Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Why is overall Apple mobile device battery endurance per cycle
 16% less compared to Samsung?
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 12:13:51 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <104bthf$1lgrl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <10483kv$2g44$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <jM-dnbCnh48bS_r1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@supernews.com>
 <10493rf$flt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <E7-dnTFe9KQY8PT1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@supernews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 21:13:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="328569317760cbd8ff7f87bf96e44d8f";
	logging-data="1753973"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19E0U5PraczCeLStU9/BZDdXNc2D17O+N8="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:496fWe/kUzgSjUZVRIFx7CmNLAE=
In-Reply-To: <E7-dnTFe9KQY8PT1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@supernews.com>
Content-Language: en-CA

On 2025-07-05 11:23, Tyrone wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2025 at 1:43:12 PM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:26:30 +0000, Tyrone wrote :
>>
>>> Oh look. Arlen is cherry picking the results. AGAIN. Those numbers include
>>> tablets. Filter on phones only, and you get a much different story.
>>
>> Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.
>> Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?
> 
> No, nothing to "wonder about", because you were trying to change the subject
> AGAIN.
> 
>> Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.
>> Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.
>>
>> Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?
>> I'm a scientist and engineer.
> 
> LOL, good one.  You are so full of shit. Scientists don't say things like "It
> is common knowledge" and then spout some totally bullshit claim with NO
> EVIDENCE. You do that crap every day.
> 
> Not to mention that you have to be an adult to be a "scientist".  Children
> just pretend to be scientists.
>   
>> So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?
>>   It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet
>>   numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.
> 
> So, you FINALLY admit that iPhones ARE efficient?  And no one was EVER talking
> about tablets.  Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
>> Summary of averages by brand & type:
>>   Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
>>   Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)
> 
> No one was EVER talking about tablets.  Again, you are desperately trying to
> change the subject.

And the Samsung tablet advantage appears to be down to two models that 
have HUGE batteries with huge weights to go along with them.

The Samsung Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro (SM-X350) and one other model number 
with the same name (SM-X356B) both have "Battery endurance per cycle" 
ratings of 142h 50min.

That's nearly 50% higher than the next highest Samsung tablet at 99h 06min.

The Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro has that endurance because it has a 
10,000mA-hr battery...

....and weighs 1.5 POUNDS.

Nearly a quarter of a pound more than the heaviest iPad Pro.

If compared to an iPad Pro of nearly the same screen size, it is fully 
50% heavier.

How long might those two devices run if you just added a 0.22 or 0.52 
pound battery to the back of them?

> 
> And AGAIN, iPhones use smaller batteries, because iPhones are more efficient.
>   NOT "crappy cheap batteries because Apple is a shitty company" as you ALWAYS
> claim.
> 
> When ARE you going to grow up?

Amen.