On 19/07/2024 16:47, Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Fri, 19 Jul 2024 06:58:19 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> Even though iPhones have the shortest lifespan of all phones
>>
>> This has been debunked so many times. Why do you have keep lying?
>
> Did you read Apple's own published cite which says *none* of the iPhones
> meet the EU longevity requirement - except the latest iPhone 15, Chris?

That's the thing with certifications. An org has to decide which ones to
comply with and which devices to certify. It's their choice only. Not
choosing a device to certify does not imply that that device is not
certificable.

Apple has only chosen to certify the iphone 15. Which makes sense as the
regulation only comes in next year by which time the 16 will be out and
the 14 likely dropped. So Apple has no interest in checking whether
older models are compliant as it is unnecessary (from their POV).

As I've said previously, it is interesting that old an iOS minor update
was required to meet the regulation therefore the hardware was always
compliant. Presumably Apple's standard for longevity is different to
it's 500 definition is equivalent to >800 for the EU's definition.

>>> (note that
>>> every iPhone except the latest miserably fails EU longevity standards!),
>>
>> Also very debatable.
>
> What's no longer shocking is you've been presented many times with Apple's
> own published cite for why only the iPhone 15 meets EU longevity standards,
> and yet, you're so far to the left of Mount Stupid, you can't remember it?

See above. It's not a failure, it's a choice not to update their
definitions for older (no longer available at the time of requirement)
models.

>>> of a gun or the power of a rocket or the power of an
>>> airplane or the power of a vehicle, etc., has fundamentally everything to
>>> do with size - it's the same with electronics - where battery size is key.
>>
>> Of course you're wrong again. I even preempted your response.
>
> You're so far

It's your analogy that is wrong. Engine power, for example, for cars has
not dramatically dropped, but engine capacity has. A 1l petrol engine
today is similar to a 1.4 or 1.6 from 10-15 years ago. Plus MPG has
increased, despite cars getting heavier.

Rocket power is directly proportional to the energy density of the fuel.
Not simply the size of the rocket. That's just dumb.

I could go on...

>
> Even then, the iPhone 15 *barely* squeaks by EU requirements, while we
> already provided reputable cites showing many Android phones *double* them.

Where? I can't be arsed reading your constant verbal diarrhoea.

>>> You'd be hard pressed to find an Android that isn't *double* the lifetime.
>>
>> You have yet to show *any* evidence of that. So you're lying again.

The list that is regularly posted to counter this shows that battery
lifetime of the best Androids is not double that iphones. If you
normalise by battery capacity - which any decent engineer or scientist
would do - then battery lifetime is only marginally better in android.

On 2024-07-18 17:19, Andrew wrote:
>> How is wanting a longer battery life "a narrow niche"? Note to Arlen: this
>> doesn't necessarily mean a larger battery.
> Just as the power of a gun or the power of a rocket or the power of an
> airplane or the power of a vehicle, etc., has fundamentally everything to
> do with size - it's the same with electronics - where battery size is key.

I missed this bit on the first go, and I'd like to address a part of it;
a part with which I have a lot of experience:

'Just as the power of a vehicle has fundamentally everything to do with
size - it's the same with electronics - where battery size is key.'

First, the power of a vehicle doesn't have "everything to do with size".
Even if we ignore that he really meant the "the power of a vehicle's
engine", there are different ways to make power that aren't based on size.

1. First of all, RPM: if you have two engines of precisely the same
displacement, they can have very different power outputs, because of
differing maximum RPM.

2. Force induction: I'll lump mechanical and turbo charging together
here and note that forced induction can increase the power MASSIVELY
without changing the engine size.

3. Engine cycle: everyone forgets this, but if we simply look at the
actual swept volumes of the cylinders of an internal combustion engine,
we also need to examine how often those volumes produce a power stroke.
There's a reason that for many, many years, the pinnacle of motorcycle
racing engines were two-stroke. A two-stroke engine produces a power
stroke from each cylinder every revolution, where a four-stroke engine
only produces a power stroke every OTHER revolution. While those
individual power strokes weren't as efficient as those of a four-stroke
engine's, having twice as many of them more than made up for it.

And there is a whole "Second" about this!

