XPost: comp.mobile.android, uk.telecom.mobile   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2025-07-04 14:05, Marion wrote:   
   > Thank God for the EU (& the UK) for forcing OEMs to truthfully report their   
   > mobile device performance (including the UK's battery life requirements).   
   >   
   > As of June 20, 2025, all OEMs selling mobile devices in the EU have to   
   > formally report standard benchmarks where all the OEMs used the same   
   > official testing 3rd parties & where all the OEMs knew the standards years   
   > ahead of time, such that EPREL is a wealth of benchmark data where all the   
   > tests were run similarly on all devices.   
   >   
   > IMHO, the EPREL is truly the Holy Grail of benchmarks.   
   > (too bad no USA-specific models were included)   
      
   Except for the fact (yes, Arlen: FACT) that the conditions for running   
   the tests are ambiguous...   
      
   >   
   > Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669   
   >   Enter "Google" in the "Brand or trademark" field.   
   >    Battery endurance per cycle   
   >     GUR25 49h 12min   
   >     GEC77 50h 44min   
   >     G6GPR 40h 06min   
   >     GZC4K 49h 30min   
   >     GTF7P 52h 19min   
   >   
   > Google Battery Endurance Summary   
   >    Original decimal average:   
   >    Total = 241.85 hours, Average over 5 models = 48.37 hours   
   >   
   >    Rounded to nearest whole hour (Apple-style):   
   >    Values: 49, 51, 40, 50, 52 ? Total = 242 ? Average = 48.4 hours   
   >   
   >    Truncated to whole hour (Apple-style):   
   >    Values: 49, 50, 40, 49, 52 ? Total = 240 ? Average = 48.0 hours   
   >   
   > Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669   
   >   Enter "Samsung" in the "Brand or trademark" field.   
   >   Battery endurance per cycle   
   >    SM-S937B/DS 40h 05min   
   >    SM-X210R 98h 32min   
   >    SM-X216R 55h 14min   
   >    SM-G766B 38h 15min   
   >    SM-X350 142h 50min   
   >    SM-X356B 142h 50min   
   >    SM-X526E 96h 32min   
   >    SM-X620 99h 06min   
   >    SM-X520 96h 32min   
   >    SM-X626B 99h 06min   
   >    SM-X526B 96h 32min   
   >    SM-A266B/DS 37h 05min   
   >    SM-A566B/DS 44h 34min   
   >    SM-A366B/DS 41h 28min   
   >    SM-S936B/DS 43h 38min   
   >    SM-S938B/DS 44h 54min   
   >    SM-A165F/DSB 45h 10min   
   >    SM-A166B/DS 43h 30min   
   >    SM-X820 73h 44min   
   >    SM-X920 85h 18min   
   >    SM-X826B 73h 44min   
   >    SM-X926B 85h 18min   
   >    SM-S721B/DS 42h 00min   
   >    SM-G556B 41h 22min   
   >    SM-S921B/DS 41h 26min   
   >    SM-X300 62h 31min   
   >    SM-X306B 62h 31min   
   >   
   >    Total hours: 2,056.96   
   >    Average = Total / 28 models = 2,056.96 / 28 = 73.46 hours   
   >   
   > Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669   
   >   Enter "Apple" in the "Brand or trademark" field.   
   >    A3267 62h 00min   
   >    A3268 72h 00min   
   >    A3355 67h 00min   
   >    A3269 72h 00min   
   >    A3354 67h 00min   
   >    A3266 62h 00min   
   >    A3409 41h 00min   
   >    A2993 67h 00min   
   >    A2995 67h 00min   
   >    A3293 37h 00min   
   >    A3290 48h 00min   
   >    A3296 48h 00min   
   >    A3287 37h 00min   
   >    A2836 73h 00min   
   >    A2837 73h 00min   
   >    A2925 77h 00min   
   >    A2926 77h 00min   
   >    A3090 34h 00min   
   >    A3094 45h 00min   
   >   
   >    Total hours = 1,199.0   
   >    Average = 1,199.0 / 19 = 63.1 hours   
   >   
   > Note: It makes no difference if you re-calculate all the numbers   
   > Apple-style, which is a truncation apparently, as I ran all the numbers   
   > three ways, namely as is, by rounding, and by truncation. Hence, Apple's   
   > (clever) marketing spin that they reported numbers "lower" than they could   
   > have is meaningless and, worse (much worse) Apple's (brilliant) truncation   
   > cast untoward aspersions on the entire formal process that every OEM,   
   > including Apple, had themselves already long ago been part of.   
   >   
   > Overall, Samsung models, based on EPREL data, have a 10 hour advantage.   
   > That's a whopping ~16% higher average battery endurance per cycle.   
   > However, Apple had a decided advantage over Google mobile devices.   
   >   
   > I'll send a separate post with a breakdown by smartphones vs tablets.   
   > Especially as Google doesn't have tablets to bring the averages up.   
   >   
   > And I'll show the proof that it doesn't matter how you round or truncate   
   > the numbers - they still end up being the same within minor differences.   
      
   And it is an idiotic way for anyone (let alone someone who claims to be   
   a "scientist") to compare these companies.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)