• iPhone "Efficiency": Marketing vs Measured Data

    From Marian@marianjones@helpfulpeople.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sun Dec 21 21:14:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Tyrone wrote:
    c. You and I use different sources for tests of iPhone "efficiency"

    Yes, because I use multiple sources that prove the point. You ignore those. iPhones run longer (or the same) than Android phones that have larger batteries. Which is more efficient?

    For years, people like Chris have been so confused by "efficiency" claims
    that they end up mixing up battery life with efficiency.

    They are not the same thing.
    <https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/energylabels>

    Battery life is a function of battery capacity, workload, display power, thermal limits, background task policy, and many other factors.

    A phone can last a long time simply by being aggressive about throttling or power saving. That does not make the hardware efficient. It just means the phone is tuned to save power.

    Efficiency is energy consumed per unit of work.

    That is why the EU created a standardized, audited energy label for smartphones. It measures actual energy consumption, not marketing claims.
    <https://9to5mac.com/2025/06/20/iphone-and-ipad-now-come-with-eu-energy-labels-heres-what-they-reveal/>

    When the EU labels went live on June 20, 2025, every iPhone received a B rating. This is reported by Heise, which states plainly that "the iPhone
    gets a B" under the new EU energy label system. Apple did not receive an A rating at launch. Later, Apple published its own methodology and said the phones "qualified" for A, but that was Apple's interpretation, not the EU's rating.
    <https://www.heise.de/en/news/New-EU-labels-Apple-criticizes-test-methods-downgrades-iPhone-and-iPad-10455657.html>

    Apple used their classic stall-blame-and-deny tactic, which doesn't
    surprise anyone, simply because their phones were all less efficient.
    <https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-criticizes-EU-Energy-Label-following-poor-ratings-given-for-the-iPhone-and-iPad.1042477.0.html>

    Still, Apple's excuses being what Apple does, the fact is that the only regulated, independent efficiency metric we have is the EU label, and that rating was B for all prior iPhones at launch. That is the factual
    definition of efficiency in this context.
    <https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-iphone-ipad-eu-energy-labels/>

    Battery life is not efficiency.

    And, Apple has improved their efficiency rating since then, so you're
    trying to argue that Apple realized how bad their efficiency was, so they
    took steps only later in this year to rectify that specific deficiency.

    Which is true so I agree with you.
    Apple got caught with its pants down on efficiency claims.
    <https://www.bgr.com/tech/8-things-we-learned-from-the-iphone-energy-labels-apple-was-forced-to-add-in-europe/>

    Which I knew was going to happen since I've known it for years.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Chris@ithinkiam@gmail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Dec 22 13:44:31 2025
    From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Marian <marianjones@helpfulpeople.com> wrote:
    Tyrone wrote:
    c. You and I use different sources for tests of iPhone "efficiency"

    Yes, because I use multiple sources that prove the point. You ignore those. >> iPhones run longer (or the same) than Android phones that have larger
    batteries. Which is more efficient?

    For years, people like Chris have been so confused by "efficiency" claims that they end up mixing up battery life with efficiency.

    Utter rubbish. The only confusion here is with you and your (lack of)
    memory.

    I explained to you very clearly the maths behind the EU battery measures
    via my access to the EU API. You and I identified in the equation begins
    their ratings was that the *power* draw by iphones was much *lower* than
    other phones. For that reason, iphone batteries last much longer then their
    raw capacities would suggest in comparison to flagship androids.

    You yourself exclaimed surprise at this finding.

    Of course, your dogma wouldn't let you accept it. So here we are back again "discussing" topics that have already been put to bed.


    Still, Apple's excuses being what Apple does, the fact is that the only regulated, independent efficiency metric we have is the EU label, and that rating was B for all prior iPhones at launch. That is the factual
    definition of efficiency in this context. <https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-iphone-ipad-eu-energy-labels/>

    Battery life is not efficiency.

    And, Apple has improved their efficiency rating since then, so you're
    trying to argue that Apple realized how bad their efficiency was, so they took steps only later in this year to rectify that specific deficiency.