I know this will blow away our ignorant little, Arlen/Andrew, but...

Power is not what really matters in making a car quick.

And no, I don't want to get into the whole power vs torque argument.
This is a more fundamental point, and it's what makes it completely
analogous to the argument about phone batteries.

Just as "bigger battery" isn't the goal, the goal in a vehicle isn't
"more power" in and of itself.

We want more power for one reason: to go faster... ...to accelerate faster.

And to determine the acceleration of a vehicle, you need to know both
its power...

....AND its mass; what is often (somewhat erroneously) termed
"power-to-weight ratio".

There are lots of cars with 2, 3... ...5 times the power of my Formula F
Van Diemen Honda with about 115hp (I haven't had it on a dyno, but
that's about the number) that don't accelerate as quickly as mine...

....because my racing car only weighs about 1,100 pounds with me in it.

Compare them based on power alone, as Arlen would have us do, and the
2025 Cadillac Escalade with 420hp should absolutely lunch my Van Diemen
in a drag race...

....but in reality, despite having more than 3.5 times the power of my
car, it weighs FIVE TIMES AS MUCH.

And we can show a parallel argument with respect to top speed: there are
streamlined vehicles with tiny engines that also have much lower drag
that can easily go faster than vehicles with far more power than they have.

What matters with vehicles with respect to power is what that power can
do given the other factors of the vehicle, such as weight (mass), and drag.

And the same argument applies to phones:

What matters isn't the size of the battery, but how long the phone will
run on a charge. Two phones with very different battery capacities that
can both run (say) 16 hours on a charge will be the same as far as the
customer is concerned. They will both experience the same number of
charge cycles per time period and so not only will the day-to-day
experience of using them be the same, their batteries will last
essentially the same length of time before needing to be replaced.

So...

....as usual...

....Arlen just doesn't get it.

Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 08:43:30 +0100 :

> As I've said previously, it is interesting that old an iOS minor update
> was required to meet the regulation therefore the hardware was always
> compliant. Presumably Apple's standard for longevity is different to
> it's 500 definition is equivalent to >800 for the EU's definition.d

All my assessments are based on facts; not on religious beliefs.
*Apple Increases iPhone 15's Advertised Battery Lifespan*
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/20/apple-raises-iphone-15-advertised-battery-lifespan/>
"In a support document updated today, Apple says the batteries
in the iPhone 15, iPhone 15 Plus, iPhone 15 Pro, and iPhone 15 Pro Max
are designed to retain 80% of their original capacity at 1,000 complete
charge cycles under ideal conditions, compared to the 500 charge cycles
it advertises for all older iPhone models."

Hence, I agree with anyone who says something logically sensible, where I
too find it interesting that Apple apparently, suddenly, magically perhaps,
seems to have met stricter EU standard with a mere iOS 17.4 beta update.
<https://www.inverse.com/tech/why-iphone-15-battery-charge-cycles-increased-from-500-to-1000>
"But then Apple released iOS 17.4 beta yesterday, and suddenly
the batteries in all iPhone 15 models can now retain 80 percent
of their original capacity at 1,000 complete charge cycles."

>>>> (note that
>>>> every iPhone except the latest miserably fails EU longevity standards!),
>>>
>>> Also very debatable.
>>
>> What's no longer shocking is you've been presented many times with Apple's
>> own published cite for why only the iPhone 15 meets EU longevity standards,
>> and yet, you're so far to the left of Mount Stupid, you can't remember it?
>
> See above. It's not a failure, it's a choice not to update their
> definitions for older (no longer available at the time of requirement)
> models.

I am an adult, not a religious zealot, so I'll agree with any sensibly
logical statement which has some factual basis in the published record.

