From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 3/27/26 12:21 AM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Tom Elam wrote:

You say "the reason batteries are the most frequent repair" is because the >>> glass-backed iPhone is "so durable", but are you even aware that Apple's >>> batteries are laughably puny in capacity compared to most modern phones? >>>
FACT:
No iPhone ever made has a battery capacity as good as my free 2021 A32-5G. >>

I entered the iPhone world in 2016 from Android Moto. I found little in
battery endurance. The only phones I remember with exception battery
endurance we early flip phones and the Blackberry. Both were good for
4-6 days with NiCad or NiMH batteries.

Hi Tom,

I had the Kyocera & the Blackberry's & the Motorola RAZR flip phones too.
And the Samsung Galaxy SIII where you could easily double the battery size.

I never disagree with a logically sensible statement, where I had a Moto G (1st gen, 2013) that I got for $100 via a Google Fi deal where you had to
pay for one month and then you got the phone for free. Then you could drop the $100 service and keep the phone. Which I did after clearing it ahead of time with the salesperson who said it was perfectly legit to do that.

You could remove the back but you couldn't remove the battery, so I wasn't sure what the point of having a removable back was (there was no sd slot).

I hated that phone. I eventually replaced it in 2017 with a set of $136 Costco LG Stylo 3 Plus stocking stuffers, where you could remove the
battery and it had an sd slot.

I loved that phone. When you needed more memory, you bought a bigger card. For about thirty bucks. When you needed a battery, you bought a new
battery. For about twenty bucks. Anyone who claims an iPhone has low cost
of ownership has no idea how a phone can be designed for low repair costs.

In April 2021, I picked up a set of Galaxy A32-5G phones, where they still have the sd card, but they are back to the non-removable battery trick.

You likely can't fathom what I'm going to say next, but I can go days on
end without charging that battery. When I need to charge it, the fast chargers of today replenish the charge in a couple of hour's time.

There's nothing more liberating than a big fat lovely juicy battery.

If Apple put a removable juicy battery in the iPhone, nobody would buy AppleCare+ and Apple's profits would plummet so Apple puts the crappiest battery they can get away with in the iPhone and they seal it in with glue.

And I hated my Moto too. Zero updates. I bought it at Costco only
because it had (I think) 64 GB internal storage. I found SD card to be
almost useless. Most apps I used wanted to install on internal storage
only. Some would install on the SD card but at the next reboot moved to internal. Apple is SO much easier. All in one place.

There was the Android file manager. I could NEVER figure out where files
were located. iOS is not much better.

Liked the Android removable battery too, but that is gone now for the
most part. iPhones last all day, and that is all I need. I cannot figure
out how to use a phone while sleeping. Did you?
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-03-25 21:34, Maria Sophia wrote:

Tom Elam wrote:

For a responsible adult, it is mathematically impossible to "win" unless >>> you are smashing your device on a regular basis. It's even worse if you
own the phone longer than 3 years as you continue to pay this extra tax. >>>
At least with screen repairs it is.
What kind of repairs did you have in mind to make AppleCare+ worth it?

Try modeling the entire coverage scope not just screen replacement.
Include battery replacement and total device replacement if the phone is
damaged beyond repair or lost.

Examples - my wife's iPad was replaced because the volume up button was
inop. My iPad was replaced because the screen cracked. Both of our
phones have new batteries. A lost phone could be a $1000 cost if not
under AppleCare.

That would be a more realistic actuarial calculation.

Hi Tom,

A lost phone also has to be on "Find My iPhone" for the AppleCare+ to
count. But even so, it's good you're discussing AppleCare+ because everyone has a different idea of how much it's worth in life to not live in constant fear that their iPhone will be snatched out of their hands where they live.

Me?
I don't even lock my car doors or my house doors, so I'm not worried
someone is going to sneak into my home to steal all my iPads.

Then you are a fool.

But, unlike me, some people live in constant debilitating fear.
Insurance is designed to charge those who can't handle the fear.

Hence, we can model whatever we want, but we have to understand that Apple designs fear into the iPhone experience & then you pay to reduce the fear.