    You'll note that iphones still have smaller batteries than comparable
    androids, right? Apple released their first phone with >5000 mAh capacity
    in September with the Pro Max (5,088 mAh).

    Which I knew was going to happen since I've known it for years.

    You've not been able to evidence any of your so called "knowledge" for
    years. Your don't support your exaggerations and extrapolations.

    All the benchmarks and various real-world tests provided to you
    demonstrated that in spades. You ignored it, of course.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marian@marianjones@helpfulpeople.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Dec 22 13:07:59 2025
    From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Chris wrote:
    Marian <marianjones@helpfulpeople.com> wrote:
    Tyrone wrote:
    c. You and I use different sources for tests of iPhone "efficiency"

    Yes, because I use multiple sources that prove the point. You ignore those.
    iPhones run longer (or the same) than Android phones that have larger
    batteries. Which is more efficient?

    For years, people like Chris have been so confused by "efficiency" claims
    that they end up mixing up battery life with efficiency.

    Utter rubbish. The only confusion here is with you and your (lack of)
    memory.

    I explained to you very clearly the maths behind the EU battery measures
    via my access to the EU API. You and I identified in the equation begins their ratings was that the *power* draw by iphones was much *lower* than other phones. For that reason, iphone batteries last much longer then their raw capacities would suggest in comparison to flagship androids.

    You yourself exclaimed surprise at this finding.

    Of course, your dogma wouldn't let you accept it. So here we are back again "discussing" topics that have already been put to bed.


    Still, Apple's excuses being what Apple does, the fact is that the only
    regulated, independent efficiency metric we have is the EU label, and that >> rating was B for all prior iPhones at launch. That is the factual
    definition of efficiency in this context.
    <https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-iphone-ipad-eu-energy-labels/>

    Battery life is not efficiency.

    And, Apple has improved their efficiency rating since then, so you're
    trying to argue that Apple realized how bad their efficiency was, so they
    took steps only later in this year to rectify that specific deficiency.

    You'll note that iphones still have smaller batteries than comparable androids, right? Apple released their first phone with >5000 mAh capacity
    in September with the Pro Max (5,088 mAh).

    Which I knew was going to happen since I've known it for years.

    You've not been able to evidence any of your so called "knowledge" for
    years. Your don't support your exaggerations and extrapolations.

    All the benchmarks and various real-world tests provided to you
    demonstrated that in spades. You ignored it, of course.

    Chris, you are shifting the discussion away from the actual point.
    Which is fine, if the topic were "battery life" and not "efficiency".

    But the topic is efficiency.

    The question here is not whether iPhones have good battery life.
    a. The question is how "efficiency" is defined and measured.
    b. And, when defined & measured, how Apple's iPhones fared.

    This is not a discussion of the wondrously creative ways Apple manages to
    throw the word "efficient" 12 times in the 9-page iPhone data pages.

    Using that word 12 times in a 9-page document is no accident, right?
    For years, Apple was claiming their iPhones are efficient.

    And yet, when they reported the efficiency for iPhones earlier this year,
    only Apple was unable to certify even a single model as an A in efficiency.

    That's telling.
    a. It's not about the battery size, voltage, or capacity.
    b. It's about how that iPhone fares in an efficiency benchmark.

    There is only one regulated, independent efficiency metric for smartphones:
    the EU energy label.
    A. That metric does not measure battery size or battery life.
    B. It measures energy efficiency under standardized test conditions.

    When the EU labels were first published earlier this year, every iPhone
    model at launch received a B in efficiency. Meanwhile, every major Android manufacturer had at least one model that earned an A. That is simply what
    the EU data shows. It is not an opinion, and it is not "dogma."

    It is the only standardized efficiency benchmark we have.
    Battery life is not efficiency.

    A device can have excellent battery life because of usage patterns, display choices, or thermal limits, while still scoring lower on a regulated
    efficiency test.

    You are free to argue that the EU metric is flawed or incomplete,
    but you cannot replace a regulated efficiency standard with your own
    definition and then claim that others are confused.

    If you want to discuss efficiency as defined by the EU, we can do that.

    If you want to discuss battery life, that is a very different topic.

