Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns
out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why.
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands?
Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns
out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why.
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands?
Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns
out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why.
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands?
Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns
out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why.
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands? >>
I haven't seen the ad. What do they mean by 'efficiency'? Uses less power,
or faster and easier to use? Something else?
Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns
out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why.
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands? >>
I havenrCOt seen the ad. What do they mean by rCLefficiencyrCY? Uses less power,
or faster and easier to use? Something else?
Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns
out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why.
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands?
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands?
What are the metrics and measurements? Credible 3rd party sources please.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:22:09 -0400, Tom Elam wrote :
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands? >>What are the metrics and measurements? Credible 3rd party sources please.
It's no longer shocking the Apple trolls don't know anything about Apple products, as they ask us to prove what everyone already knew long ago.
Seemingly paradoxical, these Apple trolls know the least about Apple, and yet, they always brazenly defend Apple to the death, no matter what.
The reason it's NOT paradoxical is that they know so little about Apple products, that *EVERYTHING* you tell them is brand new "news" to them.
Everyone knows the metrics and measurements (except Apple trolls).
Everyone knows the credible 3rd-party sources too.
Why is it that *only* the Apple trolls know nothing about Apple?
Dear Tom Elam,
Please explain why you know absolutely nothing about Apple products.
Specifically, why don't you know that even Apple stated publicly that
their iPhones are less efficient than almost every Android phone.
At least in Europe (where they published the ratings).
Please explain why you don't know that when everyone else knows it.
Thanks!
An iPhone 16 would not work for me and my typical use cases.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:55:35 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
Wow. You are truly getting desperate to introduce this post into a thread...An iPhone 16 would not work for me and my typical use cases.
An iPhone 16 lacks fundamental hardware, and, based on the recent June 20th 2025 regulatory filings required in the EU that Apple knew about for years and that Apple was on the committee that established the standards, Apple iPhones literally suck at efficiency, as reported by independent agency
hired by Apple (which is the same agency almost every OEM hired out).
...
Yet, only Apple phones dismally failed in efficiency.
That is not under debate.
Yet, only Apple phones dismally failed in efficiency.
Where your claimed 'failure' was a grade of a "B" instead of an "A".
YMMV, but I recall "B" as always having been a passing grade.
That is not under debate.
Where "That" is that they got a passing grade of a "B", and that you're still whining and butthurt about it as a justification to troll.
In the meantime, let's not forget how there's been many companies who
have deliberately gamed various benchmark tests, which illustrates that
such tests can have limited relevance & value to end consumers.
who wish to disagree can start with showing how there was no harm ever caused to consumers by manufacturers who rigged GPU tests on PC boards.
Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns
out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why.
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands? >>
I havenrCOt seen the ad. What do they mean by rCLefficiencyrCY? Uses less power,
or faster and easier to use? Something else?
On 2025-06-29 15:02, badgolferman wrote:
Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns >>> out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why. >>>
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands? >>>
I havenrCOt seen the ad. What do they mean by rCLefficiencyrCY? Uses less power,
or faster and easier to use? Something else?
Did you notice that Arlen didn't actually answer your question?
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:15:04 -0400, -hh wrote :
Yet, only Apple phones dismally failed in efficiency.
Where your claimed 'failure' was a grade of a "B" instead of an "A".
I never disagree with anyone, no matter what his past history may be, who makes a logically defensible sensible assessment of well-known facts.
Yes. You are correct. The efficiency rating goes from A to G.
Certainly both A & B would be considered to be far better than F & G.
YMMV, but I recall "B" as always having been a passing grade.
Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.
Even the Android OEMs had scores that were less than A on some phones.
I only picked the "A" score to highly Apple can't achieve it.
This is important.
Why?
Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.
If iPhones are so wonderfully efficient, why can't Apple get an A?
The answer is obvious - but that's the question we have to ask.
That is not under debate.
Where "That" is that they got a passing grade of a "B", and that you're
still whining and butthurt about it as a justification to troll.
No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.
