From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 28 May 2025 09:41:59 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

Placeholder for June 20, 2025 - Apple trolls - crying that the mean ole' EU banned their iPhone for sale in the EU - due to not meeting bare minimum lifetime battery-life specs which my $190 (or so) 2021 free Samsung Galaxy A32-5G *doubles* (because it doesn't have a crappy battery, that's why). <https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en>

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs.

It will be interesting to see $200 Androids which *double* that spec; but let's just wait to see which devices *meet* bare minimum battery lifetimes. REFERENCES: https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en
https://www.gsmarena.com/smartphones_and_tablets_to_get_a_new_label_in_june_indicating_battery_life_and_efficiency-news-67455.php
https://www.enhesa.com/resources/article/batteries-101-eu-regulations/ https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/5-ways-eu-scientists-are-making-batteries-better-safer-and-greener-2022-07-20_en

The iPhone has *always* had cheap batteries - but it's getting better.

Apple has released a document titled "EU Energy Label for iPhone and iPad
(EN)" which details its compliance with the new EU regulation 2023/1669, effective June 20, 2025. This document is the most official source for
Apple's certifications and methodologies for meeting the EU requirements.

Crucially, the iPhone 14 and older models, based on Apple's own published specifications prior to the iPhone 15, do not officially meet the new EU requirement of 800 cycles while retaining 80% capacity. The official design specification for iPhone 14 and earlier models was a crappy 500 cycles,
which is significantly less than the new 800-cycle EU standard.

<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

In addition to the crappy lifetime of all iPhone cheap batteries, Apple
refused to certify an "A" grade the iPhone 15 series and any newer models released by June 2025) by promising a far-lower quality of "B".

Note: The Apple trolls *hate* Apple so much that they'll deny these facts simply because they won't read them, and if they do, they can't comprehend
them since Apple never told them in marketing iPhone batteries are crap.

Apple trolls read marketing bullshit - and they defend that bullshit.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-23 11:20, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 09:41:59 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

Placeholder for June 20, 2025 - Apple trolls - crying that the mean ole' EU >> banned their iPhone for sale in the EU - due to not meeting bare minimum
lifetime battery-life specs which my $190 (or so) 2021 free Samsung Galaxy >> A32-5G *doubles* (because it doesn't have a crappy battery, that's why).
<https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en>

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs. >>
It will be interesting to see $200 Androids which *double* that spec; but
let's just wait to see which devices *meet* bare minimum battery lifetimes. >> REFERENCES:
https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en
https://www.gsmarena.com/smartphones_and_tablets_to_get_a_new_label_in_june_indicating_battery_life_and_efficiency-news-67455.php
https://www.enhesa.com/resources/article/batteries-101-eu-regulations/
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/5-ways-eu-scientists-are-making-batteries-better-safer-and-greener-2022-07-20_en

The iPhone has *always* had cheap batteries - but it's getting better.

You've never presented any evidence that iPhone batteries were of any
less quality than any other smartphone's batteries.

Apple has released a document titled "EU Energy Label for iPhone and iPad (EN)" which details its compliance with the new EU regulation 2023/1669, effective June 20, 2025. This document is the most official source for Apple's certifications and methodologies for meeting the EU requirements.

Crucially, the iPhone 14 and older models, based on Apple's own published specifications prior to the iPhone 15, do not officially meet the new EU requirement of 800 cycles while retaining 80% capacity. The official design specification for iPhone 14 and earlier models was a crappy 500 cycles,
which is significantly less than the new 800-cycle EU standard.

<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

I don't know what you're providing that as a reference as it doesn't
mention the iPhone 14 at all.

In fact, it doesn't mention anything about ANY iPhone in relation to
battery longevity data.

In addition to the crappy lifetime of all iPhone cheap batteries, Apple refused to certify an "A" grade the iPhone 15 series and any newer models released by June 2025) by promising a far-lower quality of "B".

'For example, werCOve found that various choices in testing rCo all
consistent with the requirements of the regulation rCo can yield Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) and resistance to accidental drop results that
vary by one, two, or even three letter grades.'

Note: The Apple trolls *hate* Apple so much that they'll deny these facts simply because they won't read them, and if they do, they can't comprehend them since Apple never told them in marketing iPhone batteries are crap.

Apple trolls read marketing bullshit - and they defend that bullshit.

There is literally NOTHING in your supplied reference to read that
supports a single word you've said.

In short, the one spewing bullshit...

...is YOU!
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 23/06/2025 14:39, Alan wrote:

There is literally NOTHING in your supplied reference to read

I read it.

The lousy b score from apple was calculated by dividing battery endurance
per cycle duration, in hours, by the battery capacity, in watt-hours.

Apple explained that their marketing tests that nobody else could reproduce showed internally that it was an a but nobody could reproduce that a so
it's a b due to apple internal measurements that they widely market as
truth were not even close to being objectively independently reproducible.

But it's not only the iphone battery that has a lousy rating.
Apple iPhones have a c reliability rating.
Again, despite what marketing would have you believe.

