CrudeSausage wrote:
I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!
Ignoring the untoward ad hominem whataboutism racist credibility attack on the entire UK in order to deflect this thread from the topic at hand...
Ignoring the untoward ad hominem whataboutism racist credibility attack on >> the entire UK in order to deflect this thread from the topic at hand...
What race is Islam?
On 2026-04-18 9:57 p.m., Maria Sophia wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Honestly, there is no reason to doubt those numbers. Nevertheless, the
knowledge that I can get the mediocre experience I get with an Android
lasts longer than the stellar experience I get with iOS isn't much of a
selling point.
I think it's valuable to use legally binding benchmarks to double check
Apple's bogus claims of efficiency given Apple felt compelled to spin a web >> of excuses extending for 42 pages to defend the fact that in the first EU
reports, it was proven that no iPhone had ever earned an A in efficiency.
So much for (admittedly brilliant) marketing claims turned to dust by fact. >> (Only in subterranean Cupertino caverns did an iPhone even get close to A.) >>
Nobody topside, on planet earth, could ever reproduce Apple's wild claims. >> Which, let's face it, has always been so with Apple marketing propaganda.
I thank God, the EU and the UK for proving that Apple's (admittedly
brilliant) marketing propaganda was, in effect, meaningless drivel.
I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 06:58:25 -0400, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge>
wrote:
On 2026-04-18 9:57 p.m., Maria Sophia wrote:Another thick twat kill-filled.
CrudeSausage wrote:
Honestly, there is no reason to doubt those numbers. Nevertheless, the >>>> knowledge that I can get the mediocre experience I get with an Android >>>> lasts longer than the stellar experience I get with iOS isn't much of a >>>> selling point.
I think it's valuable to use legally binding benchmarks to double check
Apple's bogus claims of efficiency given Apple felt compelled to spin a web >>> of excuses extending for 42 pages to defend the fact that in the first EU >>> reports, it was proven that no iPhone had ever earned an A in efficiency. >>>
So much for (admittedly brilliant) marketing claims turned to dust by fact. >>> (Only in subterranean Cupertino caverns did an iPhone even get close to A.) >>>
Nobody topside, on planet earth, could ever reproduce Apple's wild claims. >>> Which, let's face it, has always been so with Apple marketing propaganda. >>>
I thank God, the EU and the UK for proving that Apple's (admittedly
brilliant) marketing propaganda was, in effect, meaningless drivel.
I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!
This information exposes another component of the astoundingly huge hidden cost of ownership of Apple products, where, if both phones cost the same,
the Samsung offers a significantly lower "Cost Per Year" by lasting nearly 18 months longer (in addition to far longer security promises & drastically lower repair costs).
This is old news that Apple historically has put el-cheapo components into the iPhone batteries (in addition to laughably puny capacity sizes), so
many of these supporting links are 404 by now, but they've been discussed
in the Apple newsgroups for years, so nobody can deny a statement of fact.
On 4/18/26 11:30 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
This information exposes another component of the astoundingly huge
hidden
cost of ownership of Apple products, where, if both phones cost the same,
the Samsung offers a significantly lower "Cost Per Year"-a by lasting
nearly
18 months longer (in addition to far longer security promises &
drastically
lower repair costs).
A remind you that these numbers are meaningless in real world
conditions. And, batteries are easily replaceable. The iPhone 17 camera
is also better.
On 4/19/26 1:21 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
This is old news that Apple historically has put el-cheapo components into >> the iPhone batteries (in addition to laughably puny capacity sizes), so
many of these supporting links are 404 by now, but they've been discussed
in the Apple newsgroups for years, so nobody can deny a statement of fact.
OMG, all those articles are WAY outdated.
I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and putAnother thick twat kill-filled.
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!
Oh no! My life is ruined!
At this point, I think that most Apple users know that getting AppleCare
is a good idea and an even better deal. If, after three years, your
battery is anywhere near 20%, you replace it and you're good for another three years without issue. Other manufacturers offer it too, but none
make it as easy to replace as Apple does.
