XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: marion@facts.com   
      
   On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:26:30 +0000, Tyrone wrote :   
      
      
      
   > Oh look. Arlen is cherry picking the results. AGAIN. Those numbers include   
   > tablets. Filter on phones only, and you get a much different story.   
      
   Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.   
   Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?   
      
   > For these facts, see the thread "iPhone 17 Pro Max Battery Capacity Leaked".   
   > Which Arlen started and then abandoned because the facts got in the way of   
   his   
   > absurd-claim-of-the-day.   
      
   Huh? I haven't even *seen* what you're speaking of.   
   I'll respond to whatever was said when I get to that thread.   
      
   > Samsung has 13 phones, 539.91 total hours = 41:32 average.  Apple has 7   
   > phones, 290 total hours = 41:26 average.  Basically identical. 6 minutes   
   > difference.   
      
   Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.   
   Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.   
      
   Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?   
   I'm a scientist and engineer.   
      
   I only state the facts.   
   I don't care HOW the facts turn out; they're just facts.   
      
   The fact is Apple smartphones did *better* than your math shows above.   
      
   > BUT, Apple is doing this on SMALLER BATTERIES than Samsung. Which means   
   > iPhones are lighter, more portable and MORE EFFICIENT.   
      
   That's official called "motivated reasoning", and it's just dead wrong.   
   Bro Science is what I call it.   
      
   The smaller batteries are cheap batteries Apple puts in the iPhone.   
   They have the largest effect on overall iPhone battery life, Tyrone.   
      
   That's just physics.   
      
   However, to Apple's credit, the iPhone 17 is rumored to be the first iPhone   
   with a not cheap battery in Apple's entire history of making smartphones.   
      
   That's progress.   
   I hope the dismal scores in the EPREL on efficiency made Apple do that.   
      
   > Why ARE Android phones such power sucking junk?   
   > Are they running Intel space heaters and using fans to keep cool?   
      
   The fact is that almost every Android OEM achieved at least one A in   
   efficiency, while Apple's entire product line couldn't achieve an A.   
      
   > If the iPhone 16 Pro Max had a 6000 mAh battery, it would run for more than   
   22   
   > hours.  3 to 4 hours longer than any Android phone with a 6000 mAh battery.   
      
   Heh heh heh... I'm way ahead of you Tyrone. Always keep that in mind.   
   Notice the SUBJECT line does NOT say "phones", now does it.   
      
   Why do you think I said "mobile device battery endurance" Tyrone?   
   You think I'm stupid like you uneducated Apple trolls are, Tyrone?   
      
   I never once said it was only "phones", Tyrone. Because I'm not stupid.   
   You're stupid. I'm not. Big difference there, Tyrone.   
      
   I knew full well I'd be writing this post so I wrote it ahead of time.   
   I've already done the math - see my prior sig - I said I did it already.   
      
   First off, since I'm not a religious zealot like you Apple trolls are, I   
   did the math for Google which, surprise, came out even worse than Apple!   
      
   Secondly, I already did the "Apple-style" (truncation) math.   
   It makes no difference whatsoever despite you Apple trolls saying it does.   
      
   The fact you Apple trolls say Apple "underestimated" the math shows how   
   incredibly stupid you uneducated Apple trolls really are, Tyrone.   
      
   IT doesn't matter how you truncate it (or average it).   
   Wanna' know how I know that, Tyrone?   
      
   Because I do the math BEFORE I post.   
   You uneducated Apple trolls merely make excuses for Apple.   
      
   IF there's anyone who needs to make excuses though, it's Pixel owners!   
      
   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   
      
   Brand Comparison (All using Apple-style truncated values):   
    Samsung Average endurance 73.07 hours (from 28 models)   
    Apple Average endurance 63.1 hours (from 19 models)   
    Google Average endurance 48.0 hours (from 5 models)   
      
   Breakdown by tablets versus smartphones in the EPREL database:   
    Apple 16 smartphones, 3 tablets   
    Samsung 22 smartphones, 6 tablets   
    Google 5 smartphones, 0 tablets   
      
   Quick summary of the math.   
    Apple smartphones:   
    Values = 62, 72, 67, 72, 67, 62, 41, 67, 67, 37, 48, 48, 37, 34, 45, 40   
    Total = 1,070h, Average = 66.9 hours   
      
    Apple Tablets:   
    Values = 73, 73, 77   
    Total = 223h, Average = 74.3 hours   
      
    Samsung Smartphones:   
    Models with typical identifiers (e.g. SM-A, SM-G, SM-S):   
    Values = 40, 38, 37, 45, 41, 43, 44, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 41, 44,   
             38, 43, 44, 37, 41, 42, 41, 41   
    Total = 906h, Average = 41.2 hours   
      
    Samsung Tablets:   
    Models starting with SM-X:   
    Values = 98, 55, 142, 142, 96, 99   
    Total = 632h, Average = 105.3 hours   
      
    Google Smartphones only (no tablets):   
    Values = 49, 50, 40, 49, 52   
    Total = 240h, Average = 48.0 hours   
      
   I would conclude from that data alone, that for smartphones, Apple shows a   
   clear lead over both Samsung and Google but only when tablets are removed   
   from the averages.   
      
   Note the subject line says "mobile devices" because I knew that.   
      
   Conversely, in tablets, Samsung dominates with especially high endurance   
   numbers.   
      
   So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?   
    It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet   
    numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.   
      
   Summary of averages by brand & type:   
    Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h   
    Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)   
   --   
   There's a reason I said in the OP... But wait...there's more...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)