"Apple said it is investigating the battery lifespans of older iPhone
models, so a comparison based on the latest testing parameters
remains to be seen."
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/20/apple-raises-iphone-15-advertised-battery-lifespan/>

It seems to be something odd going on in how Apple reports battery life.
<https://www.inverse.com/tech/why-iphone-15-battery-charge-cycles-increased-from-500-to-1000>
"How the heck did Apple magically double the health of its iPhone 15
batteries without changing anything about its physical chemistry?
Apple tells Inverse that there's no change in the hardware or software,
only that the additional testing methods changed to meet the new
80 percent original capacity retention at 1,000 cycles."
>>>> of a gun or the power of a rocket or the power of an
>>>> airplane or the power of a vehicle, etc., has fundamentally everything to
>>>> do with size - it's the same with electronics - where battery size is key.
>>>
>>> Of course you're wrong again. I even preempted your response.
>>
>> You're so far
>
> It's your analogy that is wrong. Engine power, for example, for cars has
> not dramatically dropped, but engine capacity has. A 1l petrol engine
> today is similar to a 1.4 or 1.6 from 10-15 years ago. Plus MPG has
> increased, despite cars getting heavier.
>
> Rocket power is directly proportional to the energy density of the fuel.
> Not simply the size of the rocket. That's just dumb.
>
> I could go on...

Aurgh. No analogy is perfect. If all you can do is attack the analogy, then
it means that you don't get the main point that the analogy was meant for.

Since abstract analogies aren't your thing, let's look at it directly.

a. Say you have two phones with exactly the same current use patterns.
b. One of those phones has half the battery capacity of the other.
c. Which phone is going to have more charge cycles in any given year?

Now I already know how you strange religious zealots think, which means I
already am well aware that basic arithmetic has eluded you your whole life.

What you're going to say is that the phone with the 100% smaller battery
happens to have a 2% lower current output, right? I know you'll say this.

What you don't understand is that a 2% efficiency cannot possibly overcome
a 100% deficiency. This is basic arithmetic the analogy was meant to show.

It's the same lack of basic math skills nospam used for the 3% efficiency
in RAM which nospam claimed can overcome a 200% deficiency in RAM capacity.
>> Even then, the iPhone 15 *barely* squeaks by EU requirements, while we
>> already provided reputable cites showing many Android phones *double* them.
>
> Where? I can't be arsed reading your constant verbal diarrhoea.

These are well-known published reports so you, with your PhD in the medical
sciences, certainly can handle a link that is already in this thread Chris.

Think about that before you complain that you can't handle any details.

If a simple post in a Usenet thread is too much detail for you, then it's
doubtful you could earn a PhD in anything, let alone in the science field.

>>>> You'd be hard pressed to find an Android that isn't *double* the lifetime.
>>>
>>> You have yet to show *any* evidence of that. So you're lying again.
>
> The list that is regularly posted to counter this shows that battery
> lifetime of the best Androids is not double that iphones. If you
> normalise by battery capacity - which any decent engineer or scientist
> would do - then battery lifetime is only marginally better in android.

It's no longer shocking that you think lifetime is measured in hours.
Or even in days. We're talking years, Chris.

This is simple math.

If an iPhone has a battery half the size of an equivalent Android phone,
and if we grant that iPhone a 2% efficiency in current use doing the same
things as the Android phone, that 2% does not overcome the missing 100%.

There's are reasons I claim you zealots are ignorant and uneducated.
One of these reasons is that simple math is not something you grasp.

Even if the iPhone is 2% or 3% more efficient than an equivalent Android
phone, if the Android phone has twice the battery capacity, then the iPhone
will definitely reach discharge cycles far sooner than the Android will.

This is simple arithmetic, Chris.
You having claimed a PhD in the medical sciences should comprehend math.

