bush's Patriot Act and Global War on Terror were hard to miss. "This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause," Padme says as her fellow Senators hand over emergency powers to Palpatine, turning Supreme Chancellor Palpatine into the Emperor, and transforming the Galactic Republic into the Galactic Empire.

Disney/Lucasfilm

Beyond political machinations, The Phantom Menace is filled with loads of gorgeous imagery: Naboo's lush palace and aquatic Gungan city; the designs of new ships and weapons; and, of course, every single outfit worn by Princess Amidala. It would have been nice if these visuals cohered into the narrative better, but their presence makes it clear that Lucas was surrounded by world-class talent, like renowned costume designer Trisha Biggar.

The Phantom Menace also leaps to life in its handful of action set-pieces. Sure, maybe the pod-race goes on a bit too long, but the sense of speed, scale and bombastic sound throughout is still absolutely thrilling. (The film's sound team — Gary Rydstrom, Tom Johnson, Shawn Murphy and John Midgley — was nominated for an Oscar, but lost out to The Matrix.)

And yes, the entire Duel of the Fates fight is still an absolute banger. There's no doubt that The Phantom Menace would have been a stronger film with less-clunky dialog and more character development shown through action. At one point in the fight, all of the participants are separated by laser barriers. Qui-Gon Jinn meditates, almost completely at peace. Darth Maul prowls like a caged lion. And Obi-Wan Kenobi is simply eager to get on with the fight, like a hot-shot student who just wants to show off. That sequence tells you more about those characters than the remaining two hours of the film.

Disney/Lucasfilm

A precursor to ubiquitous digital characters

While I didn't come around to loving Jar Jar Binks during this rewatch, his very existence as a fully-CG character felt more significant than ever. Voiced by the actor and comedian Ahmed Best, Jar Jar was roundly trashed upon release and his implementation was far from seamless. But it was also the first time we saw a motion-captured performance be transformed into a fully-realized character. Now that technology is so common in movies we practically take it for granted.

"You can’t have Gollum without Jar Jar," Best said in a recent interview for The New York Times. "You can’t have the Na’vi in ‘Avatar’ without Jar Jar. You can’t have Thanos or the Hulk without Jar Jar. I was the signal for the rest of this art form, and I’m proud of Jar Jar for that, and I’m proud to be a part of that. I’m in there!”

In 2017, Best offered an expanded version of his thoughts in a Twitter thread (via ScreenRant): "Jar Jar helped create the workflow, iteration process and litmus test for all CGI characters to this day. On some days the code was being written in real time as I was moving. To deny Jar Jar's place in film history is to deny the hundreds of VFX technicians, animators, code writers and producers their respect. People like John Knoll, Rob Coleman and scores of others who I worked with for two years after principal photography was ended to bring these movies to you."

Disney/Lucasfilm

A great story stuck in a bad film

I've learned the best way to watch The Phantom Menace is to take in the aspects that I like and replace Lucas's many baffling choices with my own head canon. The story of Anakin Skywalker being born through the sheer power of the Force and becoming the Jedi's Chosen One? That's interesting! Inventing Midi-chlorians to give people a literal Jedi power score? That's bad, to hell with you! (Midi-chlorians are still technically canon, but they've been largely ignored in recent Star Wars media.)

This time around, I couldn't help but imagine how a more natural and energetic storyteller would have tackled The Phantom Menace. Surely they wouldn't front-load trade disputes and taxation. A more skilled writer, like Andor's Tony Gilroy, could thoughtfully weave together the Republic's potential downfall. And I'd bet most people wouldn't waste Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan by keeping him off-screen for an hour, while everyone else goes on a pod-racing adventure. (It sure would be nice to have him spend more time with Anakin!)

Disney/Lucasfilm

I still haven't seen Topher Grace's fabled 85-minute edit of the Star Wars prequels, but his decision to start in the middle of Phantom Menace's climactic lightsaber battle makes sense. So much of Episode 1 feels entirely superfluous when the real story of Anakin Skywalker is about falling in love, being tempted by the Dark Side and ultimately betraying his master.

I hate the Rabbit R1. It's yet another sign that standalone AI gadgets, like the Humane AI Pin, are fundamentally useless devices meant to attract hype and VC funding without benefitting users at all. It's like trying to build a skyscraper on quicksand: Today's AI models are great for parlor tricks, but they're ultimately untrustworthy. How do you create a device around that?

The Rabbit R1's big selling point has been its "large action model," or LAM, which can supposedly understand what you say and get things done. But really, that's just marketing speak. At the moment, the R1 can barely do anything as an AI assistant. And the few tasks it can actually accomplish, like placing DoorDash orders, are faster and easier to tackle on your phone. You know, the device we already own that can tap into AI features and fast cellular networking.