All you're doing is making lame excuses for why iPhones aren't efficient.
Despite the millions of dollars of Apple propaganda to the contrary, the starkly obvious fact remains that iPhones are less efficient than Androids.
In the meantime, let's not forget how there's been many companies who
have deliberately gamed various benchmark tests, which illustrates that
such tests can have limited relevance & value to end consumers.
Oh. I'm no babe in the woods. Neither are you. In fact, you're talking
about Apple aren't you. Apple has gamed the system for decades.
For you to claim the standardized EU tests are "rigged" is disingenuous.
Accept the facts; then work on the reasons.
1. Every major OEM agreed to the benchmark tests years ago, Apple included. 2. Every OEM had a vote on what those tests would be, including Apple.
3. Every OEM chose an independent testing agency to run the tests for them.
Only Apple couldn't achieve an "A" score on efficiency.
Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.
Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.
Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.
Incorrect: they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on
this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.
If iPhones are so wonderfully efficient, why can't Apple get an A?
The answer is obvious - but that's the question we have to ask.
Not at all, because anyone with a well grounded background in T&E knows
that all tests have constraints & limitations, and there's also a lot of assumptions which go into weightings for a summary score.
For example, the EU tests & applies weighting factors for:
* Scale of energy efficiency classes;
* Energy efficiency class;
* Battery endurance per cycle;
* Repeated free fall reliability;
* Battery endurance in cycles;
* Repairability;
* Ingress Protection rating.
From an engineering design perspective, there's going to be trades
which need to be made between these subsets to achieve the highest
overall summary score .. and within other non-listed constraints too,
such as the product's price point. It may very well be preferable to
accept a slightly lower raw energy efficiency to put more budget into a better battery endurance...or vice-versa: the classical approach is to
seek to optimize the final summary score.
No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.
Calling a "B" score as "dismally failed in efficiency" is the troll.
All you're doing is making lame excuses for why iPhones aren't efficient.
Despite the millions of dollars of Apple propaganda to the contrary, the
starkly obvious fact remains that iPhones are less efficient than Androids.
Incorrect: less than *some* Androids, as per *some* tests. But the
opposite is true to: that's the nature of complex systems.
In the meantime, let's not forget how there's been many companies who
have deliberately gamed various benchmark tests, which illustrates that
such tests can have limited relevance & value to end consumers.
Oh. I'm no babe in the woods. Neither are you. In fact, you're talking
about Apple aren't you. Apple has gamed the system for decades.
Nope. The $25B fine I mentioned was paid by Volkswagen.
For you to claim the standardized EU tests are "rigged" is disingenuous.
No, I'm noting that standardized tests can be rigged by corporations,
with VW's "Dieselgate" being a very prominent & recent example.
Accept the facts; then work on the reasons.
1. Every major OEM agreed to the benchmark tests years ago, Apple included. >> 2. Every OEM had a vote on what those tests would be, including Apple.
3. Every OEM chose an independent testing agency to run the tests for them.
Irrelevant. I'm sure that if we were to review the diesel testing standards, we'd find that VW also agreed to them/etc/etc. Yet that
didn't positively prevent them from later gaming those benchmark tests.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :
Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.
Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.
You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B.
I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad.
Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.
Incorrect: they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on
this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.
I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy batteries.
While all tests have limitations, Apple *knew* about this test *years* in advance. Do you seriously claim the EU kept the test methods secret?If iPhones are so wonderfully efficient, why can't Apple get an A?
The answer is obvious - but that's the question we have to ask.
Not at all, because anyone with a well grounded background in T&E knows
that all tests have constraints & limitations, and there's also a lot of
assumptions which go into weightings for a summary score.
For example, the EU tests & applies weighting factors for:
* Scale of energy efficiency classes;
* Energy efficiency class;
* Battery endurance per cycle;
* Repeated free fall reliability;
* Battery endurance in cycles;
* Repairability;
* Ingress Protection rating.
Do you seriously claim the EU didn't take into account OEM input?
For years?