On 2024-07-22 13:17, Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 08:43:30 +0100 :
>
>> As I've said previously, it is interesting that old an iOS minor update
>> was required to meet the regulation therefore the hardware was always
>> compliant. Presumably Apple's standard for longevity is different to
>> it's 500 definition is equivalent to >800 for the EU's definition.d
>
> All my assessments are based on facts; not on religious beliefs.
> *Apple Increases iPhone 15's Advertised Battery Lifespan*
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/20/apple-raises-iphone-15-advertised-battery-lifespan/>
> "In a support document updated today, Apple says the batteries
> in the iPhone 15, iPhone 15 Plus, iPhone 15 Pro, and iPhone 15 Pro Max
> are designed to retain 80% of their original capacity at 1,000 complete
> charge cycles under ideal conditions, compared to the 500 charge cycles
> it advertises for all older iPhone models."
>
> Hence, I agree with anyone who says something logically sensible, where I
> too find it interesting that Apple apparently, suddenly, magically perhaps,
> seems to have met stricter EU standard with a mere iOS 17.4 beta update.
> <https://www.inverse.com/tech/why-iphone-15-battery-charge-cycles-increased-from-500-to-1000>
> "But then Apple released iOS 17.4 beta yesterday, and suddenly
> the batteries in all iPhone 15 models can now retain 80 percent
> of their original capacity at 1,000 complete charge cycles."
>
>>>>> (note that
>>>>> every iPhone except the latest miserably fails EU longevity standards!),
>>>>
>>>> Also very debatable.
>>>
>>> What's no longer shocking is you've been presented many times with Apple's
>>> own published cite for why only the iPhone 15 meets EU longevity standards,
>>> and yet, you're so far to the left of Mount Stupid, you can't remember it?
>>
>> See above. It's not a failure, it's a choice not to update their
>> definitions for older (no longer available at the time of requirement)
>> models.
>
> I am an adult, not a religious zealot, so I'll agree with any sensibly
> logical statement which has some factual basis in the published record.
>
> "Apple said it is investigating the battery lifespans of older iPhone
> models, so a comparison based on the latest testing parameters
> remains to be seen."
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/02/20/apple-raises-iphone-15-advertised-battery-lifespan/>
>
> It seems to be something odd going on in how Apple reports battery life.
> <https://www.inverse.com/tech/why-iphone-15-battery-charge-cycles-increased-from-500-to-1000>
> "How the heck did Apple magically double the health of its iPhone 15
> batteries without changing anything about its physical chemistry?
> Apple tells Inverse that there's no change in the hardware or software,
> only that the additional testing methods changed to meet the new
> 80 percent original capacity retention at 1,000 cycles."

Another quote from that same article:

'Apple has always been somewhat conservative with its battery testing by
perhaps putting them through a heavier load than most customers would. I
don’t know what the EU’s battery testing process is like, but it appears
that Apple has redone its iPhone 15 battery testing to surpass it.'

>
>>>>> of a gun or the power of a rocket or the power of an
>>>>> airplane or the power of a vehicle, etc., has fundamentally everything to
>>>>> do with size - it's the same with electronics - where battery size is key.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you're wrong again. I even preempted your response.
>>>
>>> You're so far
>>
>> It's your analogy that is wrong. Engine power, for example, for cars has
>> not dramatically dropped, but engine capacity has. A 1l petrol engine
>> today is similar to a 1.4 or 1.6 from 10-15 years ago. Plus MPG has
>> increased, despite cars getting heavier.
>>
>> Rocket power is directly proportional to the energy density of the fuel.
>> Not simply the size of the rocket. That's just dumb.
>>
>> I could go on...
>
> Aurgh. No analogy is perfect. If all you can do is attack the analogy, then
> it means that you don't get the main point that the analogy was meant for.
>
> Since abstract analogies aren't your thing, let's look at it directly.
>
> a. Say you have two phones with exactly the same current use patterns.
> b. One of those phones has half the battery capacity of the other.
> c. Which phone is going to have more charge cycles in any given year?

It would entirely depend on how much power each needs to operate.

>
> Now I already know how you strange religious zealots think, which means I
> already am well aware that basic arithmetic has eluded you your whole life.
>
> What you're going to say is that the phone with the 100% smaller battery
> happens to have a 2% lower current output, right? I know you'll say this.
>
> What you don't understand is that a 2% efficiency cannot possibly overcome
> a 100% deficiency. This is basic arithmetic the analogy was meant to show.

But looking at sites that test run times, you can see that it must be
much more than a 2% efficiency increase:

Best phone battery life at a glance (hours:minutes)

Asus ROG Phone 8 Pro: 18:48
OnePlus 12R: 18:42
Asus ROG Phone 7 Ultimate: 18:32
Asus Zenfone 11 Ultra: 17:52
OnePlus 12: 17:41
Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra: 16:45
Samsung Galaxy S24 Plus: 16:32
Motorola Edge Plus (2023): 15:47
Moto G Stylus 5G (2024): 15:01
Nothing Phone 2a: 15:00
Motorola Razr (2024): 14:37
Moto G 5G (2024): 14:36
Nothing Phone 2: 14:21
iPhone 15 Plus: 14:14
Motorola Razr Plus (2024): 14:13

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>

>
> It's the same lack of basic math skills nospam used for the 3% efficiency
> in RAM which nospam claimed can overcome a 200% deficiency in RAM capacity.

