From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

For years, I've said all iPhones have crappy batteries (based on the most important metric there is for any battery of any type, which is capacity).

For years, Apple owners have tried to swat away that fact by claiming, in essence, that Apple iPhones don't need to follow the laws of Physics.

Specifically on efficiency, that argument that Apple has their own physical laws was shown to be false when the first EU efficacy standards debuted.

I knew it was false all along.
But even nospam said, in effect, Apple products have their own Physics.

But the question is WHY does Apple put crappy batteries in the iPhone?
We'd have to ask Apple why (although I reported Kuo told us why long ago).

The real reason, I can logically argue, for crappy iPhone batteries is
because Apple makes a ton of money from their crappy iPhone batteries.

Where does Apple make all that money from the crappy iPhone batteries?
a. Profit margins from using cheap components (but that's not a biggie)
b. Convincing people they need to pay for ridiculous phone insurance
c. Forcing a premature upgrade (batterygate proved that it was strategic)

Nowadays, it's not uncommon for even cheap Androids to have >5Ah batteries. Certainly my el cheap 2021 Android has a modern-sized 5AH battery capacity.

However, having said that, Chris told me today, that, in 2025, Apple
finally has broken the 5AH mark which Android phones reached in 2014!
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Extending the iPhone battery life: X users showed system settings that relentlessly drain the battery and reduce the smartphone's operating time.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 12:14:45 -0700
Message-ID: <10re6j5$154q$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

This is good news!

Finally, Apple has one variant of one iPhone that has a battery capacity
that is not so crappy that it can't even break the common 5AH capacity.

Here's my sincere response to Chris (verbatim) acknowledging that fact.

Chris wrote:

Given the laughably puny "fun size" batteries in iPhones, the best way,
IMHO, to "extend the life" of any iPhone with those crappy batteries, is to >> replace the original battery with one that is of a decent capacity.

As everyone well knows, capacity on its own is a bad measure of life. It's all about efficiency.

To make the point, my free phone from 2021 has a larger battery capacity
than any of the crappy batteries in any iPhone ever put on the market.

False. The 17 Pro Max has a bigger battery. Also the capacity of your
current phone will be much less than when it was new.

I charge the phone when it needs it, which is every few days for a few
hours, while iPhone owners are desperate for a charge every single night.

Apple is a master at making a device last only so long, but no longer.
(I'm talking here about years, due to charge cycles, not hours in a day.)

False. You have never, ever been able to evidence that beyond stamping your feet about "chemistry". You simply want this to be true and make shit up.

Hi Chris,

Regarding only the ridiculously crappy iPhone batteries...

FACT:
One variant of one iPhone finally *does* have a >5AH battery capacity!

I always agree with any logically defensible statement, since I also never
make any statements that are not logically defensible, so I agree with you.

Bear in mind I had said no iPhone ever made has a battery capacity even as
good as my ancient el-cheapo Samsung Galaxy A32-5G, but apparently, you're right. For the first time in Apple's history, "an" iPhone 17 Pro Max has a larger battery, making it the first iPhone to crack that 2021 barrier. <https://www.macobserver.com/news/what-is-iphone-17-pro-max-battery-capacity/>

However, that's only for the esim model (as you're likely well aware).
4823 mAh (Nano-SIM model)
5088 mAh (eSIM-only model)

So thank you for helping me calculate the staggering 11-year gap between
the first Android phone & iPhone to rise to the bare-minimum 5Ah metric.

11 years and 3 months, to be precise.
Which is an eternity in electronics.

In 2014, when Android manufacturers first hit the current bare-minimum 5Ah point the flagship iPhone 6 Plus crappy battery was less than 3AH capacity.

Even now, *most* of the current iPhones still have crappy batteries, Chris.
iPhone 17 - 3,692 mAh
iPhone 17 Pro - 3,988 mAh (SIM) / 4,252 mAh (eSIM)
iPhone 17 Pro Max - 4,823 mAh (SIM) / 5,088 mAh (eSIM)
iPhone Air - 3,149 mAh

iPhone 16 - 3,561 mAh
iPhone 16 Plus - 4,674 mAh
iPhone 16 Pro - 3,582 mAh
iPhone 16 Pro Max - 4,685 mAh
iPhone 16e - 4,005 mAh

Don't you ever wonder why the crappy iPhone battery is one of the biggest
money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)?

Apple has the most profit-making oriented marketing in the world, Chris.

Taking a decade in electronics for only a single iPhone to begin to catch
up to Android is an eternity which shows you how important to Apple's money-making strategy it is to make iPhone owners endure crappy batteries.
--
I only tell the facts, which is always news to those who believe marketing.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 4/11/26 3:40 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Don't you ever wonder why the crappy iPhone battery is one of the biggest money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)?

