Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Marion <marion@facts.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Leaked iPhone 17 Air battery capacity reveals new =?iso-8859-7?Q??=
 =?iso-8859-7?Q?model=A2s_biggest_weakness?=
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 17:58:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <105jao7$2sml$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <105fg31$1rql$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <105fq1r$2md5i$1@dont-email.me> <105ftfk$4on$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <105iffm$3a3c6$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 17:58:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="94933"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KYGHzbEygEcTCEA1DvAmnM8IaU8= sha256:pres9sbvy9daKRjAHdeU1QrFgHrf4vbgaFOTcSIR5+w=
	sha1:/7Cj/sgcvlDF0xkcRuND4RHSZA8= sha256:PERO+aVui81GHR5SW2UuUcOd9/OP6Tj9Th7v1CRYm1c=

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 10:13:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


>> Wrong. But I don't fault you. Almost nobody understands the rating yet.
> 
> Least of all you.
>> Capacity is the fundamental starting point of the Efficiency rating.
>>
>> The efficiency is exactly = RUNTIME HOURS PER AMP/HOUR of CAPACITY.
>>
>> Without the capacity, you can't calculate the efficiency. The EU's Energy
>> Efficiency Class (A–G) hinges on normalized battery capacity, specifically
>> how much runtime a device delivers per 1,000mAh of battery capacity.
> 
> Almost. See the actual regulation:
> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/1669
> 
> Annexe IV provides the proper calculation - not your made up edfinition -
> which is:
> 
> EEI = 1000 x ENDdevice/(Unom x Crated)
> 
> Where; EEI is the energy efficiency index (A-G), ENDdevice is battery
> endurance (hr), Unom is the nominal voltage (V), Crated is rated battery
> capacity (mAh)
> 
> Both Unom and Crated are measured as part of the test and are not based on
> marketing values - as you'll be happy to hear - hence why the EU values are
> typically less than the manufacturer claims. See Annexe I for specific
> definitions ((3) & (8)).
> 
> The EEI class is read off this table:
> 
> A   EEI > 2.70
> B   2.30 < EEI ≤ 2.70
> C   1.95 < EEI ≤ 2.30
> D   1.66 < EEI ≤ 1.95
> E   1.41 < EEI ≤ 1.66
> F   1.20 < EEI ≤ 1.41
> G   EEI ≤ 1.20
> 
> Unfortunately, Unom data is not shared so we cannot do the calculation
> ourselves.
> 
> We can, using the table above, and knowing Crated, ENDdevice put bounds on
> what the Unom is for any non-A-rated phone i.e. the Galaxy S25+ and iPhone
> 16 PM.
> 
> Unom S25+ is 4.15V - 4.85V
> Unom 16PM is 3.79V - 4.44V
> 
> So, yes there is a time/capacity factor, but also a voltage factor which
> differs between phones and affects the final result.
> 
> I'm no electrical expert, but if a phone uses less current performing the
> same task (Unom) it is more efficient. Right?
> 
>> Runtime/Capacity === Efficiency
> 
> Or more explicitly:
> 
> Runtime/Capacity * Power == (EU Energy) Efficiency
> 
>> a. Devices are tested to see how long they can run on a full charge
>> b. That runtime is divided by the battery's mAh <== capacity!
>> c. This assesses how many hours per 1000 mAh the device delivers
>>
>> The result determines where the device lands on the A-G scale.
>> However, as you noted, battery capacity isn't DIRECTLY the determinant.
>>
>> For example, a phone with 3500 mAh capacity lasting 40 hours may be rated
>> as more efficient than one with 5000 mAh capacity lasting 45 hours.
>>
>> Size matters. As does endurance. Efficiency === endurance/size
>>
>> A smaller battery can earn a higher efficiency rating if the device
>> squeezes more usable time out of every milliamp-hour.
> 
> Correct. 
> 
>>> The Galaxy Edge with a puny 3786 mAh battery has an A rating which is
>>> higher than the Galaxy Ultra at 4855 mAh.
>>> https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2284553
>>
>> Your example is well chosen as it perfectly illustrates how battery
>> capacity alone doesn't determine the EU's Energy Efficiency Class (A-G).
> 
> Thanks for confirming what we have been saying about iPhones since forever.
> Your claim that your A-class phone with 5000 mAh is automatically better