Do you seriously claim Apple wasn't on the defining committee for the
tests? Are you seriously claiming the testing agency was biased?
What exactly are you disputing in terms of the EU tests Apple formulated? These tests are well vetted as they were agreed to by all the OEM makers.
The sad fact is the iPhone has a crappy battery.
Everyone knows that.
The EU tests simply proved it.
From an engineering design perspective, there's going to be trades
which need to be made between these subsets to achieve the highest
overall summary score .. and within other non-listed constraints too,
such as the product's price point. It may very well be preferable to
accept a slightly lower raw energy efficiency to put more budget into a
better battery endurance...or vice-versa: the classical approach is to
seek to optimize the final summary score.
No. That's all an excuse for the iPhone crappy battery.
There is one reason and one reason alone why iPhones fared poorly.
The iPhone battery is garbage.
No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.
Calling a "B" score as "dismally failed in efficiency" is the troll.
You're the troll because I'm stating outright that Apple earned a B.
And I'm stating all the Android OEMs earned an A. That's just a fact.
Get used to facts.
Apple touts a brazen lie of efficiency so they can use smaller batteries.
And yet, they can't.
Apple doesn't own physics.
The reason iPhones suck at battery life is simply the batteries are crap. (Life here means lifetime. In years.)
All you're doing is making lame excuses for why iPhones aren't efficient. >>>Incorrect: less than *some* Androids, as per *some* tests. But the
Despite the millions of dollars of Apple propaganda to the contrary, the >>> starkly obvious fact remains that iPhones are less efficient than Androids. >>
opposite is true to: that's the nature of complex systems.
Well, as I said, I never disagree with a logically sensible statement.
No mater what the record is of the person making that statement.
Some Android OEMs who earned an A also earned less than an A in some of
their models, and, in particular, their models with crappy batteries.
Yet not a single iPhone model was able to earn an A.
And that's the point.
The iPhone batteries are crap.
And this test shows it.
Note that I knew this was going to happen because Apple doesn't own
physics. The iPhone batteries are garbage. An A rating isn't possible.
On 2025-07-01 14:42, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :
Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.
Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.
You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B.
I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad.
You said it...
...but you've not supported it, let alone proven it.
Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.
Incorrect:-a they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on
this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.
I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy
batteries.
A B is NOT a fail.
While all tests have limitations, Apple *knew* about this test *years* inIf iPhones are so wonderfully efficient, why can't Apple get an A?
The answer is obvious - but that's the question we have to ask.
Not at all, because anyone with a well grounded background in T&E knows
that all tests have constraints & limitations, and there's also a lot of >>> assumptions which go into weightings for a summary score.
For example, the EU tests & applies weighting factors for:
* Scale of energy efficiency classes;
* Energy efficiency class;
* Battery endurance per cycle;
* Repeated free fall reliability;
* Battery endurance in cycles;
* Repairability;
* Ingress Protection rating.
advance. Do you seriously claim the EU kept the test methods secret?
How many years, exactly?
Do you seriously claim the EU didn't take into account OEM input?
For years?
Do you seriously claim VW (an automotive OEM) wasn't taken into account regarding diesel emissions standards?
Do you seriously claim Apple wasn't on the defining committee for the
tests? Are you seriously claiming the testing agency was biased?
What exactly are you disputing in terms of the EU tests Apple formulated?
These tests are well vetted as they were agreed to by all the OEM makers.
The sad fact is the iPhone has a crappy battery.
Everyone knows that.
The EU tests simply proved it.
A "B" isn't "crappy".
-a From an engineering design perspective, there's going to be trades
which need to be made between these subsets to achieve the highest
overall summary score .. and within other non-listed constraints too,
such as the product's price point.-a It may very well be preferable to
accept a slightly lower raw energy efficiency to put more budget into a
better battery endurance...or vice-versa:-a the classical approach is to >>> seek to optimize the final summary score.
No. That's all an excuse for the iPhone crappy battery.
There is one reason and one reason alone why iPhones fared poorly.
The iPhone battery is garbage.
Nope. That's simply false.
No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.