CrudeSausage wrote:
At this point, I think that most Apple users know that getting AppleCare
is a good idea and an even better deal. If, after three years, your
battery is anywhere near 20%, you replace it and you're good for another
three years without issue. Other manufacturers offer it too, but none
make it as easy to replace as Apple does.
Disagreeing with the math-free argument that paying almost twice the
original cost for a phone over time in order to have expensive insurance
is a "good idea", on the Android newsgroups we've been discussing another ramification of the EU standards for product maintenance & support.
From: "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Security updates in the EU.
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 22:45:24 +0200
Message-ID: <50dqbmxkcq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
For all smartphones placed on the EU market after 20 June 2025, OEMs are
now mandated to "support" them for "five years of OS updates".
*New EU rules mandate five years of OS updates for smartphones and tablets* <https://www.osnews.com/story/142500/new-eu-rules-mandate-five-years-of-os-updates-for-smartphones-and-tablets/>
Specifically:
"Starting 20 June 2025, new rules and regulations in the
European Union covering, among other things, smartphones
and tablets..."
What's a bit confusing is the mandate clock seems to start at the last sale point, which is where most of the discussion today on the Android ng lies.
Given how customer-hostile some OEMs are in terms of repairs, basically necessitating expensive insurance that almost doubles the cost of the phone over time, the EU mandate forces OEMs to perform customer-friendly actions: <https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2026/04/20/eu-to-force-replaceable-batteries-in-phones-and-tablets-from-2027/>
Specifically, these will extend the overall life of our phones.
1. availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods
(at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on
the market of the last unit of a product model)
2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand at least
800 charge and discharge cycles while retaining at least 80%
of their initial capacity
3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations for
producers to make critical spare parts available within 5-10
working days, and for 7 years after the end of sales of
the product model on the EU market
4. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers to any
software or firmware needed for the replacement
5. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches
6. Protection from dust and water
Since this is welcome news that OEMs are mandated to provide at least five years of support, most of the discussion, so far, centers around how the EU defines "after the end of sales of the product model on the EU market".
CrudeSausage wrote:
At this point, I think that most Apple users know that getting AppleCare
is a good idea and an even better deal. If, after three years, your
battery is anywhere near 20%, you replace it and you're good for another
three years without issue. Other manufacturers offer it too, but none
make it as easy to replace as Apple does.
Disagreeing with the math-free argument that paying almost twice the
original cost for a phone over time in order to have expensive insurance
is a "good idea", on the Android newsgroups we've been discussing another ramification of the EU standards for product maintenance & support.
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your hardware, you should be allowed that right.
CrudeSausage wrote:You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your
hardware, you should be allowed that right.
AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your
hardware, you should be allowed that right.
AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your
hardware, you should be allowed that right.
AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
On 2026-04-24 9:50 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your >>>> hardware, you should be allowed that right.
AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
It is, yes. I usually have a lot of ptience for such people, but it is admittedly impossible not to get annoyed with Snit-level Sophia.
On 4/24/2026 9:50 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your >>>> hardware, you should be allowed that right.
AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
So why are you still replying to it?
It did not even know what the included-with-iOS music playing app was
called - "Music" - AND he did not know that it keeps playing once the
screen goes off.-a-a Which means that it has NEVER played music on an iPhone/iPad.
Not to mention that music playing has worked that way since the original click-wheel iPods.-a-a Which I still have a few of - with new batteries
and SSDs - that still work just fine BTW.
It knows NOTHING about iOS.-a Or Apple.-a Or batteries.-a Or how long Apple supports things.-a It is a ridiculous troll that is only here to get attention.
Please stop replying to it.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-04-24 9:50 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your >>>>> hardware, you should be allowed that right.
AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
It is, yes. I usually have a lot of ptience for such people, but it is
admittedly impossible not to get annoyed with Snit-level Sophia.
Example?
On 2026-04-25 2:29 a.m., Brock McNuggets wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-04-24 9:50 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your >>>>>> hardware, you should be allowed that right.
AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
It is, yes. I usually have a lot of ptience for such people, but it is
admittedly impossible not to get annoyed with Snit-level Sophia.
Example?
Piss off, faggot.
AppleCare+ used to raise the price of the iPhone by 1-1/2 times in the past but new calculations using the latest price models shows it's double today.
AppleCare+ used to raise the price of the iPhone by 1-1/2 times in the past but new calculations using the latest price models shows it's double today.How strange that you choose to delete everything the previous poster
Given Apple posters complained that we shouldn't have chosen $1,000 to make the point that AppleCare+ doubles the price of the phone, here are the corrected numbers (which don't change the fundamental assessment).
All I care about is the answer to the factual question:
Q: How many times does the typical iPhone owner pay for their iPhone?
A: About twice if you take into account AppleCare+ for a 7-year lifetime.
Maria Sophia wrote:
AppleCare+ used to raise the price of the iPhone by 1-1/2 times in the past >> but new calculations using the latest price models shows it's double today.
UPDATE:
A new USA AppleCare One bundle data plan was introduced in July of 2025.
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/07/23/applecare-one-launches-as-a-single-plan-to-cover-multiple-apple-devices>
The fact that we can buy two iPhones for the same cost as one phone plus AppleCare+ for the 7-year life of the phone notwithstanding, Apple has another plan for multiple phones that I didn't take into account prior.
When we have 3 devices, AppleCare One has the effect of lowering the 7-year insurance overhead from ~100% of hardware value to ~50% of hardware
value, but we have to play Apple's game to follow all the required rules.
Under this 2026 bundle ($19.99/mo for 3 devices), the pro-rated insurance cost for a single iPhone 17 Pro drops to about $6.66/mo. Over 7 years,
that's $559 instead of the $1,175 we'd otherwise pay on a standalone plan.
It doesn't change the fact that we're paying a subscription to "own" our hardware, but it does change the math for anyone already deep into Apple.
BTW, I made a minor clerical error on the base model storage which is:
iPhone 17e 256GB $599 $9.99/mo for AppleCare+ (T&L)
iPhone 17 256GB $799 $11.99/mo for AppleCare+ (T&L)
iPhone 17 Air 256GB $999 $13.99/mo for AppleCare+ (T&L)
iPhone 17 Pro 256GB $1,099 $13.99/mo for AppleCare+ (T&L)
iPhone 17 Pro Max 256GB $1,199 $14.99/mo for AppleCare+ (T&L)
<https://smartish.com/blogs/news/iphone-17-price>
<https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-introduces-iphone-17e>
BTW, a lot of people get accidentally fleeced by Apple who makes it hard to find the less expensive USA AppleCare+ options. They think Apple doesn't offer the upfront + monthly option, but, as far as I know offhand, Apple Support document 101560 confirms we can buy 2 years upfront and then
purchase new recurring monthly coverage within 45 days of that plan
expiring. <https://support.apple.com/en-us/101560>
In addition, while we've been looking at the monthly rates, Apple's annual billing cycle effectively offers a 12 months for the price of 10 discount.
For the iPhone 17 Pro ($1,099):
a. Monthly: $13.99/mo ($167.88 per year)
b. Annual: $139.99/year
c. 7-Year Total (Annual): $979.93
What's clever about this is that, under the annual plan, the insurance
cost stays under the original price of the phone ($1,099) for the first
7 years. It doesn't double the cost of the hardware until the 8th year.
By comparison, the monthly plan ($13.99) hits that doubling threshold
in the middle of year 7.
So, while the insurance is still adding ~90% to the cost of ownership
over a 7-year span, the annual plan is technically the only way to keep
the total insurance premiums from exceeding the original sticker price
of the device within that iPhone 7-year life-of-ownership window.
Again, as always, since this information is likely nowhere on the Internet
in one place, please check for typos and thinkos as they can creep in.
On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your
hardware, you should be allowed that right.
AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
Here, here!
c. Durability:
Samsung wins. The 1,200 cycle rating on Samsung's 2026 chemistry
provides the Kill-Time victory despite Apple's "efficiency" claims.
