XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: marion@facts.com   
      
   On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 18:23:01 +0000, Tyrone wrote :   
      
      
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > No, nothing to "wonder about", because you were trying to change the subject   
   > AGAIN.   
      
   The subject is in the subject line, Tyrone   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > LOL, good one.  You are so full of shit. Scientists don't say things like "It   
   > is common knowledge" and then spout some totally bullshit claim with NO   
   > EVIDENCE. You do that crap every day.   
   >   
   > Not to mention that you have to be an adult to be a "scientist".  Children   
   > just pretend to be scientists.   
      
   The problem with you Make Apple Great Again MAGA Apple trolls, Tyrone, is   
   you are so desperate to find something - anything! - that Apple is better   
   at, that you deny all the things that Apple is far worse than Android at.   
      
   Which is basically almost everything, where overall efficiency is a "B".   
      
   And overall efficiency, as defined by all the OEMs together with the EU, is   
   NOT Apple's strong suite since almost everyone but Apple could earn an A.   
      
   Still, since I'm balanced (as I don't care who is better - I'm not MAGA   
   like you Apple trolls are) - Apple does have better one-day endurance on a   
   brand new phone than Samsung or Google - but Samsung clearly has the edge   
   in tablets.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > So, you FINALLY admit that iPhones ARE efficient?  And no one was EVER   
   talking   
   > about tablets.  Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.   
      
   Tyrone, you need to be able to separate your metrics from each other.   
   Overall efficiency is not the same as one-day endurance. They're different.   
      
   >> 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)   
   >   
   > No one was EVER talking about tablets.   
   > Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.   
      
   The subject is in the subject line, Tyrone. Please take a L@@K at it.   
   Don't you wonder why the iPad newsgroup was included in on this subject?   
      
   > And AGAIN, iPhones use smaller batteries, because iPhones are more efficient.   
      
   You clearly don't have any education when you make statements like that.   
      
   Bro science is officially called motivated reasoning, where what matters is   
   a host of metrics in efficiency and Apple clearly only earned a B on them.   
      
   Your religious zealotry to Make Apple Great Again is hampering your   
   arguments, because Efficiency is more than just a single metric.   
      
   And clearly almost every Android OEM earned at least one A on those   
   metrics, while Apple couldn't manage an A with any iPhone being sold.   
      
   I'm shocked. Shocked I say. Apple's oft-advertised efficiency was a lie.   
      
      
   The fact you have no education is what's confusing you because you think   
   every metric that mentions the word "battery" must be all about efficiency.   
      
   HINT: It's not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)