> than an iphone is false.
> 
> The current Samsung A-36 is rated as "C":
> https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2301641
> 
> Surely that's in "utter crap" territory according to you? That model is
> related to your iphone beating A-32, so it must be crap as well.
> 
>> The Galaxy S25 Edge has a rated battery capacity of 3786 mAh, yet it earned
>> an A rating under the EU's efficiency labeling system.
>>
>> Samsung submitted the Galaxy S25 Edge to The Tech Chap Lab in the UK.
> 
> Unsubstantiated claim.
> 
>> The S25 Edge efficiency per mAh matched that of the iPhone 16 Pro Max at
>> 8.2 mAh/min, even though its total runtime was shorter due to the smaller
>> battery.
> 
> Again confirming what you've been told many, many times.
> 
>> According to you, the Galaxy S25 Ultra, with a larger 4855 mAh battery,
>> received a lower rating (which I'll accept, a priori), where that rating
>> also depended on its actual runtime and power optimization.
> 
> Not according to me. This is fact (a real one):
> https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2339789
> 
>>
>> The EU rating measures how efficiently a device uses its battery, not how
>> big the battery is. But how big it is factors into the efficiency math.
>>
>> If the Edge delivers more hours of use per 1000 mAh than the Ultra, it's
>> considered more energy efficient - even if its total runtime is shorter.
>>
>> We can likely opine that the Edge probably has better hardware/software
>> optimization, lower idle drain, or more efficient display & processor
>> tuning but we'd have to know more facts to make that conclusion definite.
> 
> Honestly, you're dismantling your own dogma beautifully. Keep going...
> 
>>>> You have to wonder who buys this Apple crap.
>>>
>>> The same people who want the Samsung Galaxy Edge. TBH I don't get it
>>> either. A super thin phone will be more fragile and will need to be
>>> permanently attached to a charger.
>>
>> Well, some people like pink phones so I guess we can't account for personal
>> tastes. Back to the efficiency thing, these are the results from just one
>> lab in the UK, the "Tech Chap Lab", who tested these ten flagship devices.
>>
>>   <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiLNpIWNCQk>
>>   1. Xiaomi 15 Ultra         | 5000        | 47h30m   |  5.7    | A
>>   2. Galaxy S25 Edge         | 3786        | 32h20m   |  8.2    | A
>>   3. Pixel 9 Pro XL          | 5050        | 41h50m   |  5.0    | B
>>   4. iPhone 16 Pro Max       | 4422        | 36h10m   |  8.2    | B
>>   5. Xiaomi 15 Pro           | 4800        | 39h40m   |  4.9    | B
>>   6. Galaxy S25 Ultra        | 4855        | 38h10m   |  4.7    | B
>>   7. OnePlus 13              | 6000        | 49h00m   |  4.9    | B
>>   8. Honor Magic7 RSR        | 5100        | 42h30m   |  5.0    | B
>>   9. Vivo X200 Pro Mini      | 4700        | 37h40m   |  4.8    | B
>> 10. Asus Zenfone 12 Ultra   | 5000        | 39h10m   |  4.7    | B
> 
> Where did you get this table from? It does not match the youtube link at
> all. For a start there were only 9 models tested plus you're missing the
> OPPO Find X8 Pro and there's no such thing as a Vivo X200 Pro mini. The
> battery capacities are completely wrong and the endurance times in the YT
> were around 10hrs. The scores in 3rd column don't make sense...
> 
> Did you get ChatGPT to make this up for you?
> 
>> Note that Apple did NOT submit any phone to any independent lab!
> 
> Unsubstantiated claim.
> 
>> (I thought they did but I was wrong if/when I had said that prior.)
>>
>> I've since found out (by digging deeper) that while independent labs did
>> test the iPhones, Apple didn't pay them to run those tests.
>>
>> And guess what? See the "B" above? Apple *knew* that would happen!
>> Only in Apple's (bogus) "internal" tests could an iPhone earn an A.
> 
> Unsubstantiated claim.
> 
>> There is no proof outside of Apple's bullshit any iPhone earned an A.
> 
> Your claim has always been that Apple *failed* the EU tests. You have never
> been able to show that. You are now reduced to arguing semantics and making
> shit up. That table above is a joke!

Regarding.... 
  >>  Almost nobody understands the rating yet.
  > 
  > Least of all you.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========