Apple's whole strategy on AppleCare+ is to add fear to the experience:
a. Design a phone so ridiculously fragile as to break a lot (glass backs)

iPhones haven't been shown to be designed to be any more fragile than
any other phones.

b. Then architect horrendously outrageous absurdly expensive repair costs

Unsupported assertion.

c. And then exploit fear-filled customers forever for their peace of mind

Apple's racket is something the Mafia must be envious about, since people
pay Apple forever, for the rest of their lives, because of this sheer fear.

Consumer's Reports:
*Is AppleCare+ Worth Buying for Your iPhone?* |!-#-a<https://www.consumerreports.org/money/extended-warranties/is-applecare-plus-worth-buying-for-your-iphone-a8095516790/>
"AppleCare+ might give you some peace of mind, especially if you
(or others in your family) are prone to dropping phones.
But that doesn't make AppleCare+ a wise investment..."

Interesting you stopped just there: in the introductory part of the article.

"Bottom Line

ThererCOs really no right or wrong answer about whether you should pay for AppleCare+ coverage. ItrCOs all about how much risk yourCOre willing to assume.

But the higher the price of the device, the more it might make sense to
pay for a little peace of mind.

If the thought of having to unexpectedly shell out nearly $600 to repair
your phone is worrisome, the $100 to $140 AppleCare+ cost might well be
worth it.

If yourCOre buying the phone for a teenager whose smartphone takes some
abuse, the added insurance might save you some grief, too.

Unlike automotive insurance, ApplerCOs coverage doesnrCOt hinge on past behavior. A serial phone smasher pays the same as someone who has never cracked a screen would pay. As a result, AppleCare+ costs and
restrictions are designed with high-risk people in mind.

And that means if yourCOre a klutz or just prone to bad luck, AppleCare+ coverage is probably a better deal for you than it may be for others.
"

Interestingly, even though Apple gouges people for their crappy batteries
to be replaced, even so, according to CR, "the most common reason they had their iPhones repaired was to replace the battery" where CR has surmised
"so if your main concern is the battery wearing out, it's cheaper to just have the battery replaced without the plan".

You insist on your bullshit claim that Apple's batteries are "crappy".

Somewhere we calculated AppleCare+ makes any iPhone cost 1-1/2 times more, which is one reason Apple's profits are designed into the fragile iPhone.

"We"? Who is "we"?

Personally, AppleCare+ is one reason I claim Apple marketing is brilliant. It's pure profit for Apple.
a. Design the entire Apple ecosystem to inspire fear in people
b. And then charge them to reduce that fear that Apple created

It's like the Mafia.
Only more profitable.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-03-26 08:51, Maria Sophia wrote:

Tom Elam wrote:

Personally, AppleCare+ is one reason I claim Apple marketing is brilliant. >>> It's pure profit for Apple.
a. Design the entire Apple ecosystem to inspire fear in people
b. And then charge them to reduce that fear that Apple created

It's like the Mafia.
Only more profitable.

The reason batteries are the most frequent repair is that the rest of
the iPhone is so durable. The Apple marketing strategy is to make people
like their devices and provide a support system that assures they have
your back. There is absolutely nothing like it in the Android world.

Hi Tom,

You say "the reason batteries are the most frequent repair" is because the glass-backed iPhone is "so durable", but are you even aware that Apple's batteries are laughably puny in capacity compared to most modern phones?

FACT:
No iPhone ever made has a battery capacity as good as my free 2021 A32-5G.

Fact:
Your "FACT:" is false.

Fact:
Your Galaxy A32 5G only has decent run time, because it uses a
significantly worse, lower resolution, much dimmer TFT LCD display
compared to the OLED displays on every iPhone after the iPhone SE 3rd generation (2022).

Model Battery Resolution Max Contrast Ratio
Capacity Brightness
(mAh) (nits)

Galaxy A32 5G 5,000 720 x 1600 ~426 1,508:1

iPhone 17 Pro Max 5,088 1320 x 2868 2000+ 2,000,000:1
iPhone 16 Pro Max 4,685 1320 x 2868 2000 2,000,000:1
iPhone 16 Plus 4,674 1290 x 2796 2000 2,000,000:1
iPhone 15 Pro Max 4,422 1290 x 2796 2000 2,000,000:1
iPhone 15 Plus 4,383 1290 x 2796 2000 2,000,000:1
iPhone 13 Pro Max 4,352 1284 x 2778 1200 2,000,000:1
iPhone 14 Plus 4,325 1284 x 2778 1200 2,000,000:1
iPhone 14 Pro Max 4,323 1290 x 2796 2000 2,000,000:1
iPhone 11 Pro Max 3,969 1242 x 2688 800 2,000,000:1
iPhone 16 Pro 3,582 1206 x 2622 2000 2,000,000:1
iPhone 16 3,561 1179 x 2556 2000 2,000,000:1

Imagine that:

You want to talk about how iPhone batteries are supposedly "crappy"...