Calling a "B" score as "dismally failed in efficiency" is the troll.
You're the troll because I'm stating outright that Apple earned a B.
And I'm stating all the Android OEMs earned an A. That's just a fact.
You're stating it.
You're not proving it.
Get used to facts.
Apple touts a brazen lie of efficiency so they can use smaller batteries.
And yet, they can't.
Apple doesn't own physics.
The reason iPhones suck at battery life is simply the batteries are crap.
(Life here means lifetime. In years.)
I've already shown in a head to head where you basically insisted Apple
was worse that it was (in ACTUAL fact) better.
All you're doing is making lame excuses for why iPhones aren't
efficient.
Despite the millions of dollars of Apple propaganda to the contrary,
the
starkly obvious fact remains that iPhones are less efficient than
Androids.
Incorrect: less than *some* Androids, as per *some* tests.-a But the
opposite is true to:-a that's the nature of complex systems.
Well, as I said, I never disagree with a logically sensible statement.
No mater what the record is of the person making that statement.
Some Android OEMs who earned an A also earned less than an A in some of
their models, and, in particular, their models with crappy batteries.
Yet not a single iPhone model was able to earn an A.
And that's the point.
The iPhone batteries are crap.
And this test shows it.
Nope. Apple has stated that the data indicated that they COULD have been award an "A" and chose not to.
Note that I knew this was going to happen because Apple doesn't own
physics. The iPhone batteries are garbage. An A rating isn't possible.
'For example, Energy Efficiency Index scores for iPhone models on the EU market in June 2025 all qualified for the highest rCLArCY grade, but Apple chose to voluntarily derate scores to a rCLBrCY grade to minimize the probability that a third-party tester interpreting the regulation differently would achieve a lower grade. '
'This paper presents our choices transparently to enable European stakeholders rCo from our customers to enforcement authorities rCo to replicate our results while understanding our rationale. We encourage
other consumer electronics manufacturers to also present their selected
test parameters. We look forward to working to address these issues and develop harmonized standards.'
Hmmmmm... sounds like Apple WASN'T on any committee creating these standards, huh?
On 7/1/25 18:35, Alan wrote:
On 2025-07-01 14:42, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :
Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.
Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.
You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B.
I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad.
You said it...
...but you've not supported it, let alone proven it.
I've not seen a product chart list, have you?
Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.
Incorrect:-a they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on >>>> this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.
I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy
batteries.
A B is NOT a fail.
Arlen's trying to claim it is because its not the highest possible
grade.-a Too bad he didn't know what you noted later, about how Apple
tested as an "A" but decided to report as a "B".
Plus battery performance are separate tests in the EU series, so trying
to claim bad battery isn't relevant to this "efficiency" grade section.
To use an automotive analogy, efficiency is equivalent to how many MPG a
car gets ... which has nothing to do with its gas tank size (battery).
One claim he makes IS supported by facts.
Too bad he didn't know what you noted later, about how Apple
tested as an "A" but decided to report as a "B".
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:28:23 +0000, Tyrone wrote :
One claim he makes IS supported by facts.
The problem with you religious zealots is you don't know any facts.
I have to teach you everything about Apple that you don't know.
Which is everything.
To wit:
<https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en#energy-label>
FACT: *Almost every OEM earned an A in at least one model*
*Except Apple*
Why can't any iPhone ever earn an A on efficiency when Apple marketing has spent millions of dollars touting their supposed "efficiency" for decades?
<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>
Hint: Apple lied.
The proof is not a single iPhone can earn an A on efficiency.
Yet almost every Android OEM sold in Europe was able to do it.
1. Go to the EPREL database: <https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/>
2. Select the product category: "Smartphones and tablets"
<https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669>
3. Search by brand, e.g., Google, Apple, Samsung, etc.
FACTS:
The Apple A3287 iPhone 16 rating is "B" (with B being worse than A).
The ASUS ASUSAI2501H rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Fairphone Gen.6 FP6 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Google GUR25 Pixel rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Nokia HMD TA-1600 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Nothing CMF A001 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS S24 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Apple A3287 iPhone 16 rating is "B" (with B being worse than A).