1. I've not seen that claim.

2. You're simply making up your "3% efficiency" claim.

There's another, more appropriate word for "simply making up" something:

Lying.

>
>>> Even then, the iPhone 15 *barely* squeaks by EU requirements, while we
>>> already provided reputable cites showing many Android phones *double* them.
>>
>> Where? I can't be arsed reading your constant verbal diarrhoea.
>
> These are well-known published reports so you, with your PhD in the medical
> sciences, certainly can handle a link that is already in this thread Chris.
>
> Think about that before you complain that you can't handle any details.
>
> If a simple post in a Usenet thread is too much detail for you, then it's
> doubtful you could earn a PhD in anything, let alone in the science field.
>
>>>>> You'd be hard pressed to find an Android that isn't *double* the lifetime.
>>>>
>>>> You have yet to show *any* evidence of that. So you're lying again.
>>
>> The list that is regularly posted to counter this shows that battery
>> lifetime of the best Androids is not double that iphones. If you
>> normalise by battery capacity - which any decent engineer or scientist
>> would do - then battery lifetime is only marginally better in android.
>
> It's no longer shocking that you think lifetime is measured in hours.
> Or even in days. We're talking years, Chris.
>
> This is simple math.
>
> If an iPhone has a battery half the size of an equivalent Android phone,
> and if we grant that iPhone a 2% efficiency in current use doing the same
> things as the Android phone, that 2% does not overcome the missing 100%.

So.. ...do you know what a "straw man argument" is?

>
> There's are reasons I claim you zealots are ignorant and uneducated.
> One of these reasons is that simple math is not something you grasp.
>
> Even if the iPhone is 2% or 3% more efficient than an equivalent Android
> phone, if the Android phone has twice the battery capacity, then the iPhone
> will definitely reach discharge cycles far sooner than the Android will.
>
> This is simple arithmetic, Chris.
> You having claimed a PhD in the medical sciences should comprehend math.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 08:43:30 +0100 :
>
>> As I've said previously, it is interesting that old an iOS minor update
>> was required to meet the regulation therefore the hardware was always
>> compliant. Presumably Apple's standard for longevity is different to
>> it's 500 definition is equivalent to >800 for the EU's definition.d
>
> All my assessments are based on facts;

Far from it. You have your own special definition of what a fact is. It is
often just an opinion.

<snip reams of noisy repetition>

I'm glad you agree that meeting the EU requirement is not just a hardware
issue and choosing not to include a model is not a "failure".

>>>>> of a gun or the power of a rocket or the power of an
>>>>> airplane or the power of a vehicle, etc., has fundamentally everything to
>>>>> do with size - it's the same with electronics - where battery size is key.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you're wrong again. I even preempted your response.
>>>
>>> You're so far
>>
>> It's your analogy that is wrong. Engine power, for example, for cars has
>> not dramatically dropped, but engine capacity has. A 1l petrol engine
>> today is similar to a 1.4 or 1.6 from 10-15 years ago. Plus MPG has
>> increased, despite cars getting heavier.
>>
>> Rocket power is directly proportional to the energy density of the fuel.
>> Not simply the size of the rocket. That's just dumb.
>>
>> I could go on...
>
> Aurgh. No analogy is perfect. If all you can do is attack the analogy,

Then why use it? It distracts from your point.

> then
> it means that you don't get the main point that the analogy was meant for.

Actually, the car analogy works better then you'd like to admit. Car engine
power has not really changed over the years, but capacity has reduced while
efficiency has increased.

> Since abstract analogies aren't your thing, let's look at it directly.
>
> a. Say you have two phones with exactly the same current use patterns.
> b. One of those phones has half the battery capacity of the other.
> c. Which phone is going to have more charge cycles in any given year?

