XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 7/1/25 14:45, Marion wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has   
   "dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Incorrect:  they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on   
   this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Not at all, because anyone with a well grounded background in T&E knows   
   that all tests have constraints & limitations, and there's also a lot of   
   assumptions which go into weightings for a summary score.   
      
   For example, the EU tests & applies weighting factors for:   
      
   * Scale of energy efficiency classes;   
   * Energy efficiency class;   
   * Battery endurance per cycle;   
   * Repeated free fall reliability;   
   * Battery endurance in cycles;   
   * Repairability;   
   * Ingress Protection rating.   
      
    From an engineering design perspective, there's going to be trades   
   which need to be made between these subsets to achieve the highest   
   overall summary score .. and within other non-listed constraints too,   
   such as the product's price point.  It may very well be preferable to   
   accept a slightly lower raw energy efficiency to put more budget into a   
   better battery endurance...or vice-versa:  the classical approach is to   
   seek to optimize the final summary score.   
      
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Calling a "B" score as "dismally failed in efficiency" is the 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.   
      
   Incorrect: less than *some* Androids, as per *some* tests.  But the   
   opposite is true to:  that's the nature of complex systems.   
      
      
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Nope.  The $25B fine I mentioned was paid by Volkswagen.   
      
      
   > For you to claim the standardized EU tests are "rigged" is disingenuous.   
      
   No, I'm noting that standardized tests can be rigged by corporations,   
   with VW's "Dieselgate" being a very prominent & recent example.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Irrelevant.  I'm sure that if we were to review the diesel testing   
   standards, we'd find that VW also agreed to them/etc/etc.  Yet that   
   didn't positively prevent them from later gaming those benchmark tests.   
      
      
   > Only Apple couldn't achieve an "A" score on efficiency.   
      
   So?  What about the other subtests that go into the EPREL?  Where did   
   Apple's products score relative to their competitors on the final   
   summary score?   
      
   FYI, to use an automotive analogy, you're trying to whine about how one   
   automaker's car isn't the most fuel efficient while trying to ignore its   
   best in class handling & driveability performance.   
      
   Next time, make your troll be balanced so that it won't be a troll:   
      
      
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)