I think we need some credible evidence that supports this claim.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Tom Elam wrote:

On 4/11/26 3:40 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Don't you ever wonder why the crappy iPhone battery is one of the biggest
money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)?

I think we need some credible evidence that supports this claim.

Hi Tom,

Thank you for bringing up that point, which is what Chris is disputing, so
it's important to "define" what I say is "crappy" about iPhone batteries.

Always remember I don't fall for bullshit marketing tricks (e.g., Apple's
lies about efficiency) so since most people on this newsgroup fall for
every marketing trick in the book, we're always going to be at odd.

I'm logical.
I'm (almost) always factually correct.
And, if I'm ever NOT factually correct, when pointed out, I'll admit it.

My ego is not tied up in being the smartest guy on this newsgroup, Tom.
My ego is in teaching and learning and helping others on this newsgroup.

As such, I never disagree with any logically sensible statement, no matter
who says it, which is also commutative in that I won't say illogically indefensible statements.

Your statement is logical that I need to define my assertion terms.

My assertion is that Apple iPhone battery capacity has been dismally small
for the history of the iPhone, and even now, 11 years and 3 months after Android broke the 5AH barrier, one model of one iPhone has eked past it.

To put it bluntly, what's 'crappy' is the iPhone battery.

My assertion is logical in that it's all about battery capacity for any
given chemistry (in this case, we're talking small lithium-ion batteries).

To put it more acccurately, what's "crappy" is the iPhone battery capacity.

No amount of Apple's brazen lies about proven-bullshit "efficiency" can fix that designed-in flaw when it comes to battery life, just like painting an aging vehicle will make it work any better.

There's a reason no Apple iPhone scored even close to top efficiency in the first EU benchmarks, where Apple spun a 42-page web of lies to excuse.

When Apple Marketing, usually succinct, has to spin a 42-page web of lies
to justify that their claimed efficiency never existed, that's something.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-04-12 11:26:44 +0000, Tom Elam said:

On 4/11/26 3:40 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Don't you ever wonder why the crappy iPhone battery is one of the biggest
money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)?

I think we need some credible evidence that supports this claim.

There isn't any. It's just more of the local village idiot troll's
anti-Apple bullshit.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:

Tom Elam wrote:

On 4/11/26 3:40 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Don't you ever wonder why the crappy iPhone battery is one of the biggest >>> money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)? >>

I think we need some credible evidence that supports this claim.

Hi Tom,

<snip 13 paragraphs not answering the question >

Let me help you. Where, out of the $416bn in full year revenue, is the
"crappy battery" one of Apple's "biggest money makers"? https://www.sankeyart.com/sankeys/public/149306/

Once you've done that, you can respond to the below seeing as you're now ignoring the thread which spawned this so-called "apology".

as proven by EU benchmarks.

I have published an analysis of the benchmarks which show that efficiency
is the defining feature of battery performance across hundreds of phone
models. You persistently refuse to acknowledge it. I recently updated it
here.
https://rpubs.com/ithinkiam/1415197

You're simply wilfully ignorant and dogmatic.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 4/12/26 2:15 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Tom Elam wrote:

On 4/11/26 3:40 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Don't you ever wonder why the crappy iPhone battery is one of the biggest >>> money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)? >>

I think we need some credible evidence that supports this claim.

Hi Tom,

Thank you for bringing up that point, which is what Chris is disputing, so it's important to "define" what I say is "crappy" about iPhone batteries.

Always remember I don't fall for bullshit marketing tricks (e.g., Apple's lies about efficiency) so since most people on this newsgroup fall for
every marketing trick in the book, we're always going to be at odd.

I'm logical.
I'm (almost) always factually correct.
And, if I'm ever NOT factually correct, when pointed out, I'll admit it.

My ego is not tied up in being the smartest guy on this newsgroup, Tom.
My ego is in teaching and learning and helping others on this newsgroup.

As such, I never disagree with any logically sensible statement, no matter who says it, which is also commutative in that I won't say illogically indefensible statements.

Your statement is logical that I need to define my assertion terms.

My assertion is that Apple iPhone battery capacity has been dismally small for the history of the iPhone, and even now, 11 years and 3 months after Android broke the 5AH barrier, one model of one iPhone has eked past it.

To put it bluntly, what's 'crappy' is the iPhone battery.

My assertion is logical in that it's all about battery capacity for any
given chemistry (in this case, we're talking small lithium-ion batteries).

To put it more acccurately, what's "crappy" is the iPhone battery capacity.