Rabbit R1: design and build

I'll admit, the Rabbit R1 looks adorable, but that's mostly down to the design magic of Teenage Engineering, a company that can make a simple tripod look desirable. The R1 is clearly building on the Playdate, another tiny square gadget from Teenage Engineering. Instead of that game handheld’s iconic crank, the R1 has a far less satisfying scroll wheel. Its glossy plastic case also feels a lot cheaper and thicker than the Playdate, almost like what you'd expect from a child's toy.

Alongside the dull 2.9-inch screen, there's a unique 8-megapixel "360 eye" camera, which can rotate either towards you or away from you. It's an interesting way to avoid bundling two separate cameras, so I'll give Rabbit credit for that. But the 360 eye isn't meant for taking photos: Instead, it's all about computer vision. You can ask the R1 to describe what's in front of you, from objects to documents and articles, and wait for an AI-generated summary. While this is something that could be useful for people with visual impairments, those users could do the same with ChatGPT, Microsoft's Copilot or built-in tools on their phones (which also have vastly superior cameras).

Using the Rabbit R1 is an exercise in futility

Beyond its looks, the Rabbit R1 is mostly a failure. Once it’s turned on, you should be able to hit the push to talk button on its side and ask the AI assistant whatever you want: the weather, local traffic or a summary of a recent book. In my testing, though, the R1 would often deliver the weather when I asked for traffic, and sometimes it would hear my request and simply do nothing.

The R1 becomes more frustrating the more you use it: Its scroll wheel is the only way to interact with its interface (even though the display is also a touchscreen), and it's simply awkward to use. There's no rhyme or reason for how long you need to scroll to move between menu options. The mere act of selecting things is a pain, since the confirmation button is on the right side of the R1. That button would be far easier to hit somewhere below the scroll wheel — or better yet, just let me use the damn touchscreen!

Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Oddly, the Rabbit's touchscreen does recognize taps whenever you need to enter text like a Wi-Fi network password. But even that process is annoying, since it involves turning the R1 on its side and typing on a laughably tiny keyboard. Honestly, I felt like I was being punked every time I had to use it. (Cue the obligatory, "What is this, a keyboard for ants?")

Third-party apps on the Rabbit R1

The more I used the Rabbit R1, the more I felt like it was purposefully designed to drive me insane. It can play music from Spotify (if you have a paid subscription), but what's the point of doing that with its terrible 2-watt speaker? Are you expected to connect Bluetooth headphones? You can ask the R1 to generate art via Midjourney AI (again, with a paid account), but it often failed to show me the pictures that were created. On the rare occasion they did show up, I couldn't actually do anything with the AI pictures from the R1. I'd have to load up Midjourney's Discord server on my phone or computer to share them around.

Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

When I asked the R1 to find me an Uber to a local theater, it told me that the Uber service may be slow to load on RabbitOS and isn't available everywhere (uh, thanks?). After 30 seconds of idling, it said the Uber service may be under maintenance, or there may be an issue with my credentials. (I logged out and back into Uber on the "Rabbit Hole" website, which you use to manage the R1, but the error persisted.)

“LAM works by operating the Uber web app on the cloud on your behalf,” Rabbit representative Ryan Fenwick told me over e-mail when I asked why I couldn’t get the Uber service to work. “Uber ultimately decides how and whether it serves users, so depending on factors like the location you’re booking from, your ride history, etc., it may vary from time to time. We’re implementing measures that help to improve the success rate and transparency of ride booking through R1, so over time the experience should improve.”

At least the Rabbit R1 was able to get me a sandwich. I asked it to find some lunch nearby and it spent an entire minute communing with Postmates and its AI cloud — the precise amount of time it would take me to complete a GrubHub order on my phone. The R1 eventually returned with three chaotic choices: Subway, a nearby Henri’s Bakery and a restaurant five miles away I’ve never heard of

Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

I opted for Henri’s (they do make killer sandwiches), and the R1 showed me a whopping six menu items. Its tiny screen could only hold a picture of the item, its name and the price — you can't tap into it to get a longer description or customize anything. You can only add items to your cart or remove them. I chose two sandwiches and, to my surprise, the R1 completed the order without ever confirming my payment information or delivery address. It was working entirely off of my DoorDash defaults, and thankfully those were up to date.

As soon as the order was placed, my iPhone started lighting up with all sorts of useful information from DoorDash. I received a confirmation from the restaurant, a detailed look at the bill (the R1 apparently added my default 20% tip) and the name of my delivery driver. It took the R1 several minutes before it confirmed the order, and it only occasionally updated me that it was coming closer.

My sandwiches eventually arrived, but I was more struck by the many ways things could have gone wrong. This isn't 1999; I'm no longer impressed by simply being able to order food online like I did from Kozmo.com (RIP). But even back then, I was able to get a full look at menus and customize things. The fact that I could look over at my phone and see the DoorDash app being far more useful made me instantly lose faith in the R1.