The ASUS ASUSAI2501H rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Not going to mention the "F"s on the ASUS CM3001DM2 and CL3001DM2?
The Fairphone Gen.6 FP6 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Not going to mention the Fairphone 5 5G - Model: FP5 getting a "B"?
The Google GUR25 Pixel rating is "A" (with A being the best).
And the Google's G6GPR, GZC4K, & GTF7P models which all got "B"s?
The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
ABR-NX1? "B". BRP-NX1M? "B".
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Yet their g56 5G (XT2529-2) scored a "B".
Ditto the g75 5G (XT2437-3), g35 5G (XT2433-5), Moto Edge 50 (XT2407-1),
and g55 5G (XT2435-2): all "B"s.
The Nokia HMD TA-1600 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Nothing CMF A001 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS S24 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Guess what score Samsung's models SM-G766B, SM-A566B/DS, SM-S931B/DS, SM-S936B/DS, SM-S938B/DS, SM-A165F/DSB, SM-A166B/DS, SM-S721B/DS got?
Yup, all "B"s ...
... but their SM-A266B/DS and SM-A366B/DS models scored "C"s.
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Also their 25010PN30G, for sometimes even a Blind Squirrel finds a Nut.
In the meantime, there's also the claim that "almost every Android ..
was able to do it"...
...but in checking that database, filtered on Android & Smartphone, we
find that in the the first 100 items listed, 65 of them (~2/3rds) fail.
For a score of "B", this included: OUKITEL (10), CUBOT (5), emporia
(2), Blackview (4), UMIDIGI (5), Shenzhen Jiaqi (1), HOTWAV (1), JCB
Phone (2), Redmi (1)
But there were also "C"s from: DOOGEE (17), CUBOT (5), Ainuevo (1),
Shenzhen Redbeat (1), FOSSIBOT (3)
And even lower scores:
"D" - TABWEE, Zenva
"E" - Shenzhen Xindali, CUBOT (2)
"F" - AODOEU
"G" - CUBOT
On 7/2/25 18:00, Marion wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:28:23 +0000, Tyrone wrote :
One claim he makes IS supported by facts.
The problem with you religious zealots is you don't know any facts.
I have to teach you everything about Apple that you don't know.
Which is everything.
To wit:
-a <https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/
smartphones-and-tablets_en#energy-label>
FACT: *Almost every OEM earned an A in at least one model*
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a *Except Apple*
Why can't any iPhone ever earn an A on efficiency when Apple marketing
has
spent millions of dollars touting their supposed "efficiency" for
decades?
-a <https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?
fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/
EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>
Hint: Apple lied.
-a-a-a-a-a-a The proof is not a single iPhone can earn an A on efficiency. >> -a-a-a-a-a-a Yet almost every Android OEM sold in Europe was able to do it. >>
1. Go to the EPREL database: <https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/>
2. Select the product category: "Smartphones and tablets"
-a-a-a <https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/
smartphonestablets20231669>
3. Search by brand, e.g., Google, Apple, Samsung, etc.
FACTS:
-a The Apple A3287 iPhone 16 rating is "B" (with B being worse than A).
-a The ASUS ASUSAI2501H rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Not going to mention the "F"s on the ASUS CM3001DM2 and CL3001DM2?
-a The Fairphone Gen.6 FP6 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Not going to mention the Fairphone 5 5G - Model: FP5 getting a "B"?
-a The Google GUR25 Pixel rating is "A" (with A being the best).
And the Google's G6GPR, GZC4K, & GTF7P models which all got "B"s?
-a The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
ABR-NX1?-a "B".-a BRP-NX1M?-a "B".
-a The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Yet their g56 5G (XT2529-2) scored a "B".
Ditto the g75 5G (XT2437-3), g35 5G (XT2433-5), Moto Edge 50 (XT2407-1),
and g55 5G (XT2435-2):-a all "B"s.
