XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: marion@facts.com   
      
   On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:15:04 -0400, -hh wrote :   
      
      
   >> Yet, only Apple phones dismally failed in efficiency.   
   >   
   > Where your claimed 'failure' was a grade of a "B" instead of an "A".   
      
   I never disagree with anyone, no matter what his past history may be, who   
   makes a logically defensible sensible assessment of well-known facts.   
      
   Yes. You are correct. The efficiency rating goes from A to G.   
   Certainly both A & B would be considered to be far better than F & G.   
      
   > YMMV, but I recall "B" as always having been a passing grade.   
      
   Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.   
   Even the Android OEMs had scores that were less than A on some phones.   
   I only picked the "A" score to highly Apple can't achieve it.   
      
   This is important.   
   Why?   
      
   Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".   
   And yet, they're not.   
      
   If iPhones are so wonderfully efficient, why can't Apple get an A?   
   The answer is obvious - but that's the question we have to ask.   
      
   >> That is not under debate.   
   >   
   > Where "That" is that they got a passing grade of a "B", and that you're   
   > still whining and butthurt about it as a justification to troll.   
      
   No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.   
   I fully understand why you call all actual facts to be trolls.   
      
   But you claiming every fact about Apple being a troll is you being a troll.   
   All you're doing is making lame excuses for why iPhones aren't efficient.   
      
   Despite the millions of dollars of Apple propaganda to the contrary, the   
   starkly obvious fact remains that iPhones are less efficient than Androids.   
      
   We all must agree on that fact.   
   The only remaining question is why.   
      
   > In the meantime, let's not forget how there's been many companies who   
   > have deliberately gamed various benchmark tests, which illustrates that   
   > such tests can have limited relevance & value to end consumers.   
      
   Oh. I'm no babe in the woods. Neither are you. In fact, you're talking   
   about Apple aren't you. Apple has gamed the system for decades.   
      
   We've covered many times that NOBODY can ever reproduce Apple's benchmarks.   
   Nobody.   
      
   In fact, Apple claims "efficiency" of the "processor".   
   Most people think that means "efficiency of the phone".   
      
   It doesn't.   
   The proof is that iPhone efficiency is crap compared to Apple's claims.   
      
   That's just a fact.   
   The only question that remains, is why?   
      
   > who wish to disagree can start with showing how there was no harm ever   
   > caused to consumers by manufacturers who rigged GPU tests on PC boards.   
      
   For you to claim the standardized EU tests are "rigged" is disingenuous.   
      
   It's like losing an election and saying the voting machines were rigged.   
   It's a desperate excuse.   
      
   Accept the facts; then work on the reasons.   
   1. Every major OEM agreed to the benchmark tests years ago, Apple included.   
   2. Every OEM had a vote on what those tests would be, including Apple.   
   3. Every OEM chose an independent testing agency to run the tests for them.   
      
   Only Apple couldn't achieve an "A" score on efficiency.   
   Only Apple whined lame excuses for why their iPhone efficiency sucks.   
      
   You're shocked that iPhone efficiency was a lie all along.   
   I'm not.   
      
   The standardized test, which Apple agreed to, showed efficiency sucks.   
   Or, in your point of view, the efficiency is less than that of Android.   
      
   Even though Apple has touted their "claimed" efficiency for decades.   
   Where is it?   
      
   It's not there.   
   The only question now is why.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)