There are other things the R1 can do, like recording and summarizing meetings. But that’s also something several apps can do on my phone and computer. The on-demand translation feature seemed to work fine converting English to Spanish and Japanese, but it’s no better than Google Translate or ChatGPT on my phone.

Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

What’s the point of the Rabbit R1?

All of this leads me to ask: What's the point of the Rabbit R1, really? it certainly can't replace your phone, since it can't make calls or send texts. While you can add a SIM card for always-on connectivity, that just makes it more expensive. It'll still be useless on the go, anyway. Perhaps, you could argue, it's a companion device to help avoid being distracted by your phone. But it's so slow and hard to use that I find my smartphone's notification-filled hellscape far more calming. There's nothing zen at all about having yet another device that you have to buy, charge and carry.

And if you suffer battery life anxiety, you absolutely should stay away from the Rabbit R1. When I first received it, the R1 would burn through its battery while sitting idle, doing absolutely nothing, for eight hours. The first major RabbitOS update helped considerably, but the R1 still can’t last an entire day on a single charge. For a device that has such a tiny screen and offloads its work to the cloud, that’s simply inexcusable.

Photo by Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

I suppose you could argue that the $199 Rabbit R1 is a good deal compared to the $699 Humane AI Pin (which also requires a $24 monthly subscription), but that’s like saying rabbit droppings don’t smell bad compared to dog poop. Technically true! But in the end it’s all still shit. The Humane’s projection screen is at least an interesting twist on mobile UI, and its potentially less cumbersome as a wearable. The Rabbit AI assistant, on the other hand, is basically just a chunkier and dumber phone.

Don’t buy the R1. Even if Rabbit somehow manages to deliver on some of the promises of its LAM – like the ability to train the R1 to handle the variety of tasks – I have no faith that it’ll actually work well. My advice extends to every standalone AI gadget: Just stay away. Your phone is enough.

The Rabbit R1 is finally here, and it's yet another useless AI gadget. Sure, at $199 with no monthly fee, it's a lot cheaper than the $699 Humane AI Pin. But the R1 is slow, hard to use, and doesn't actually do much. The much-promised "Large Action Model" mostly powers things you can easily do on your phone. In this episode, Devindra and Engadget's Sam Rutherford chat with CNET's Lisa Eadicicco about the Rabbit R1 and whether AI devices are necessary at all. Just like cameras, the best AI device is the one you always have with you: your smartphone.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcast, Engadget News!

Topics

• Rabbit R1 review: appealing design, underwhelming performance – 0:49

• Tesla lays off Supercharger development team leaving future of the network unclear – 25:28

• FCC fines U.S. wireless carriers $200m for selling customer location data – 30:05

• Razer will refund all Zephyr mask purchases over false N95 filtering claims – 32:52

• Drake deletes track featuring an AI clone of Tupac Shakur’s voice – 35:16

• Working on – 36:23

• Pop culture picks – 40:18

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Livestream

Credits 

Hosts: Devindra Hardawar and Sam Rutherford
Guest: Lisa Eadicicco from CNET
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

The Rabbit R1 is finally here, and it's yet another useless AI gadget. Sure, at $199 with no monthly fee, it's a lot cheaper than the $699 Humane AI Pin. But the R1 is slow, hard to use, and doesn't actually do much. The much-promised "Large Action Model" mostly powers things you can easily do on your phone. In this episode, Devindra and Engadget's Sam Rutherford chat with CNET's Lisa Eadicicco about the Rabbit R1 and whether AI devices are necessary at all. Just like cameras, the best AI device is the one you always have with you: your smartphone.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcast, Engadget News!

Topics

• Rabbit R1 review: appealing design, underwhelming performance – 0:49

• Tesla lays off Supercharger development team leaving future of the network unclear – 25:28

• FCC fines U.S. wireless carriers $200m for selling customer location data – 30:05

• Razer will refund all Zephyr mask purchases over false N95 filtering claims – 32:52

• Drake deletes track featuring an AI clone of Tupac Shakur’s voice – 35:16

• Working on – 36:23

• Pop culture picks – 40:18

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Livestream

Credits 

Hosts: Devindra Hardawar and Sam Rutherford
Guest: Lisa Eadicicco from CNET
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

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.)

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.

After months of anticipation, President Biden finally signed the TikTok divestment into law this week. It will force ByteDance to either sell TikTok to another company within a year, or see the app banned from US app stores. Is this a wise move to rid control of the social app from the Chinese government, or is it government overreach before TikTok has done anything wrong? Engadget Senior Editor Karissa Bell joins Cherlynn and Devindra to dive into what's next for TikTok.

Listen below or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcast, Engadget News!