Again: a rating from a governmental body is very artificial.
It's not the EU that defines the cycle count other than it has to be at
least 1,000 at 80%. It's up to the manufacturer to state otherwise. Samsung claimed 1700+ for the S25 series and quietly dropped it to 1,200 this year.
Mathematically, if you charge your phone once a day,
On 27/04/2026 22:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
Mathematically, if you charge your phone once a day,
I think that should read: if you charge your phone from the point where
it has powered down, to avoid over discharge, until the 100% level,
exactly once a day.
I believe that charging from say 30% to 80% would count as half a cycle,
and may actually be equivalent to less than that, in terms of wear on
the battery.
I've got a Samsung A16, which has been charged from about 55 to 60%, up
to 80%, once a day for about a year and a half.-a The statistics
(Settings | Battery | Battery Information) say the cycle count is 135,
which is not that inconsistent, given that the above figures are approximate.-a It's quoting a battery health figure of 98%.-a I assume
that is the same figure as the 80% figure in the standards.-a I don't
know if it represents an attempt to measure the actual capacity, or is simply: 100 - (equivalent cycles / 1000) * (100 - 80).
If a partial cycle counted as a whole cycle, I'd expect a cycle count of over 500 and a health of a little under 90%. Also remember that there
can be short cycles whilst connected to the charger, if power used, plus losses, exceeds power input, which if counted as full cycles, would drastically affect the the total cycle count.-a All in all, I think you would need a level of-a use which is almost exactly that which can only
be sustained for one day, less the time connected to the charger.-a I'd suggest that many people would be aiming to have a significant amount of capacity left, at the end of the day.
On 27/04/2026 22:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
Mathematically, if you charge your phone once a day,
I think that should read: if you charge your phone from the point where
it has powered down, to avoid over discharge, until the 100% level,
exactly once a day.
I believe that charging from say 30% to 80% would count as half a cycle,
and may actually be equivalent to less than that, in terms of wear on
the battery.
I've got a Samsung A16, which has been charged from about 55 to 60%, up
to 80%, once a day for about a year and a half. The statistics
(Settings | Battery | Battery Information) say the cycle count is 135,
which is not that inconsistent, given that the above figures are approximate. It's quoting a battery health figure of 98%. I assume
that is the same figure as the 80% figure in the standards. I don't
know if it represents an attempt to measure the actual capacity, or is simply: 100 - (equivalent cycles / 1000) * (100 - 80).
If a partial cycle counted as a whole cycle, I'd expect a cycle count of over 500 and a health of a little under 90%. Also remember that there
can be short cycles whilst connected to the charger, if power used, plus losses, exceeds power input, which if counted as full cycles, would drastically affect the the total cycle count. All in all, I think you
would need a level of use which is almost exactly that which can only
be sustained for one day, less the time connected to the charger. I'd suggest that many people would be aiming to have a significant amount of capacity left, at the end of the day.
I think that should read: if you charge your phone from the point where
it has powered down, to avoid over discharge, until the 100% level,
exactly once a day.
I believe that charging from say 30% to 80% would count as half a
cycle, and may actually be equivalent to less than that, in terms of
wear on the battery.
I've got a Samsung A16, which has been charged from about 55 to 60%, up
to 80%, once a day for about a year and a half. The statistics
(Settings | Battery | Battery Information) say the cycle count is 135,
which is not that inconsistent, given that the above figures are approximate. It's quoting a battery health figure of 98%. I assume
that is the same figure as the 80% figure in the standards. I don't
know if it represents an attempt to measure the actual capacity, or is simply: 100 - (equivalent cycles / 1000) * (100 - 80).
If a partial cycle counted as a whole cycle, I'd expect a cycle count
of over 500 and a health of a little under 90%. Also remember that
there can be short cycles whilst connected to the charger, if power
used, plus losses, exceeds power input, which if counted as full
cycles, would drastically affect the the total cycle count. All in
all, I think you would need a level of use which is almost exactly
that which can only be sustained for one day, less the time connected
to the charger. I'd suggest that many people would be aiming to have a significant amount of capacity left, at the end of the day.
rCa
A "cycle" is a full discharge-charge from 100% to 0% to 100% again. If
you charge from 0% to 25% (or 25% to 50%, etc.), then that is basically one-quarter of a cycle.
