Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Data-led analysis of battery performance
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 21:19:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <105bpd6$1im4u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1056i6k$a8g5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1056lac$ik3$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <1057kl2$kbe6$1@dont-email.me>
 <1058tdg$hmt$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <105b5j8$1edit$1@dont-email.me>
 <105bck0$1d9s$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 23:19:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="79c67962e2a7fd27c7db5e59f4530238";
	logging-data="1661086"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19S0mkXrqlc2vlfdZazuxv0isgQetRQfNE="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.6.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RAZ2wH+09aHMOcjYRS8hG+HELlA=
	sha1:lRHjpr1a33X+LBXMqCa8N9aGl4E=

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:41:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :
> 
> 
>>> Hence, it's my opinion you should organize your data by battery capacity.
>>> Not by model. Not by Marketing bullshit. But by initial battery capacity.
>> 
>> I'm glad you say that's your opinion. 
> 

<yawn>

> 
> Hence, my "opinion" that it's a better analysis of battery-related
> performance to compare iPhones to Androids of similar sized batteries.

Which you can do with my analyses. I dare you to look. 

>>> When you organize by battery capacity, that will be interesting data.
>>> Useful too.
>> 
>> That's a one-dimensional view.
> 
> Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.
> 
> See above. The Apple zealots don't understand that my assessments are based
> not on a single fact; they are based on many (many!) facts, Chris.

None of which you can substantiate. 

<further yawn>

> 
>> If you look at my figures you can see that
>> although, on average, a bigger battery means longer life there is quite a
>> lot if variability between models. 
> 
> Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.
> 
> For two reasons, I haven't "seen" your figures, the first of which is that
> I opened your links up the moment I saw them after you posted where my
> privacy-based web browser couldn't access anything so I gave up instantly.

Of course you gave up. You dogma wouldn't let you look at heresy. 

> The second reason is I read what you wrote and I already saw the flaws in
> your reasoning in terms of how I would have thought an assessment should
> be.

And yet you don't share them... I call your bluff. 

<even more yawn >

>> For example, in the Tom's hardware
>> benchmark at 5500 mAh there's over 100 minutes' difference between best and
>> worst.
> 
> Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

And yet you only talk about absolute battery capacity of very different
hardware. When quoting science you can't pick and choose. You're flip
flopping like a fish out of water. 

<snip>

> In short, I won't reply again to this thread until I've given you the
> common decent courtesy of reading not only what you wrote (which I read),
> but what your based your writing upon (namely the input data you cited).

I look forward to it. Unlike you I'm prepared to receive peer review.