...but what you've got is a phone with an objectively...

...FACTUALLY...

...crappy display.

:-)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Tom Elam wrote:

And I hated my Moto too. Zero updates. I bought it at Costco only
because it had (I think) 64 GB internal storage. I found SD card to be almost useless. Most apps I used wanted to install on internal storage
only. Some would install on the SD card but at the next reboot moved to internal. Apple is SO much easier. All in one place.

There was the Android file manager. I could NEVER figure out where files were located. iOS is not much better.

Liked the Android removable battery too, but that is gone now for the
most part. iPhones last all day, and that is all I need. I cannot figure
out how to use a phone while sleeping. Did you?

Given I'm extremely well educated in engineering and science, I'm open to anyone bringing up any errors or omissions I may have made in this thread.

Newsgroups: Newsgroups: misc.phonmisc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.telecom.mobile
Subject: Re: EU standards compare Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra battery lifetime
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:39:38 -0600
Message-ID: <10slm59$1mhi$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Andy Newman wrote:

Here, here!

Since these facts, explained as they are, are likely nowhere else in the Internet in one spot, religious zealots who believe only in the (admittedly brilliant) propaganda, have no adult response other than ad hominems.

Their childish taunts actually prove actual facts made an actual impact.
This is progress...

We've accomplished a lot in this thread, using published UK/EU forced
facts, which I take the liberty to summarize below for all to benefit.

Those who are not as well educated in sciences and engineering as I am
might be shocked by the results we found out, which are summarized below.

1. When we compared the Galaxy S26 Ultra to the iPhone 17 Pro Max...
a. Efficiency:
Samsung wins. It gets 55 hours out of 4.855Ah,
while Apple gets 53 hours out of 4.8Ah.
b. Capacity:
Samsung wins, though Apple has finally started closing the
historic battery-capacity gap (but only recently).
c. Durability:
Samsung wins. The 1,200 cycle rating on Samsung's 2026 chemistry
provides the Kill-Time victory despite Apple's "efficiency" claims.

2. When we compared legally promised "full-support" windows
a. iPhone 15(+), Minimum 5 years from the first supply date
b. Pixel 8(+), 7 years of Security Updates, OS Updates & Feature Drops
c. Galaxy S24(+), 7 years of Security Updates & Android OS Upgrades

3. When we compared what "support" means (including Pixel for Andy)
a. Apple drops full support the instant the next release ships
but Apple doesn't ever define what CVEs go into full support
ahead of time. So we'd have to look to see if EVERY CVE is patched.
Most likely Apple patches from 8-10 severity CVEs, but I have NOT
researched to that level of detail what level of CVE is "FULL".

b. Google actually publishes the list in the ASB that they will patch.
But Google's monthly support patches seem to slow down in later years
but the actual list of CVEs fixed remains those that are in the ASB.

c. Samsung uses the ASB + Samsung has further lists that they publish.
Their support also "slows down" as the phone ages, but it's still
inclusive of all the vulnerabilities listed in their published lists.

4. When we discussed the tangential topic of AppleCare+ specifically,
we mathematically proved that it more than doubles the price of the
iPhone over the 7-year expected lifetime of that iPhone in most cases.

While all the calculations are in this thread, we need to add the
equivalent Samsung Care+ which, unfortunately, isn't as standardized.
Subject: AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:47:45 -0600
Message-ID: <10sh2vh$oqb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Is there anything else of import we should discuss to compare devices?

Like anyone who is extremely well educated in engineering & the sciences,
I'm open to correction of any mathematical calculations stated herein.
--
Many people believe brilliant propaganda, but I believe only in facts.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2