Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.mobile.ipad
Subject: Re: Why is the iPhone so inefficient compared to Android?
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:35:40 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 155
Message-ID: <1041nrs$33b45$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103s7ql$2qh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <103sd52$1gau4$1@solani.org>
 <1041121$30ui$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <10418j8$2vien$1@dont-email.me>
 <1041abk$2eus$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <1041dsv$3123c$1@dont-email.me>
 <1041koo$r1u$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 00:35:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d78f3e7432b2a2c583225c5e2befef3b";
	logging-data="3255429"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YIPC3HmFkmtUCHy5fJh9eAVLY/8mRAGc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:e+aTdH378FHbo8948K8rNslfzBE=
In-Reply-To: <1041koo$r1u$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Content-Language: en-CA

On 2025-07-01 14:42, Marion wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :
> 
> 
>>> Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.
>>
>> Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
>> "dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.
> 
> You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B.
> I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad.

You said it...

....but you've not supported it, let alone proven it.

> 
>>> Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
>>> And yet, they're not.
>>
>> Incorrect:  they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on
>> this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.
> 
> I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy batteries.

A B is NOT a fail.

> 
>>> If iPhones are so wonderfully efficient, why can't Apple get an A?
>>> The answer is obvious - but that's the question we have to ask.
>>
>> Not at all, because anyone with a well grounded background in T&E knows
>> that all tests have constraints & limitations, and there's also a lot of
>> assumptions which go into weightings for a summary score.
>>
>> For example, the EU tests & applies weighting factors for:
>>
>> * Scale of energy efficiency classes;
>> * Energy efficiency class;
>> * Battery endurance per cycle;
>> * Repeated free fall reliability;
>> * Battery endurance in cycles;
>> * Repairability;
>> * Ingress Protection rating.
>>
> While all tests have limitations, Apple *knew* about this test *years* in
> advance. Do you seriously claim the EU kept the test methods secret?

How many years, exactly?

> 
> Do you seriously claim the EU didn't take into account OEM input?
> For years?

Do you seriously claim VW (an automotive OEM) wasn't taken into account 
regarding diesel emissions standards/

> 
> Do you seriously claim Apple wasn't on the defining committee for the
> tests? Are you seriously claiming the testing agency was biased?
> 
> What exactly are you disputing in terms of the EU tests Apple formulated?
> These tests are well vetted as they were agreed to by all the OEM makers.
> 
> The sad fact is the iPhone has a crappy battery.
> Everyone knows that.
> 
> The EU tests simply proved it.

A "B" isn't "crappy".

> 
>>   From an engineering design perspective, there's going to be trades
>> which need to be made between these subsets to achieve the highest
>> overall summary score .. and within other non-listed constraints too,
>> such as the product's price point.  It may very well be preferable to
>> accept a slightly lower raw energy efficiency to put more budget into a
>> better battery endurance...or vice-versa:  the classical approach is to
>> seek to optimize the final summary score.
> 
> No. That's all an excuse for the iPhone crappy battery.
> 
> There is one reason and one reason alone why iPhones fared poorly.
> The iPhone battery is garbage.

Nope. That's simply false.

> 
>>>> No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.
>>
>> Calling a "B" score as "dismally failed in efficiency" is the troll.
> 
> You're the troll because I'm stating outright that Apple earned a B.
> And I'm stating all the Android OEMs earned an A. That's just a fact.

You're stating it.

You're not proving it.

> 
> Get used to facts.
> Apple touts a brazen lie of efficiency so they can use smaller batteries.
> 
> And yet, they can't.
> Apple doesn't own physics.
> 
> The reason iPhones suck at battery life is simply the batteries are crap.
> (Life here means lifetime. In years.)

I've already shown in a head to head where you basically insisted Apple 
was worse that it was (in ACTUAL fact) better.

> 
>>> All you're doing is making lame excuses for why iPhones aren't efficient.
>>>
>>> Despite the millions of dollars of Apple propaganda to the contrary, the
>>> starkly obvious fact remains that iPhones are less efficient than Androids.
>>
>> Incorrect: less than *some* Androids, as per *some* tests.  But the
>> opposite is true to:  that's the nature of complex systems.
> 
> Well, as I said, I never disagree with a logically sensible statement.
> No mater what the record is of the person making that statement.
> 
> Some Android OEMs who earned an A also earned less than an A in some of
> their models, and, in particular, their models with crappy batteries.
> 
> Yet not a single iPhone model was able to earn an A.
> And that's the point.
> 
> The iPhone batteries are crap.
> And this test shows it.

Nope. Apple has stated that the data indicated that they COULD have been 
award an "A" and chose not to.

> 
> Note that I knew this was going to happen because Apple doesn't own
> physics. The iPhone batteries are garbage. An A rating isn't possible.

'For example, Energy Efficiency Index scores for iPhone models on the EU 
market in June 2025 all qualified for the highest “A” grade, but Apple 
chose to voluntarily derate scores to a “B” grade to minimize the 
probability that a third-party tester interpreting the regulation 
differently would achieve a lower grade. '

'This paper presents our choices transparently to enable European 
stakeholders — from our customers to enforcement authorities — to 
replicate our results while understanding our rationale. We encourage 
other consumer electronics manufacturers to also present their selected 
test parameters. We look forward to working to address these issues and 
develop harmonized standards.'

Hmmmmm... sounds like Apple WASN'T on any committee creating these 
standards, huh?