There is an iPad here (probably "obsolete" now, according to Apple),
which is not mine, but it is charged to 100% at least once a day,
sometimes more, and has been going along fine for years.
On 2026-04-27 22:29:18 +0000, David Woolley said:
I think that should read: if you charge your phone from the point
where it has powered down, to avoid over discharge, until the 100%
level, exactly once a day.
I believe that charging from say 30% to 80% would count as half a
cycle, and may actually be equivalent to less than that, in terms of
wear on the battery.
I've got a Samsung A16, which has been charged from about 55 to 60%,
up to 80%, once a day for about a year and a half.-a The statistics
(Settings | Battery | Battery Information) say the cycle count is 135,
which is not that inconsistent, given that the above figures are
approximate.-a It's quoting a battery health figure of 98%.-a I assume
that is the same figure as the 80% figure in the standards.-a I don't
know if it represents an attempt to measure the actual capacity, or is
simply: 100 - (equivalent cycles / 1000) * (100 - 80).
If a partial cycle counted as a whole cycle, I'd expect a cycle count
of over 500 and a health of a little under 90%. Also remember that
there can be short cycles whilst connected to the charger, if power
used, plus losses, exceeds power input, which if counted as full
cycles, would drastically affect the the total cycle count.-a All in
all, I think you would need a level of-a use which is almost exactly
that which can only be sustained for one day, less the time connected
to the charger.-a I'd suggest that many people would be aiming to have
a significant amount of capacity left, at the end of the day.
A "cycle" is a full discharge-charge from 100% to 0% to 100% again. If
you charge from 0% to 25% (or 25% to 50%, etc.), then that is basically one-quarter of a cycle.
It of course really depends on your own usage patterns, the type of
battery, what "rules" you believe in / want to follow (e.g. keeping the device between 20% and 80%), etc.
Realisitcally, you just do what you have to do. Sometimes you may forget
the cable and the device goes down to zero, or you're going on a long
trip away from power, so charge it up to 100%.
There is an iPad here (probably "obsolete" now, according to Apple),
which is not mine, but it is charged to 100% at least once a day,
sometimes more, and has been going along fine for years.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
rCa
A "cycle" is a full discharge-charge from 100% to 0% to 100% again. If
you charge from 0% to 25% (or 25% to 50%, etc.), then that is basically
one-quarter of a cycle.
IrCOm sure that the deep tech answer is slightly different, but the rule of thumb is pragmatically close enough.
There is an iPad here (probably "obsolete" now, according to Apple),
which is not mine, but it is charged to 100% at least once a day,
sometimes more, and has been going along fine for years.
My current iPad is a 9th generation and has been used heavily over the past
4 years. Checking on it, it claims its battery is at 84%.
Should be good enough for another year or three, although I am starting to notice some sluggishness which probably stems from a combination of lower RAM/hardware for the current iOS, and my own bad housekeeping habits, whereWhy does anyone need to have that many tabs open, I wonder? Either way,
I routinely have 75-100 tabs in Safari.
On 2026-04-27 15:29, David Woolley wrote:
On 27/04/2026 22:49, Maria Sophia wrote:
Mathematically, if you charge your phone once a day,
I think that should read: if you charge your phone from the point
where it has powered down, to avoid over discharge, until the 100%
level, exactly once a day.
I believe that charging from say 30% to 80% would count as half a
cycle, and may actually be equivalent to less than that, in terms of
wear on the battery.
I've got a Samsung A16, which has been charged from about 55 to 60%,
up to 80%, once a day for about a year and a half.-a The statistics
(Settings | Battery | Battery Information) say the cycle count is 135,
which is not that inconsistent, given that the above figures are
approximate.-a It's quoting a battery health figure of 98%.-a I assume
that is the same figure as the 80% figure in the standards.-a I don't
know if it represents an attempt to measure the actual capacity, or is
simply: 100 - (equivalent cycles / 1000) * (100 - 80).