    But treating them as the same thing is not accurate and does not move the conversation forward in a manner that is conducive to adult discourse.

    Your call if you wish to remain civil and discuss this at an adult level.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Chris@ithinkiam@gmail.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Dec 24 09:56:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Marian <marianjones@helpfulpeople.com> wrote:
    Chris wrote:
    Marian <marianjones@helpfulpeople.com> wrote:
    Tyrone wrote:
    c. You and I use different sources for tests of iPhone "efficiency"

    Yes, because I use multiple sources that prove the point. You ignore those.
    iPhones run longer (or the same) than Android phones that have larger
    batteries. Which is more efficient?

    For years, people like Chris have been so confused by "efficiency" claims >>> that they end up mixing up battery life with efficiency.

    Utter rubbish. The only confusion here is with you and your (lack of)
    memory.

    I explained to you very clearly the maths behind the EU battery measures
    via my access to the EU API. You and I identified in the equation begins
    their ratings was that the *power* draw by iphones was much *lower* than
    other phones. For that reason, iphone batteries last much longer then their >> raw capacities would suggest in comparison to flagship androids.

    You yourself exclaimed surprise at this finding.

    Of course, your dogma wouldn't let you accept it. So here we are back again >> "discussing" topics that have already been put to bed.

    No acknowledgment noted.

    Let me refresh your memory: https://rocksolid-eu.pugleaf.net/groups/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/articles/200508

    Yet you still peddle your tired "facts".


    Still, Apple's excuses being what Apple does, the fact is that the only
    regulated, independent efficiency metric we have is the EU label, and that >>> rating was B for all prior iPhones at launch. That is the factual
    definition of efficiency in this context.
    <https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-iphone-ipad-eu-energy-labels/>

    Battery life is not efficiency.

    And, Apple has improved their efficiency rating since then, so you're
    trying to argue that Apple realized how bad their efficiency was, so they >>> took steps only later in this year to rectify that specific deficiency.

    You'll note that iphones still have smaller batteries than comparable
    androids, right? Apple released their first phone with >5000 mAh capacity
    in September with the Pro Max (5,088 mAh).

    Which I knew was going to happen since I've known it for years.

    You've not been able to evidence any of your so called "knowledge" for
    years. Your don't support your exaggerations and extrapolations.

    All the benchmarks and various real-world tests provided to you
    demonstrated that in spades. You ignored it, of course.

    Chris, you are shifting the discussion away from the actual point.

    I am not. Prior to the EU regulation, some simple maths on existing data
    showed efficiency differences between Apple and other phones very
    effectively.

    Which is fine, if the topic were "battery life" and not "efficiency".

    But the topic is efficiency.

    Remember how you used to boast how your crappy A32 had a better battery
    than all iphones ever? Simply because it was 5,000 mAh.

    The question here is not whether iPhones have good battery life.
    a. The question is how "efficiency" is defined and measured.
    b. And, when defined & measured, how Apple's iPhones fared.

    It's very clearly defined in the EU documentation. https://rocksolid-eu.pugleaf.net/groups/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/articles/200508

    The iphones compared very well. Especially against Samsung.

    This is not a discussion of the wondrously creative ways Apple manages to throw the word "efficient" 12 times in the 9-page iPhone data pages.

    Oh ffs! Why do you keep repeating these lies? The document is a brochure
    about iphone *chargers* and reflects efficiency as required by the EPA. IT
    HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IPHONES THEMSELVES.

    Using that word 12 times in a 9-page document is no accident, right?
    For years, Apple was claiming their iPhones are efficient.

    [factcheck: incorrect]

    And yet, when they reported the efficiency for iPhones earlier this year, only Apple was unable to certify even a single model as an A in efficiency.

    That's telling.
    a. It's not about the battery size, voltage, or capacity.

    It absolutely is about voltage.

    b. It's about how that iPhone fares in an efficiency benchmark.

    Correct. And the iphone efficiency is much higher than equivalent androids.


    There is only one regulated, independent efficiency metric for smartphones: the EU energy label.
    A. That metric does not measure battery size or battery life.

    Not true. It measures and reports both.