Topics

• The US TikTok ban is signed into law, what happens now? – 0:57

• Devindra and Cherlynn’s take on whether bad product reviews hurt tech companies – 20:42

• Meta opening QuestOS to third party hardware developers – 31:39

• Apple ‘Let Loose’ virtual event scheduled for May 5 – 33:48

• Leading AI companies pledge to keep kids safe (though harm is already evident) – 41:48

• Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses add multimodal AI – 43:58

• X is allegedly working on a smart TV app – 47:01

• Working on – 48:02

• Pop culture picks – 56:29

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

Livestream

Credits 

Hosts: Cherlynn Low and Devindra Hardawar
Guest: Karissa Bell
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien

In a huge move for the mixed reality industry, Meta announced today that it's opening the Quest's operating system to third-party companies, allowing them to build headsets of their own. Think of it like moving the Quest's ecosystem from an Apple model, where one company builds both the hardware and software, to a hardware free-for-all like Android. The Quest OS is being rebranded to "Meta Horizon OS," and at this point, ASUS's Republic of Gamers (ROG) brand is working on a new "performance gaming" headsets, while Lenovo is working on devices for "productivity, learning and entertainment." (Don't forget, Lenovo also built the poorly-received Oculus Rift S.) 

Developing...

Rebel Moon: Part 2 - The Scargiver is an empty feast. It's a relentless onslaught of explosions, sci-fi tropes and meaningless exposition that amounts to nothing. And yet somehow it's still better than the first film in Zack Snyder's wannabe sci-fi epic franchise for Netflix, Rebel Moon: Part 1 - A Child of Fire. (What do these titles really mean? Who cares.) 

With all of the dull table-setting complete, Snyder is able to let his true talents soar in Rebel Moon: Part 2 by delivering endless battles filled with slow-motion action and heroic poses. It looks cool, I just wish it added up to something. Anything.

Spoilers ahead for Rebel Moon: Part 2.

If you somehow missed the first Rebel Moon film, the basic setup is that it's Star Wars meets The Seven Samurai. Sofia Boutella stars as Kora, a former elite soldier of an evil empire who is hiding out in an all-too idyllic farming village, just planting and harvesting her days away. When a group of military baddies kills the chief of the village and starts threatening a young girl, Kora goes on a murdering spree (in defense!), leaving the community open to a retaliatory attack. 

She spends the first movie recruiting potential warriors to defend the village, including a fallen gladiator (Djimoun Hounsou) and a bad-ass swordswoman (Doona Bae). (Their names are Titus and Nemesis, respectively, but those don't really matter because the characters are paper thin.)

Full disclosure: I tried writing a review for the first Rebel Moon and just gave up in disgust. It was a shockingly boring epic, so much so that it took me several days to watch without falling asleep. By the end, I was only left with a feeling of dread, knowing that there was still another two hours of Rebel Moon ahead of me.

It's somewhat empty praise, but at least I didn't fall asleep during The Scargiver. Mostly, that's due to the film actually having a sense of momentum and a lot more action. You can turn off your brain and enjoy the pretty pictures, much like you could for Snyder's Sucker Punch, Justice League and Watchmen adaptation. He's more a stylist than a natural storyteller, but occasionally Snyder's visuals, such as a baffling montage of our heroes harvesting wheat, can be almost poetic.

Netflix

It's just a shame that I didn't care much about the film's characters or any aspect of its story. James Gunn's Guardian's of the Galaxy trilogy made us fall in love with a band of misfits and screwups, with storylines that directly led to their personal and emotional growth. The crew in Rebel Moon, instead, feel like cardboard cutouts from better movies, and the overall plot feels forced (there's even setup for another film by the end). 

Hounsou tries to sell the pathos of Titus with his eyes, but he can only do so much. And while Bae's warrior woman exudes cool (and has a very compelling flashback), she's mostly wasted when the action really heats up. Then there's Jimmy, a robot voiced by Anthony Hopkins, who is briefly introduced in the first film and pops up for a few minutes here to kick butt. Why? It doesn't matter. Somehow that character is also important enough to serve as the narrator for both Rebel Moon films (but really it seems Snyder just wanted Hopkins' voice adding gravitas).

Perhaps the only real saving grace for Rebel Moon: Part 2, much like the first film, is Ed Skrein as the villainous Atticus Noble. As a sadistic baddie, he's really nothing new, but Skrein's heightened scenery chomping makes the character interesting to watch. Where Darth Vader exudes a calm sense of dread, Skrein's Noble is entertainingly chaotic, like the Joker crossed with Christoph Waltz's Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds. He just has a lot of fun being bad — that's something!

Given how popular the first film was (according to Snyder and Netflix, anyway), we'll likely see more Rebel Moon down the line. Snyder previously said he'd like to do a six-hour director's cut of both films, and he recently told Radio Times that he'd like to stretch the Rebel Moon series out to four or six films. Somehow, that just feels like a threat.