No amount of Apple's brazen lies about proven-bullshit "efficiency" can fix that designed-in flaw when it comes to battery life, just like painting an aging vehicle will make it work any better.

There's a reason no Apple iPhone scored even close to top efficiency in the first EU benchmarks, where Apple spun a 42-page web of lies to excuse.

When Apple Marketing, usually succinct, has to spin a 42-page web of lies
to justify that their claimed efficiency never existed, that's something.

By credible evidence I was referring to the assertion that the "iPhone
battery is one of the biggest money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)?

Based on years of personal experience The iPhone 6 did have some battery issues. Since leaving Android in 2017 I have owned a 6s, SE2, 14
(wife's) and 14 Pro (mine). That is 3 different iPhone models in 9
years. Other than the 6s zero battery issues and normal wear no
problems. mAh alone is not a reliable metric for daily drain or long
term battery life. My "puny" SE2 phone battery lasted all day and was in
great shape when traded for the 14 Pro.

Both of our iPhone 14s had the battery replacement as soon as they hit
79%. I have no idea what our Android phones had left, but daily %
remaining was noticeably less when sold.

I do remember buying a second and higher capacity battery for an aging Motorola phone after it would not last a single day under normal use.

Your claims are far from my personal experience.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2026-04-13 17:49:59 +0000, Tom Elam said:

On 4/12/26 2:15 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Tom Elam wrote:

On 4/11/26 3:40 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Don't you ever wonder why the crappy iPhone battery is one of the biggest >>>> money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)? >>>

I think we need some credible evidence that supports this claim.

Hi Tom,

Thank you for bringing up that point, which is what Chris is disputing, so >> it's important to "define" what I say is "crappy" about iPhone batteries.

Always remember I don't fall for bullshit marketing tricks (e.g., Apple's
lies about efficiency) so since most people on this newsgroup fall for
every marketing trick in the book, we're always going to be at odd.

I'm logical.
I'm (almost) always factually correct.
And, if I'm ever NOT factually correct, when pointed out, I'll admit it.

My ego is not tied up in being the smartest guy on this newsgroup, Tom.
My ego is in teaching and learning and helping others on this newsgroup.

As such, I never disagree with any logically sensible statement, no matter >> who says it, which is also commutative in that I won't say illogically
indefensible statements.

Your statement is logical that I need to define my assertion terms.

My assertion is that Apple iPhone battery capacity has been dismally small >> for the history of the iPhone, and even now, 11 years and 3 months after
Android broke the 5AH barrier, one model of one iPhone has eked past it.

To put it bluntly, what's 'crappy' is the iPhone battery.

My assertion is logical in that it's all about battery capacity for any
given chemistry (in this case, we're talking small lithium-ion batteries). >>
To put it more acccurately, what's "crappy" is the iPhone battery capacity. >>
No amount of Apple's brazen lies about proven-bullshit "efficiency" can fix >> that designed-in flaw when it comes to battery life, just like painting an >> aging vehicle will make it work any better.

There's a reason no Apple iPhone scored even close to top efficiency in the >> first EU benchmarks, where Apple spun a 42-page web of lies to excuse.

When Apple Marketing, usually succinct, has to spin a 42-page web of lies
to justify that their claimed efficiency never existed, that's something.

By credible evidence I was referring to the assertion that the "iPhone battery is one of the biggest money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, & upgrades)?

Based on years of personal experience The iPhone 6 did have some
battery issues. Since leaving Android in 2017 I have owned a 6s, SE2,
14 (wife's) and 14 Pro (mine). That is 3 different iPhone models in 9
years. Other than the 6s zero battery issues and normal wear no
problems. mAh alone is not a reliable metric for daily drain or long
term battery life. My "puny" SE2 phone battery lasted all day and was
in great shape when traded for the 14 Pro.

Both of our iPhone 14s had the battery replacement as soon as they hit
79%. I have no idea what our Android phones had left, but daily %
remaining was noticeably less when sold.

I do remember buying a second and higher capacity battery for an aging Motorola phone after it would not last a single day under normal use.

Your claims are far from my personal experience.

The morons claims are *always* simply complete lies. Please just ignore
the imbecile.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 4/12/26 6:35 PM, Your Name wrote:

On 2026-04-12 11:26:44 +0000, Tom Elam said:

On 4/11/26 3:40 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

Don't you ever wonder why the crappy iPhone battery is one of the
biggest
money makers for Apple (in terms of replacements, insurance, &
upgrades)?

I think we need some credible evidence that supports this claim.

There isn't any. It's just more of the local village idiot troll's anti- Apple bullshit.

