XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, uk.telecom.mobile   
   From: marianjones@helpfulpeople.com   
      
   Chris wrote:   
   >  the new EU energy efficiency regs came in this summer I've been   
   > curious to do some analysis to understand the implications.   
   >   
   > So, here it is. Have a look and see what you think.   
   > https://rpubs.com/ithinkiam/1384638   
   >   
   > Take home messages are:   
   >   
   > 1. There are lot more phones on the market that I would have guessed.   
   > 2. Although, there are some trends between the energy classes, it isn't   
   > very clear cut overall.   
   > 3. Within the 5,000 mAh segment the difference between each A-G classes is   
   > equivalent to approx. 15% or over an hour per 1,000 mAh.   
   > 4. Apple improved their battery capacity and efficiency significantly with   
   > the most recent models.   
   > 5. A Moto model is, on average, likely a better option than Samsung in   
   > terms of battery alone.   
   >   
   > I know this is EU-specific and since Brexit not directly relevant to the   
   > UK, but most models are available here and some manufacturers are showing   
   > these EU ratings within the UK.   
   >   
   > For our US cousins note that some models - especially Motorola from what   
   > I've seen - will be different or may not even exist on your side of the   
   > pond.   
   >   
   > This analysis is not meant to start a flame war and is presented   
   > objectively in good faith. I will be revisiting this over time and will   
   > share here if people are interested.   
      
      
   Hi Chris,   
      
   That was a fantastically astute summary of the EU battery regulation data,   
   and your RPubs analysis adds a level of technical clarity that is usually   
   missing when people discuss these new A-to-G efficiency classes. I wanted   
   to give you an assessment that focuses on the analytical structure of what   
   you presented, since the dataset is large and the implications are not   
   always obvious at first glance.   
      
   1. Your identification of the scale of the dataset was important. With 760   
   models and 102 manufacturers represented, your analysis makes it clear that   
   the EU market is far more diverse than the typical consumer or reviewer   
   might assume it is. This provides useful context for why the A to G   
   classification system behaves the way it does.   
      
   2. The observation that more than 70 percent of devices fall into Class A   
   or B shows that the regulation is not forcing a dramatic shift in   
   engineering practice. Instead, it is standardizing reporting and making   
   cross-manufacturer comparisons possible. This is a key point because it   
   frames the regulation as a transparency mechanism rather than a disruptive   
   requirement.   
      
   3. Your treatment of battery cycle endurance appears to be technically   
   sound. Since almost all devices meet or exceed the 800 cycle threshold, and   
   most are rated at 1000 cycles, this metric does not meaningfully   
   differentiate devices. Highlighting the 13 sub-800 models was useful, but   
   the main takeaway is that cycle life is not the main driver of class   
   differences.   
      
   4. The analysis of measured battery capacity versus class was one of the   
   more counterintuitive findings. You showed that higher efficiency classes   
   tend to have smaller batteries, which implies that software, silicon, and   
   system-level optimization dominate over raw capacity. This is a valuable   
   correction to the common assumption that larger batteries always correlate   
   with better endurance as the endurance is a function of multiple factors.   
      
   5. The endurance-per-cycle metric was the strongest part of the technical   
   analysis. The data supports your conclusion that the classes separate   
   cleanly in A to C, while D to G are perhaps too sparse and therefore likely   
   too noisy to form reliable trends. The median endurance values you   
   extracted make the efficiency gradient explicit, and the roughly 12 to 16   
   percent loss per class is a practical and quantifiable rule.   
      
   6. The 5000 mAh segment analysis was especially compelling because it   
   isolates a large and homogeneous subset of the market. My free Android, for   
   example, from 2021, has exactly a 5Ah battery capacity, so it's at that   
   dividing line. With 259 models in this range, the class differences become   
   much clearer. The 52 hour spread between best and worst endurance within   
   the same nominal capacity illustrates how much variation exists even when   
   battery size is held constant.   
      
   7. Your manufacturer comparisons were handled with appropriate caution. The   
   finding that Samsung underperforms relative to the market median within the   
   5000 mAh group is supported by the box plot distributions. Likewise, the   
   observation that Motorola aligns closely with the broader market is   
   consistent with the data. Your note about regional model differences was   
   technically necessary and avoids overgeneralization.   
      
   8. The Apple section was surprisingly well structured given your proclivity   
   to make excuses for Apple no matter what. By comparing three generations of   
   devices, you demonstrated that the shift from Class B to Class A in the   
   iPhone 17 series is not a labeling artifact but a measurable improvement in   
   both capacity and efficiency. The linear trends you identified in the base,   
   Plus, and Pro Max models reinforce this point.   
      
   9. Your conclusion that the EU database finally provides a standardized,   
   objective basis for cross-brand battery comparison is seemingly accurate.   
   Certainly I applaud any measure that divorces us from Apple's rather   
   brilliant marketing propaganda (even as Apple had to make excuses in the   
   recent past for iPhone poor efficiency performance). Historically, battery   
   testing has been inconsistent (to say the least) across reviewers and   
   methodologies. We have many threads in the past regarding the fact that   
   nobody has ever in the history of Apple's existence been able to reproduce   
   any of Apple's wild-assed battery claims.   
      
   Hence, the new regulation creates a unified measurement framework that   
   allows for genuine apples-to-apples comparisons.   
      
   Overall, your analysis appears to be technically rigorous, well structured,   
   and grounded in the data rather than in Apple's brilliant propaganda. It   
   provides a clearer view of how the regulation functions in practice and   
   what it reveals about the current state of smartphone battery engineering.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)