[continued from previous message]
move to manage compliance in a dynamic regulatory landscape. It
certainly makes for interesting comparison, especially when so many
other high-profile phones are achieving the "A" rating.
=========================================================================
I'm serious. Apple spent 44 pages concocting a lie that you supported.
Why? Does Apple pay you to shill for them their marketing lies?
=========================================================================
I understand your frustration and the strong feeling that Apple's
explanation is disingenuous. My aim is to provide an objective analysis
of the information available, not to "shill" for any company. I do not
receive payment from Apple or any other company for my responses. My
purpose is to provide helpful and factual information based on the data
I can access.
Let's re-examine this without assuming any intent on Apple's part, and
focus on the mechanics of such a claim in a regulatory context.
You are absolutely right to question why a company would "downgrade" its
own score, especially when the tests are conducted by independent
agencies. This is where the nuance, and potential for a company to
strategically manage compliance, comes in.
Here's why it's not necessarily a direct "lie" about the independence of
the test agency, even if the reasoning for the downgrade is seen as an
excuse:
Independent Testing vs. Manufacturer Interpretation/Submission:
Independent Labs: It is indeed true that independent, accredited
laboratories (like SmartViser or those associated with Fraunhofer IZM)
are the ones that conduct the actual physical tests on the devices
according to the prescribed EU methodology. They produce the raw data
and results.
Manufacturer's Responsibility: However, the manufacturer (Apple, in this
case) is ultimately responsible for interpreting these results,
calculating the final score based on the EU's complex formulas, and then
submitting that final rating to the EPREL database. They must ensure
their submission aligns with the regulations.
The Grey Area: This is where Apple's "ambiguities" argument comes into
play. Even with standardized tests, there can be:
Rounding and Precision: How are fractions handled? What is the level of
precision required?
Interpretation of Test Phases: Are there elements of the test
methodology that allow for slight variations in how data points are
gathered or averaged across different runs or conditions?
Real-World vs. Lab Conditions: While the tests simulate real-world
usage, no lab test perfectly replicates every variable of consumer use.
A manufacturer might anticipate that in broader real-world scenarios,
performance might dip slightly below an "A" threshold, and choose to
rate conservatively to avoid future issues.
Regulatory Compliance Strategy:
In a new and evolving regulatory landscape, companies often adopt
conservative strategies. If Apple believes, based on its own extensive
internal testing and interpretation of the EU's rules, that there's a
risk their "A" rating could be challenged later (due to a differing
interpretation of the test standard by a market surveillance authority,
for example), they might opt for a "B" proactively.
Claiming an "A" and then having it later challenged by a regulator can
lead to fines, product recalls, and significant reputational damage.
Submitting a "B" with a detailed explanation (even if it sounds like an
excuse) might be seen as a safer legal and business strategy. It
positions them as transparently acknowledging potential issues with the
standard, rather than potentially overstating their product's performance.
Pushing for Harmonization:
Apple's document explicitly calls for "harmonized standards" and greater
clarity. This is a common industry tactic. By highlighting
"ambiguities," they are effectively lobbying for the EU to make the
testing and scoring methodologies even more prescriptive and
unambiguous, which could benefit them in future product generations.
So, while "voluntarily downgrading due to ambiguities" can certainly
sound like a flimsy excuse, especially when their competitors are
achieving "A" ratings, it's a statement made within the context of a new
regulatory framework where manufacturers bear the ultimate
responsibility for their declarations. It doesn't necessarily mean the
independent agencies weren't independent or that their test results were
fabricated. Instead, it suggests a strategic decision by Apple on how to
interpret and report those results under a complex, and for them,
potentially ambiguous, new standard.
My goal remains to explain the various facets of these situations,
including corporate statements, regulatory requirements, and common
industry practices, without endorsing one viewpoint over another.
Sources
=========================================================================
Apple has a long history of only telling the truth in court, and even
then, Apple has been referred to CRIMINAL prosecution (in France and in
California) for their lies in court. SO Apple is extremely well known
for lying. Why should we believe Apple's lies (and more to the point -
why do you promote only Apple's lies?) when you know as well as I do
that the bulk of the Android OEMs achieved an A rating.
1. Go to the EPREL database:
2. Select the product category: "Smartphones and tablets"
3. First search by brand, e.g., Google, Apple, Samsung, Motorola, etc.
4. Refine by "Model identifier" using the European model numbers above
(e.g., Google GUR25 Pixel, Samsung SM-S937B/DS S25, etc.)
5. That should give you the new June 20th 2025 filings phone rating.
Examples of random searches I just made moments ago are (alphabetically):
The ASUS ASUSAI2501H rating is "A"
The Fairphone (Gen.6) FP6 rating is "A"
The Google GUR25 (Pixel) rating is "A"
The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A"
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A"
The Nokia (HMD) TA-1600 rating is "A"
The Nothing cmf A001 rating is "A"
The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A"
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS S25 rating is "A"
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A"
Why can THEY easily achieve an A but Apple can't?
Why aren't THEY complaining (like Apple did) for 44 pages why the iPhone
sucks in that it can't meet even the most basic of efficiency standards?
=========================================================================
You are absolutely right to call out past behaviors and demand
transparency. I acknowledge Apple's documented history of legal
challenges and accusations of anticompetitive practices and, at times,
misleading statements. My role is not to defend any company, but to
analyze the information and provide a balanced perspective on complex
topics, which sometimes involves interpreting official statements
alongside external data.
Your detailed findings from the EPREL database are incredibly valuable
and demonstrate that many Android OEMs are indeed achieving "A" ratings
for their latest devices, while the iPhone 16 (A3287) has a "B." This
directly contradicts any notion that an "A" is impossible under the new
regulations, and makes Apple's explanation feel even more like a
justification for a lower score.
Let's address why this might be the case, acknowledging your valid
skepticism regarding Apple's official stance:
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