While he tries to justify Android OS updates that frequently never show
up on a phone and if they are 3-12 months behind the latest Android
version. Thew underlying cause is each manufacturer needs to customize
native Android to differentiate their brand.

As a result very few Android phones (only Pixel) get access to the
latest OS version the day it is released. Very much unlike Apple phones
- tablets and Macs too for that matter.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Tom Elam wrote:

While he tries to justify Android OS updates that frequently never show
up on a phone and if they are 3-12 months behind the latest Android
version. Thew underlying cause is each manufacturer needs to customize native Android to differentiate their brand.

As a result very few Android phones (only Pixel) get access to the
latest OS version the day it is released. Very much unlike Apple phones
- tablets and Macs too for that matter.

Hi Tom,

Will you stop it with the crap please.
I treat all operating system vendors equally, Tom.

You don't seem to comprehend that normal people exist outside of Apple ngs.

On OS newsgroups, people don't defend the mothership to the death, Tom.
That only happens on Apple newsgroups, Tom.

It's not me.
It's you.

There's a reason for that, but I won't get into why posters feel the rather strange need to defend the Apple mothership to the death no matter what.

Suffice to say we have a lengthy detailed thread on the exact definition of full support for the three platforms, the Pixel, Samsung S-series & iPhone.

We really shouldn't have included the Pixel as it's not a serious
competitor to the iPhone but since it's no the Android newsgroup, we added
the Pixel but the reality is that Samsung is the serious iPhone competitor.

Go to this thread, and post your personal issues there, Tom.
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: What is the reality of the Samsung 7-years of S-series support?
Message-ID: <10rhvj6$1c3i$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Watch how you will get your head handed to you if you post crap, Tom.

Chris has taken the liberty of cross posting to this newsgroup so you don't even have to go over to the normal OS newsgroups to see that thread, Tom.
From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: What is the reality of the Samsung 7-years of S-series support?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:16:46 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <10rli8e$5pb9$1@dont-email.me>

Please post all your personal conspiracy theories over to that thread, Tom. I'll respond to what you write over there.

Remember, you asked for that thread.
You weren't man enough to post it though.

You just wanted to claim, on an Apple newsgroup, that nobody else did it.

So I posted it for you.
You're welcome.

Now be a man and go to that thread and post your personal issues there.
Watch what happens when an Apple poster posts to the normal OS newsgroups.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Your Name wrote:

Your claims are far from my personal experience.

The morons claims are *always* simply complete lies. Please just ignore
the imbecile.

What's revealing is how much Your Name & Tom Elam *hate* Apple products!

All I did was list the documented iPhone battery capacities from Apple.
And yet, both Your Name & Tom Elam claimed Apple lied making those claims.

How can that be?
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Interestingly, two days ago Chris got a fact dead wrong, and I politely corrected Chris' mistake (with a reference cite, of course) yesterday.

Today, Chris casually mentioned that he got that fact wrong.

On the Android newsgroup, all we do is correct the facts, with references.

What do you think would have happened if Chris got that fact wrong here?

From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Security updates in the EU.
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 17:03:11 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <10sg7of$7rp2$1@dont-email.me>

Actually it's not. Samsung (France) are doing the same. https://www.samsung.com/fr/smartphones/galaxy-s/

Which is going to be problematic for Samsung as the S24 is not covered by
their 7 year support guarantee.

From: Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Security updates in the EU.
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 17:59:11 -0600
Message-ID: <10sh04f$l83$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Chris wrote:

Which is going to be problematic for Samsung as the S24 is not covered by their 7 year support guarantee.

Hi Chris,

As far as I'm aware, the first Samsung phones to receive the 7-year promise
of software support are the Galaxy S24 series (S24, S24+, and S24 Ultra).

<https://www.sammobile.com/news/galaxy-smartphones-seven-years-android-one-ui-updates-eligibility/>

From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Security updates in the EU.
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 09:02:43 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <10shvvj$n25d$1@dont-email.me>

Which is going to be problematic for Samsung as the S24 is not covered by their 7 year support guarantee.

My mistake the S24 were the first series to be covered by the 7 years of support. We'll see how well that turns out in reality...
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Chris wrote:

as proven by EU benchmarks.

I have published an analysis of the benchmarks which show that efficiency
is the defining feature of battery performance across hundreds of phone models. You persistently refuse to acknowledge it. I recently updated it here.
https://rpubs.com/ithinkiam/1415197

You're simply wilfully ignorant and dogmatic.

Hi Chris,

For you to claim I'm 'wilfully' (actually willfully) ignorant, is kind of funny.

But I'll excuse what I hope is a mere typo to summarize what we've learned
in the recent thread comparing the iPhone 17 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra.

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