As per usual you're ignoring efficiency. Using your car analogy you're
simply looking at the size of the tank to see how often you need to refuel.
By your definition a 100L tank is better than an 80L despite the larger one
being in a car that does only 20 mpg compared to 40 mpg in the other car.

> Now I already know how you strange religious zealots think, which means I
> already am well aware that basic arithmetic has eluded you your whole life.
>
> What you're going to say is that the phone with the 100% smaller battery
> happens to have a 2% lower current output, right? I know you'll say this.

I won't and never have.

>> Where? I can't be arsed reading your constant verbal diarrhoea.
>
> These are well-known published reports so you, with your PhD in the medical
> sciences, certainly can handle a link that is already in this thread Chris.

You literally post hundreds of times a month. No-one reads all those.

If you could keep on-topic in a single (short) thread that would helpful.

> Think about that before you complain that you can't handle any details.
>
> If a simple post in a Usenet thread is too much detail for you, then it's
> doubtful you could earn a PhD in anything, let alone in the science field.

Scientists know how to be succinct. Something you'd benefit from.

Chris wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 11:10:20 -0000 (UTC) :

>> All my assessments are based on facts;
>
> Far from it. You have your own special definition of what a fact is. It is
> often just an opinion.

Well, did you noticed I *agreed* with you that it appears Apple merely
changed the algorithm on the iPhone 15 with that specific iOS update?

At the risk of providing you too much adult nuance, you strange zealots are
childish so you don't act like a normal well-educated adult should act.

Me?

a. If you state a fact, I check it out, and I never deny it.
(only you fools deny facts - that's why you're fools)
b. If you state a reasonable assessment of fact - I will
honor it - although an assessment of fact entails weighing
the pros and cons - which you nutcases can't seem to do
c. If you find me wrong on a fact - I instantly and openly
admit it - ask badgolferman on that - he has an entire
thread we can look up where you childish nutjobs can't
ever admit that you're wrong - which wouldn't be so
bad except you deny all facts you're ignorant of - which
is a lot of facts about Apple products you don't know.

Sigh. You are nutcases. So you think everyone else is a nutcase.

The fact is you *hate* that you have no defense to the facts.
As you've never found a single fact from me to ever be wrong.

NOTE: You can disagree with my *assessment* of facts, which is normal
between adults because assessments require weighting factors.

For example:
FACT: Apple only fully supports a single release.
ONE ASSESSMENT OF THAT FACT: Apple support sucks.
ANOTHER ASSESSMENT OF THAT VERY SAME FACT: Apple support is great.

If I mention that Apple support is the worst in the industry, you'll
disagree, right? That's because you're not only ignorant that Apple only
fully supports a single release, but you're also completely ignorant of how
every other operating system NOT Apple supports releases.

So you're welcome to *disagree* with my assessment of the fact.
But what you strange nutcases do is you disagree with the fact.

That's how I know you're uneducated and of low-IQ Chris, as you'd never
pass a college exam always being completely wrong on every fact there is.

> I'm glad you agree that meeting the EU requirement is not just a hardware
> issue and choosing not to include a model is not a "failure".

I'm an adult, Chris. I'm reasonably intelligent and rather well educated.
I agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible assessment of facts.

You're one of those strange wacko religious zealots, Chris, so that
surprises you - but it doesn't surprise adult like badgolferman is.

Me?

If you say a fact, that is a correct fact, I 100% will agree with you.
If you make an assessment that is logical and sensible, I will also agree.

It's only when you deny facts when I vehemently disagree with you nutjobs.
And when your assessment is so far off from logic that I will disagree.

>> Aurgh. No analogy is perfect. If all you can do is attack the analogy,
>
> Then why use it? It distracts from your point.

You have to understand that you Apple wackos are like small children.
I have to dumb down the conversation to the most simplest of forms.

I had thought that analogy would be dumbed-down enough for you zealots.
But all you did, childishly so, was attack the analogy.

That's another way that I know none of you fundamentalists have any formal
education, which is why you can't comprehend even the simplest of things.

You probably still think gravity is a force, for example.

>> then
>> it means that you don't get the main point that the analogy was meant for.
>
> Actually, the car analogy works better then you'd like to admit. Car engine
> power has not really changed over the years, but capacity has reduced while
> efficiency has increased.

