XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2025-07-05 18:08, Marion wrote:   
   > On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 19:46:05 +0000, Tyrone wrote :   
   >   
   >   
   >>> The Samsung Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro (SM-X350) and one other model number   
   >>> with the same name (SM-X356B) both have "Battery endurance per cycle"   
   >>> ratings of 142h 50min.   
   >>   
   >> Yes, I saw that.  He was using THOSE numbers in a (yet another) lame,   
   pathetic   
   >> attempt to "make Apple look bad". 2 tablets with gigantic batteries when NO   
   >> ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT TABLETS.   
   >>   
   >>> That's nearly 50% higher than the next highest Samsung tablet at 99h 06min.   
   >>>   
   >>> The Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro has that endurance because it has a   
   >>> 10,000mA-hr battery...   
   >>>   
   >>> ...and weighs 1.5 POUNDS.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nearly a quarter of a pound more than the heaviest iPad Pro.   
   >>   
   >> Indeed. AGAIN, Apple mobile devices are truly mobile BECAUSE they don't have   
   >> huge, heavy batteries BECAUSE they don't NEED huge, heavy batteries.   
   >   
   > Look Tyrone, you're MAGA and I'm not so we approach science differently.   
   > You want to Make Apple Great Again, which drives everything you do.   
   >   
   > Me? I just want to know what the facts are.   
   > And the facts are if I take every mobile device sold in the EU from Google   
   > and Samsung and Apple and I compare their one-day endurance cycle on a   
   > brand new phone with a brand new battery, the Samsung line has a 16%   
   > greater endurance than Apple, and Apple has greater endurance than Google.   
      
   Yes, that is a fact.   
      
   However it is an IRRELEVANT fact.   
      
   It lumps all devices together where two of the devices are HUGE.   
      
   It doesn't take into account in any manner what the market share of each   
   device is.   
      
   >   
   > You MAGA Apple zealots don't like that fact; but it's just a fact.   
   >   
   > Then, you complained that mobile devices include tablets, which, of course,   
   > I was aware of since I added the iPad newsgroup. You said it was changing   
   > the goal post but the goal post was set in the subject line of this thread.   
   >   
   > You just don't like the subject line of this thread.   
   > Why not?   
   >   
   > Because you're MAGA. Make Apple Great Again. That's why.   
   > You fight to the death any aspersions which are cast toward Apple's way.   
   >   
   > However, I had already removed tablets in my followup because I knew what   
   > the results were with and without tablets. I'm not stupid like you are.   
   >   
   > Then, and only then, Apple came out on top for one-day endurance on a brand   
   > new battery. Google was on the bottom. Samsung in the middle.   
   >   
   > And I have no qualms with stating those facts.   
   > I don't care what the facts reveal - I just interpret them as they come.   
   >   
   > Then you called that one-day endurance the overall efficiency, which it   
   > decidedly is not, as the best Apple could do on iPhone efficiency was a B,   
   > whereas both Samsung and Google each earned at least an A in some models.   
      
   Because Apple deliberately downrated their devices.   
      
   >   
   > You MAGA uneducated Apple religious zealot trolls whose only goal is to   
   > Make Apple Great Again need to separate "efficiency" from "endurance".   
   Indeed they are not.   
      
   Which is why you've run away from talking about efficiency.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)