-a The Nokia HMD TA-1600 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
-a The Nothing CMF A001 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
-a The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
-a The Samsung SM-S937B/DS S24 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Guess what score Samsung's models SM-G766B, SM-A566B/DS, SM-S931B/DS, SM-S936B/DS, SM-S938B/DS, SM-A165F/DSB, SM-A166B/DS, SM-S721B/DS got?
Yup, all "B"s ...
... but their SM-A266B/DS and SM-A366B/DS models scored "C"s.
-a The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A" (with A being the best).
Also their 25010PN30G, for sometimes even a Blind Squirrel finds a Nut.
In the meantime, there's also the claim that "almost every Android ..
was able to do it"...
...but in checking that database, filtered on Android & Smartphone, we
find that in the the first 100 items listed, 65 of them (~2/3rds) fail.
For a score of "B", this included:-a OUKITEL (10), CUBOT (5), emporia
(2), Blackview (4), UMIDIGI (5), Shenzhen Jiaqi (1), HOTWAV (1), JCB
Phone (2), Redmi (1)
But there were also "C"s from: DOOGEE (17), CUBOT (5), Ainuevo (1),
Shenzhen Redbeat (1), FOSSIBOT (3)
And even lower scores:
"D" - TABWEE, Zenva
"E" - Shenzhen Xindali, CUBOT (2)
"F" - AODOEU
"G" - CUBOT
-hh
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 19:22:23 -0400, -hh wrote :
Too bad he didn't know what you noted later, about how Apple
tested as an "A" but decided to report as a "B".
Heh heh heh... Only Apple whined like a little girl about the test.
Nobody Else.
Just Apple.
Apple used the same test & same 3rd-party tester everyone else used.
Only Apple couldn't earn an A. Almost every Android OEM did.
Guess who whined that they didn't like the test.
Heh heh heh... only Apple.
The rest said what I said, which is:
a. Apple is on the committee that defined the standards!
b. Apple has known about the test requirements for years!
c. Apple used the same company that everyone else used!
On 2025-07-02 15:23, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 19:22:23 -0400, -hh wrote :
Too bad he didn't know what you noted later, about how Apple
tested as an "A" but decided to report as a "B".
Heh heh heh... Only Apple whined like a little girl about the test.
Nobody Else.
Just Apple.
Apple used the same test & same 3rd-party tester everyone else used.
Only Apple couldn't earn an A. Almost every Android OEM did.
Guess who whined that they didn't like the test.
Heh heh heh... only Apple.
The rest said what I said, which is:
a. Apple is on the committee that defined the standards!
That is an assertion unsupported by any facts.
b. Apple has known about the test requirements for years!
That is an assertion unsupported by any facts.
c. Apple used the same company that everyone else used!
That is an assertion unsupported by any facts.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-02 15:23, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 19:22:23 -0400, -hh wrote :
Too bad he didn't know what you noted later, about how Apple
tested as an "A" but decided to report as a "B".
Heh heh heh... Only Apple whined like a little girl about the test.
Nobody Else.
Just Apple.
Apple used the same test & same 3rd-party tester everyone else used.
Only Apple couldn't earn an A. Almost every Android OEM did.
Guess who whined that they didn't like the test.
Heh heh heh... only Apple.
The rest said what I said, which is:
a. Apple is on the committee that defined the standards!
That is an assertion unsupported by any facts.
b. Apple has known about the test requirements for years!
That is an assertion unsupported by any facts.
c. Apple used the same company that everyone else used!
That is an assertion unsupported by any facts.
You remind me of this guy that I debate sports with. I back up my points
with actual cites and examples, but all he does is say rCLnoperCY without actually debating the topic or providing counter cites.
Apple MARKETING claims an amorphous "efficiency" in their ads which turns
out to be a lie but we all know that. The question in this thread is why.
Why are iPhones so inefficient when compared to most major Android brands?
{snip!}
Look. Your entire argument is that of an emotional religious zealot, hh.
You are trying to say twenty dollar Androids fared worse than the iPhone.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 06:33:28 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,702 |