For you to be so desperate as to claim that Apple's puny cheap garbage
batteries have a higher capacity than the typical Android batteries is
merely your desperate attempt to deny what everyone knows is a fact.

Capacity is almost everything when it comes to years of useful life,
which, by the way, is exactly why the EU specified those requirements.

And no, a 2% increase in efficiency can not possibly overcome a 100%
decrease in capacity - as claiming that proves you have no math training.

We went through this in gory detail with nospam where we had published
reports of the 3% RAM efficiency of iPhones and the 200% more RAM in
Android - where nospam never once read these published reports we cited.

Again, the lack of any logical thought processes is how I know none of you
ignorant low-IQ Apple religious zealots can possibly have passed college
courses in the sciences and engineering. They'd kick you out in 1 semester.

>> Since abstract analogies aren't your thing, let's look at it directly.
>>
>> a. Say you have two phones with exactly the same current use patterns.
>> b. One of those phones has half the battery capacity of the other.
>> c. Which phone is going to have more charge cycles in any given year?
>
> As per usual you're ignoring efficiency. Using your car analogy you're
> simply looking at the size of the tank to see how often you need to refuel.
> By your definition a 100L tank is better than an 80L despite the larger one
> being in a car that does only 20 mpg compared to 40 mpg in the other car.

Your belief system shows you have zero formal education in basic math.

A 2% efficiency will never overcome a 100% deficiency in battery capacity.
Just like a 3% efficiency in RAM usage can't overcome 100% more RAM.

Maybe you need to study what it means to have a decimal place in your
argument, where I'm well aware Apple's (brilliant) marketing uses 0 math.
>> Now I already know how you strange religious zealots think, which means I
>> already am well aware that basic arithmetic has eluded you your whole life.
>>
>> What you're going to say is that the phone with the 100% smaller battery
>> happens to have a 2% lower current output, right? I know you'll say this.
>
> I won't and never have.

You just did.

>
>>> Where? I can't be arsed reading your constant verbal diarrhoea.
>>
>> These are well-known published reports so you, with your PhD in the medical
>> sciences, certainly can handle a link that is already in this thread Chris.
>
> You literally post hundreds of times a month. No-one reads all those.

You claim to have earned a PhD in the medical sciences, Chris.
If you can't handle a few hundred posts, you can't have that degree.

They would kick you out of school in a single semester with your inability
to handle detail that a normal adult can easily handle with aplomb, Chris.

> If you could keep on-topic in a single (short) thread that would helpful.

The topic is often derailed by you iCrazies because you *hate* that Apple
puts the cheapest crappiest garbagiest' batteries in your beloved iPhone.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 11:10:20 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> All my assessments are based on facts;
>>
>> Far from it. You have your own special definition of what a fact is. It is
>> often just an opinion.
>
> Well, did you noticed I *agreed* with you

I noticed how you can write dozens of lines and say nothing (new) at all.

Chris wrote on Wed, 24 Jul 2024 06:47:03 -0000 (UTC) :

>>> Far from it. You have your own special definition of what a fact is. It is
>>> often just an opinion.
>>
>> Well, did you noticed I *agreed* with you
>
> I noticed how you can write dozens of lines and say nothing (new) at all.

Maybe you missed that I agreed with you that Apple seems to have secretly
fudged the numbers such that the iPhone's laughably cheap substandard crap
batteries mysteriously went from miserably failing EU lifetime performance
goals to passing them.

On 2024-07-24 03:33, Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Wed, 24 Jul 2024 06:47:03 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>>> Far from it. You have your own special definition of what a fact is. It is
>>>> often just an opinion.
>>>
>>> Well, did you noticed I *agreed* with you
>>
>> I noticed how you can write dozens of lines and say nothing (new) at all.
>
> Maybe you missed that I agreed with you that Apple seems to have secretly
> fudged the numbers such that the iPhone's laughably cheap substandard crap
> batteries mysteriously went from miserably failing EU lifetime performance
> goals to passing them.

Maybe we all missed where you have proof that Apple "fudged" anything.

For all you know, Apple matched took the criteria the EU is using and
realized their batteries met it.