Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 26 |
Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
Uptime: | 21:08:41 |
Calls: | 491 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 1,077 |
Messages: | 69,431 |
Posted today: | 2 |
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 22:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Marion <marion@facts.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 20:10:53 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
Is it just the word ´dismal¡ you object to or are you dismissing
the fact that Apple batteries are inferior because a B grade is
better than a C or D grade?
I object to the use of "dismal". If they are grade "B", there are
worse classifications, as C, D, E...
You don't like the word dismal?
Then pick any word you like for Apple lying to you about iPhone
efficiency.
Deceitful... duplicitous... despicable... dishonest...
disassembling... deceptive... discrepant...
Christ. Is there a grown-up version of these newsgroups?
Useful conversations are completely
drowned out by their continuous trolls
I'm always stating facts, and the fact is the iPhone earned a B.
Meanwhile, plenty of Android's earned an A.
Many were also graded far lower.
Those are just facts.
Apple zealots may dislike those facts, but they're still facts.
The facts are no iphone is rated below a B. Plenty of Androids are.
When you tie those facts into Apple's advertising,
Which you've never substantiated. Like all your other claims.
And yet, that efficiency doesn't exist, right?
Wrong.
Certainly the iPhone not more efficient than the Android models that I had >> listed, all of which earned an A,
You're conflating your obsession of batteries with the overall grading
scheme which covers five aspects. Only two of which relate to the battery.
An A vs B comparison may have *nothing* to do with the battery, but
something else completely.
The point isn't that a twenty-dollar Android couldn't earn an A, Chris.
The point is APPLE couldn't earn an A.
Did you even read their report? They quite easily could have graded their phones as A, but chose not to due to the ambiguity of the test results.
When you tie those facts into Apple's advertising,
Which you've never substantiated. Like all your other claims.
Jesus Christ Chris. You and Alan Baker must be the only two people on this >> planet who have never heard Apple's oft-touted claims of efficiency.
Hardly.
Do you want me to substantiate that the sun comes up in the morning, Chris?
I can understand why you're going for hyperbole. You are getting caught
out.
Look for an efficiency rating of A, Chris.
It doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist for *any* phone, numbnuts. Efficiency is not part of the
EU rating.
This Apple battery efficiency claim is simply a fever dream of yours.
Hint: You'll be shocked. Shocked I say. At how well Apple did.
Doubt it.
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 03:20:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
You don't like the word dismal?
Then pick any word you like for Apple lying to you about iPhone efficiency. >>>
Deceitful... duplicitous... despicable... dishonest... disassembling...
deceptive... discrepant...
Dishonest. You, that is, for using those words dishonestly.
I'm always stating facts, and the fact is the iPhone earned a B.
Meanwhile, plenty of Android's earned an A.
It is just a B instead of A. That is not "dismal" It is "worse than".
Just a bit worse than, one level. Not five. Five levels down would be dismal.