And a c repairability rating.
Again, they explained they were advertising higher than reality showed but since nobody could reproduce the internal iphone tests objectively outside
of apple, they had to claim the rating that others would have found for it.

battery = b
reliability = c
repairability = c

Compare dismal iphone ratings to samsung phones in the same price range.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Jun 23, 2025 at 2:39:47rC>PM EDT, "Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

There is literally NOTHING in your supplied reference to read that
supports a single word you've said.

In short, the one spewing bullshit...

...is YOU!

And this surprises you? Arlen NEVER EVER posts a single link that supports
his absurd-claim-of-the-day. He just posts LOTS of links on the assumption
that everyone here is as stupid as he is. As in "Wow, look at all those links.
It MUST be true!"

Then you read the links and see that they don't say anything relating to the absurd-claim-of-the-day. Or the links are Arlen and his sock puppets
discussing the absurd-claim-of-the-day.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-23 12:31, Ulysses Nostos wrote:

On 23/06/2025 14:39, Alan wrote:

There is literally NOTHING in your supplied reference to read

I read it.

The lousy b score from apple was calculated by dividing battery endurance
per cycle duration, in hours, by the battery capacity, in watt-hours.

Apple explained that their marketing tests that nobody else could reproduce showed internally that it was an a but nobody could reproduce that a so
it's a b due to apple internal measurements that they widely market as
truth were not even close to being objectively independently reproducible.

But it's not only the iphone battery that has a lousy rating.
Apple iPhones have a c reliability rating.
Again, despite what marketing would have you believe.

And a c repairability rating.
Again, they explained they were advertising higher than reality showed but since nobody could reproduce the internal iphone tests objectively outside
of apple, they had to claim the rating that others would have found for it.

battery = b
reliability = c
repairability = c

Compare dismal iphone ratings to samsung phones in the same price range.

You do it...

...Arlen
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 28 May 2025 22:09:36 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote :

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.

Do you know why Apple puts the crappiest garbage battery in the iPhone? <https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

1. iPhone Battery = B rated (not A)
2. iPhone Reliability = C rated (not A nor even B)
3. iPhone Repairability = C rated (not A nor even B)

HINT: Only in Apple's secret bullshit internal tests does an iPhone battery ever fare better - but Apple knew NOBODY could reproduce their bullshit
claims, particularly their bullshit "efficiency" claims.

So it's Apple who gave those crappy ratings to their own iPhones.
And then Apple sowed excuse after excuse after excuse for why.

The reason why was Apple put crappy cheap garbage in the iPhone.
Even Apple can't get an independent lab to back up their claims.

Think about that.
Apple *paid* an independent lab to check their batteries.

And the lab reported that their batteries sucked.
And that's what Apple was forced to report.

The question is WHY did Apple put such crappy batteries in the iPhone?

Every article shows no iPhone below the iPhone 15 even comes close to the lifetime charge cycle minimum point - which proves they've sucked for
years. The fact is the iPhone 14 (and all others) fail miserably.

Don't say that's a lie just because you're ignorant of the spec.
a. Compare the iPhone 14's published lifecycle spec (yes, *that* spec).
b. Note it fails the minimum standards as presented by the EU.
c. As do all iPhones from the iPhone 14 on down.

Even the cheap garbage battery in the Phone 15 *barely* ekes out past the
bare minimum on battery life. Then compare that to most (even cheap)
Android phones which easily *double* the lifetime battery ratings, and you
see the proof that Apple puts the crappiest cheapest lowest-capacity
battery it can get away with in the iPhone.

Do you know why all iPhones have a cheap crappy garbage battery?
I do.

Note: The iPads fared even worse but their batteries are measured
differently, apparently, based on the Apple & EU reports on the topic.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-24 10:48, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 22:09:36 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote :

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.

Do you know why Apple puts the crappiest garbage battery in the iPhone?

And he still can't post a link!
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-24 19:48, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 22:09:36 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote :

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.

Do you know why Apple puts the crappiest garbage battery in the iPhone? <https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

That is not the link you promised.


You said:

+++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
From: Marion <marion@facts.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-11,comp.os.linux.advocacy,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: My week with Linux: I'm dumping Windows for Ubuntu to see how it goes
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 20:27:05 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1012iqo$101r$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

...

You brazenly denied what is extremely well known to be public since it
involves an EU ruling which about battery life that Apple had to ask the EU
to postpone so that Apple could make at least one iPhone that (barely) met minimum battery-life standards - and - after you denying this extremely
well known public information - you demanded that I back it up - which
takes two seconds to find (more to copy and paste) to make your life easy. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+++-

We demanded you post a source for this. An EU rule about Apple batteries not meeting the EU criteria that everybody knows about. This rule was in the past, according to your claim. It takes two seconds to find this, you claimed. We failed to find this (I asked chatgpt for it). You have failed to post any reliable link in three days, not the two seconds you claimed.

Now you are shifting to a ruling in the future.

And please remember that I have a track record of never buying Apple hardware, thus I can hardly be an Apple Troll. I am ready to believe your claim, but you still have to post the single link to the single paper where the EU says that Apple Batteries now are not up to EU criteria.

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2