| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vhoelj$rddd$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: iFixit iPhone 16 Pro teardown Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 15:10:43 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 82 Message-ID: <vhoelj$rddd$1@dont-email.me> References: <vd7smd$mit$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <vd9mfe$1cbn3$2@dont-email.me> <llra5kFnhh3U1@mid.individual.net> <vdcme7$cqc$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <lluf25F7k3iU1@mid.individual.net> <vde93d$1i52$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <vdeofr$2av2l$1@dont-email.me> <vdf3h1$1s7l$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <vh7s6v$3fucf$4@dont-email.me> <vh82en$m5l$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <vh8cfg$3j77b$2@dont-email.me> <vh8dvj$10ju$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:10:43 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="71e730b208560eea9bac9f863eb7f98e"; logging-data="898477"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fAiiK5XN78l9CFY0xaVodBu5CRnNrkJI=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:twnbqwGE9lFQ+aPPdiCd6v8zx0Q= Content-Language: en-CA In-Reply-To: <vh8dvj$10ju$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> Bytes: 3920 On 2024-11-15 13:20, Andrews wrote: > -hh wrote on Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:55:12 -0500 : > >>> Worse... it's a fact that those very few Apple iPhones which >>> meet the EU's minimum battery life requirements *barely* meet >>> them (which again shows Apple's propensity for the absolute >>> minimum required by law for customers). >> >> And these EU regulators had independent & objective criteria for >> setting this standard, which was done double-blind to how products >> performed ... >> >> ...right? Breaking some of this down... > > The EU specified battery lifetime rules which applied equally to > Android and to Apple phones Probably true... ...but unsupported. > - where all known Android phones > surpassed those minimum lifetime rules This is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact... ....from the man who claims he only states facts. - and yet - the iPhone 15 > failed initially This is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact... ....from the man who claims he only states facts. > - but Apple literally changed their test standard - > and then it passed. This is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact... ....from the man who claims he only states facts. > > Fancy that. > > Note we discussed this ad infinitum on this very newsgroup, so I'm > not telling you anything which isn't already in this newsgroup's > archives. Show an example. > > Only *after* Apple tweaked the testing procedure did the iPhone 15 > pass. Nonetheless, it passed. But barely. This is actually two unsupported assertions, and not a fact... ....from the man who claims he only states facts. > > Meanwhile, almost all Androids (if not all Samsung/Google phones, > which are the vast majority) passed with flying colors - some > exceeding TWICE the lifetime (while Apple iPhones, even the latest, > barely meet the standard). This is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact... ....from the man who claims he only states facts. > > The reason is trivially simple to comprehend. Apple puts crappy > batteries (in terms of capacity) in iPhones. This is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact... ....from the man who claims he only states facts. > That's just a fact. The only people disputing that fact are the > ignorant Apple trolls. You need to learn the difference between "assertion" and "fact".