XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: marion@facts.com   
      
   Hi hh,   
      
   The point is Apple lied.   
      
   If I ever state an incorrect fact you can correct me, and if I'm ever not   
   logical and sensible in everything I say, then you can shoot me.   
      
   I'm nothing like you religious zealots.   
      
   The only thing you believe is the garbage Apple marketing feeds you.   
   The only thing I believe in are facts.   
      
   Apple marketing has fed you for years that they're more efficient.   
   And yet, they're not.   
      
   Apple lied.   
      
   >>   The Apple A3287 iPhone 16 rating is "B" (with B being worse than A).   
   >>   The ASUS ASUSAI2501H rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >   
   > Not going to mention the "F"s on the ASUS CM3001DM2 and CL3001DM2?   
      
   Again I must say I will never disagree with any logically sensible   
   statement, no matter what the prior history is of who says it.   
      
   Yup. Plenty of Android phones earned a B, C, D, E, E, and F.   
   Especially the ones that cost only twenty bucks (figuratively speaking).   
      
   But... and this is big... they didn't market that they're more efficient.   
      
   Apple did.   
   Hence, Apple is held to the standard of an A.   
      
   Which is an efficiency standard not a single iPhone could meet.   
   I'm shocked. Shocked I say. Shocked that Apple lied to us all.   
      
   That efficiency that Apple has been touting for years, doesn't exist.   
   Apple lied.   
      
   >   
   >>   The Fairphone Gen.6 FP6 rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >   
   > Not going to mention the Fairphone 5 5G - Model: FP5 getting a "B"?   
      
   I knew this was coming up because I know how you religious zealots think.   
      
   You take a twenty-dollar Android phone to compare with the thousand dollar   
   iPhone. Who does that? Only you religious zealots would do that.   
      
      
   Again I must say I never said otherwise since I said almost every Android   
   OEM was able to get at least one phone with an A rating on efficiency.   
      
   Apple couldn't even do that.   
      
   >   
   >>   The Google GUR25 Pixel rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >   
   > And the Google's G6GPR, GZC4K, & GTF7P models which all got "B"s?   
      
   What is your point?   
   I never said otherwise.   
      
   Look at *all* my posts in this thread.   
   I'm not stupid.   
      
   I'm nothing like you Apple religious zealots.   
   All of you are incredibly stupid.   
      
   You think that Google earning a B negates years of Apple's lies?   
      
   >   
   >>   The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >   
   > ABR-NX1?  "B".  BRP-NX1M?  "B".   
      
   You think that Honor earning a B negates years of Apple's lies?   
      
   a. Apple touted efficiency   
   b. Which doesn't exist   
   c. Hence, Apple lied.   
      
   >   
   >>   The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >   
   > Yet their g56 5G (XT2529-2) scored a "B".   
   > Ditto the g75 5G (XT2437-3), g35 5G (XT2433-5), Moto Edge 50 (XT2407-1),   
   > and g55 5G (XT2435-2):  all "B"s.   
      
   You religious zealots are so used to whataboutism that you don't realize   
   that the fact that Apple couldn't earn an A is the point.   
      
   All of those companies were able to make a phone that earns an A.   
   >   
   >>   The Nokia HMD TA-1600 rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >>   The Nothing CMF A001 rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >>   The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >>   The Samsung SM-S937B/DS S24 rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >   
   > Guess what score Samsung's models SM-G766B, SM-A566B/DS, SM-S931B/DS,   
   > SM-S936B/DS, SM-S938B/DS, SM-A165F/DSB, SM-A166B/DS, SM-S721B/DS got?   
   > Yup, all "B"s ...   
   >   
   > ... but their SM-A266B/DS and SM-A366B/DS models scored "C"s.   
      
   Notice you take a twenty dollar phone (figuratively speaking) to compare   
   with the thousand dollar iPhone because you don't understand the facts.   
      
   >   
   >>   The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A" (with A being the best).   
   >   
   > Also their 25010PN30G, for sometimes even a Blind Squirrel finds a Nut.   
   >   
   > In the meantime, there's also the claim that "almost every Android ..   
   > was able to do it"...   
   >   
   > ...but in checking that database, filtered on Android & Smartphone, we   
   > find that in the the first 100 items listed, 65 of them (~2/3rds) fail.   
   >   
   > For a score of "B", this included:  OUKITEL (10), CUBOT (5), emporia   
   > (2), Blackview (4), UMIDIGI (5), Shenzhen Jiaqi (1), HOTWAV (1), JCB   
   > Phone (2), Redmi (1)   
   >   
   > But there were also "C"s from: DOOGEE (17), CUBOT (5), Ainuevo (1),   
   > Shenzhen Redbeat (1), FOSSIBOT (3)   
   >   
   > And even lower scores:   
   > "D" - TABWEE, Zenva   
   > "E" - Shenzhen Xindali, CUBOT (2)   
   > "F" - AODOEU   
   > "G" - CUBOT   
      
      
   Look. Your entire argument is that of an emotional religious zealot, hh.   
   You are trying to say twenty dollar Androids fared worse than the iPhone.   
      
   Nobody disagrees with that.   
   The fact you even make that argument shows how desperate you are, hh.   
      
   Look at what I said, hh. I never said there weren't twenty dollar Androids   
   that fared worse than the iPhone did in efficiency.   
      
   So your entire argument is whataboutism.   
   It's a red herring.   
      
   What matters is this:   
      
   1. Almost every Android OEM managed at least one phone with an A.   
   2. Apple couldn't even manage that.   
   3. And yet, Apple touts this "efficiency" they supposedly have.   
   4. Which, the record shoes, doesn't exist.   
      
   Apple lied.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)