If a partial cycle counted as a whole cycle, I'd expect a cycle count
of over 500 and a health of a little under 90%. Also remember that
there can be short cycles whilst connected to the charger, if power
used, plus losses, exceeds power input, which if counted as full
cycles, would drastically affect the the total cycle count.-a All in
all, I think you would need a level of-a use which is almost exactly
that which can only be sustained for one day, less the time connected
to the charger.-a I'd suggest that many people would be aiming to have
a significant amount of capacity left, at the end of the day.
I've had an iPhone 16 since December of 2024. I've put it on a charge
each night when I went to bed.
That's 503 nights.
According to iOS's battery information:
Cycle Count: 285
Maximum Capacity: 95% of original
At this rate, my battery will get down to 80% of it's original capacity
in another 4 years, 1 month and 17 days.
By which time, I will have moved on to another iPhone.
:-)
On 2026-04-28 7:37 a.m., -hh wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
rCa
A "cycle" is a full discharge-charge from 100% to 0% to 100% again. If
you charge from 0% to 25% (or 25% to 50%, etc.), then that is basically
one-quarter of a cycle.
IrCOm sure that the deep tech answer is slightly different, but the rule of >> thumb is pragmatically close enough.
There is an iPad here (probably "obsolete" now, according to Apple),
which is not mine, but it is charged to 100% at least once a day,
sometimes more, and has been going along fine for years.
My current iPad is a 9th generation and has been used heavily over the past >> 4 years. Checking on it, it claims its battery is at 84%.
After four years with my iPhone, it's at 86% health. Mind you, it's been
at 86% health for a while now... probably two years. Not bad for a
"crappy" battery.
Should be good enough for another year or three, although I am starting to >> notice some sluggishness which probably stems from a combination of lower
RAM/hardware for the current iOS, and my own bad housekeeping habits, where >> I routinely have 75-100 tabs in Safari.
Why does anyone need to have that many tabs open, I wonder?
Either way,
I've recently made the switch to Safari as my main browser on the Mac.
For the PCs I own, I will continue to use Brave but only because there
is no PC version of Safari. Once I found out about the iCloud relay on Safari if you have an iCloud account, I was sold. It also seems to drain
a lot less than competing browsers.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:I currently have 28 Safari windows open with anywhere from 3 to...
On 2026-04-28 7:37 a.m., -hh wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
rCa
A "cycle" is a full discharge-charge from 100% to 0% to 100% again. If >>>> you charge from 0% to 25% (or 25% to 50%, etc.), then that is basically >>>> one-quarter of a cycle.
IrCOm sure that the deep tech answer is slightly different, but the rule of >>> thumb is pragmatically close enough.
There is an iPad here (probably "obsolete" now, according to Apple),
which is not mine, but it is charged to 100% at least once a day,
sometimes more, and has been going along fine for years.
My current iPad is a 9th generation and has been used heavily over the past >>> 4 years. Checking on it, it claims its battery is at 84%.
After four years with my iPhone, it's at 86% health. Mind you, it's been
at 86% health for a while now... probably two years. Not bad for a
"crappy" battery.
Should be good enough for another year or three, although I am starting to >>> notice some sluggishness which probably stems from a combination of lower >>> RAM/hardware for the current iOS, and my own bad housekeeping habits, where >>> I routinely have 75-100 tabs in Safari.
Why does anyone need to have that many tabs open, I wonder?
IrCOll freely admit that itrCOs just being lazy. IrCOll have something that IrCOm
reading, but something else comes up, so rather than using Bookmark or Reading List, IrCOll just leave the tab as-is and open a new tab for whateverrCOs at hand. The prior stuff builds up / gets forgotten. When IrCOm
prompted to, IrCOll go back to close tabsrCabut what can often happen is that I
resume reading the page.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:05:58 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,561 |
