Nokia's take on battery life: It boggles my mind

[Cryio]

Nokia Lumia 1520 running WP8 with Lumia Black is the BEST performing phone/phablet device on the market. After the recent WP8.1 updates and one certain AAWL article (Windows Phone 8.1 battery woes - solved!) we pretty much expect the 1520 to get even better battery life after the Cyan update.

It's got a huge 6" display. It's running in 1080p. It's got Glance and Double tap to Wake on an IPS screen. It's got a huge 3400 mAH battery and it's a monster. It's the best device in GSMArena's battery tests. It's unbeaten.

So then how exactly is the Lumia's 930 battery life so bad? It's atrocious. AMOLED is even supposed to be more battery efficient than IPS ! Referring to GSMArena's battery test also, it gets ~6 hours of video playback? Under 5 hours of web browsing (on LTE I presume but w/e) ?! 46 hours overall endurance? Also, this is a flagship, with 5" 1080p and it has ONLY 2440 mAH? We've all seen that HTC did achieve a miracle with the battery performance of their M8 (2600 mah), but a slightly smaller battery size produces atrocious results on the Lumia 930. The M7 with 2300 mAH achieves 10 hours on both Video and browsing tests running Android 4.1 ! I assume it became a beast now running Sense 6 on top of Kitkat !

I just don't understand. Flagship devices likes 920 and 925, with two very different display technologies, both get worse battery life than the likes Lumia 720 and 625. True, the L625 seems to provide more juice than the L720, but that's only because the lack of Glance.

I don't even understand their decision to go with AMOLED for the L930. The 1520, besides it's best-in-every-class battery life also has the best display on the market at the current moment, hands down. So what are the reasons for why Nokia went for an inferior display on the 930? They could've even provided Glance. The battery would've been better.

What are your takes on the matter? Do you know why any of these decisions were made?

 

[N_LaRUE]

What are your takes on the matter? Do you know why any of these decisions were made?

To answer the first, I think it's an OS issue in relation to why we have so many battery problems and not so much the hardware. Sure Nokia doesn't always choose the best battery but that leads me to the second answer.

Why is the decision made? Cost. That's your answer to everything. Nokia wanted to keep costs down. Phones aren't designed to last more than two years in general. Because Nokia likes to make so many different phones they tend to choose batteries that can be used on many devices. This keeps stock down and costs down.

Hopefully things will change and we start to see a better output of WP but who knows?