I am probably not competent to improve linux battery life myself (or at least I certainly don't have the time to get into that). But I can choose to spend my money on hardware and companies that explicitly support Linux, even if they aren't at the very top of the spec sheet. This has the best practical chance of convincing big-money companies and Linux kernel experts to actually spend time and money on this. Meanwhile, buying a Macbook and installing Linux on it is fine, I guess, but also invisible to the corporate world.
In a world where my Framework 13 gets ~10 hours of battery life on Windows at best with ideal settings, that means you're getting ~7 at best in Linux, which means your typical non-ideal Linux use is more like 4-6 hours. Well, that's fine for somebody, (I own one) but that's a severe compromise compared to buying a MacBook Pro.
This isn't really "close enough" to be considered in competition.
Newer chips that are hitting the market like Intel Panther Lake and Qualcomm's second generation as well as the improving software ecosystem around it is something of a game-changer for Apple's competition.
When Apple launched the M1, it was such a no-brainer choice over its competition. Apple was literally doubling the battery life of the nearest competitor with the same/better performance.
As a tangent, I think it's worth pointing out that MacBook Neo was a game-changing impossibly good value device...for a couple of months. Now, the price has gone up, and Windows OEMs have launched competitive packages with their own advantages over the Neo. Head on over to check out the XPS 13, it's the same $699 price as the MacBook Neo with double the storage.