    B. It measures energy efficiency under standardized test conditions.

    That too.

    When the EU labels were first published earlier this year, every iPhone
    model at launch received a B in efficiency. Meanwhile, every major Android manufacturer had at least one model that earned an A. That is simply what
    the EU data shows. It is not an opinion, and it is not "dogma."

    It is the only standardized efficiency benchmark we have.
    Battery life is not efficiency.

    Battery life is *a function* of efficiency.

    A device can have excellent battery life because of usage patterns, display choices, or thermal limits, while still scoring lower on a regulated efficiency test.

    You are free to argue that the EU metric is flawed or incomplete,
    but you cannot replace a regulated efficiency standard with your own definition and then claim that others are confused.

    Right. So why do you continue in that vein? You are the epitome of choosing your own definitions when called out.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marian@marianjones@helpfulpeople.com to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Dec 24 06:55:23 2025
    From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Chris wrote:
    Chris, you are shifting the discussion away from the actual point.

    I am not. Prior to the EU regulation, some simple maths on existing data showed efficiency differences between Apple and other phones very effectively.

    What I'm saying is a matter of fact, not opinion.

    Earlier this year, Apple couldn't certify a single iPhone for an A in efficiency even as Apple touted the word "efficiency" 12 times in every
    9-page iPhone description to that point (I haven't checked the new ones).


    Which is fine, if the topic were "battery life" and not "efficiency".

    But the topic is efficiency.

    Remember how you used to boast how your crappy A32 had a better battery
    than all iphones ever? Simply because it was 5,000 mAh.

    I said it had a bigger battery.
    And it does.

    Why are you so upset about mere facts?
    These are not opinions, Chris.

    They're simply facts.
    They're not subject to debate.


    The question here is not whether iPhones have good battery life.
    a. The question is how "efficiency" is defined and measured.
    b. And, when defined & measured, how Apple's iPhones fared.

    It's very clearly defined in the EU documentation. https://rocksolid-eu.pugleaf.net/groups/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/articles/200508

    The iphones compared very well. Especially against Samsung.

    Only the last batch of iPhones managed to get an "A" in efficiency.
    Earlier this year, all the iPhones sold in the EU failed to earn an A.

    That's not subject to debate, Chris.

    It's not an opinion.
    It's a fact.

    This is not a discussion of the wondrously creative ways Apple manages to
    throw the word "efficient" 12 times in the 9-page iPhone data pages.

    Oh ffs! Why do you keep repeating these lies? The document is a brochure about iphone *chargers* and reflects efficiency as required by the EPA. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IPHONES THEMSELVES.

    There's one for every iPhone, Chris.
    Look again.

    There is only one regulated, independent efficiency metric for smartphones: >> the EU energy label.
    A. That metric does not measure battery size or battery life.

    Not true. It measures and reports both.

    No. You don't understand. It *needs* both to calculate the efficiency.
    But it reports on the efficiency.



    B. It measures energy efficiency under standardized test conditions.

    That too.

    That's all it does.

    When the EU labels were first published earlier this year, every iPhone
    model at launch received a B in efficiency. Meanwhile, every major Android >> manufacturer had at least one model that earned an A. That is simply what
    the EU data shows. It is not an opinion, and it is not "dogma."

    It is the only standardized efficiency benchmark we have.
    Battery life is not efficiency.

    Battery life is *a function* of efficiency.

    And a function of size. And heat. And use. And a bajillion other things.

    A device can have excellent battery life because of usage patterns, display >> choices, or thermal limits, while still scoring lower on a regulated
    efficiency test.

    You are free to argue that the EU metric is flawed or incomplete,
    but you cannot replace a regulated efficiency standard with your own
    definition and then claim that others are confused.

    Right. So why do you continue in that vein? You are the epitome of choosing your own definitions when called out.

    Huh? I am not "choosing my own definitions", Chris.
    I'm pointing to the EU standards.

    And the fact remains, up until the latest batch of iPhones, not a single
    iPhone that went through the battery of EU standard tests, earned an A.

    Not even one.

    That's not subject to debate, Chris.
    It's a fact.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2