From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile
I may be a bit slow here but I'm getting the impression that you don't
like Apple products very much?
Well, you're entitled to your opinion but I have to ask, who invited you
to voice it here, a place where less vitriolic patrons enjoy the
exchange of informative, meaningful conversations?
Might I suggest that you remember the old adage... "It is better to
remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
I would enjoy hearing about your real, personal, experiences with your
Apple products rather than, I suspect, your perceptions and biased views
with no basis of fact.
As a long term Apple owner/user, MacBook, iPad x 2, iPhone, Apple TV and AirTags, I can only say that I have no problem with their products with
regard to battery life or function.
From a totally happy iOS, MacOS and Linux user of many years!
On 11/09/2025 22:26, Marion wrote:
Thanks to both the EU & UK for forcing Apple to finally tell the truth...
Even though Apple publicly committed to the EU 2023/1669 testing procedures that took effect in June 2025, for the second time, Apple still spins lies.
None of the other major phone OEMs have made public excuses like Apple did. Just Apple.
Notably sans public excuses for poor performance, Samsung, Fairphone,
Google and Xiaomi all complied with the EU's new energy labeling regulation without issuing any statements that resemble Apple's "voluntary downgrade" narrative.
a. Fairphone leaned into the regulation, proudly showcasing their Class A repairability and durability scores as a competitive advantage.
b. Samsung and Google submitted their devices for third-party testing and published results without disclaimers or caveats.
c. Xiaomi quietly complied, focusing more on battery endurance and IP
ratings than spinning the results.
Apple's many excuses for years of lying stand out because Apple's lame excuses, that nobody else felt were needed, introduced ambiguity where the
EU was trying to create clarity.
The whole point of the efficiency label is to give consumers standardized, independently verified data and not internal non-reproduceable metrics from
a secret lab in Cupertino that nobody can talk to or ask what they do.
Apple is the only OEM that wrapped its scores in a narrative of "caution"
and "internal superiority," while others simply let the numbers speak for themselves.
The reason Apple can't do that is Apple's lawyers have to back up that
Apple brazenly lied about their imaginary efficiency for years & years.
So now, Apple has to back up their lies with excuses nobody else makes.
Apple claims only Unit 404 can test an iPhone to reliably achieve an A.
Unit 404 hidden deep under the Cupertino spaceship is staffed by aliens.
None of them can be asked to produce the testing procedures & test results.
While the Apple trolls claim Apple never claimed they had decent
efficiency, even as the word "efficiency" is used more than a dozen times
in every 9-page Apple product description over the past few years, Gizmodo says outright the following comments they attribute to Apple management:
"Apple emphasized all the extra work it did to maximize
battery efficiency."
REFERENCE:
*What's the Real Difference Between the iPhone Air and iPhone 16?* <https://gizmodo.com/difference-between-apple-iphone-air-and-iphone-16-2000656101>
Even with all the years of Apple's lies about efficiency, they finally did it, just as I said they would given I study Apple's marketing strategies.
Model Eff Endur Cycles FallRes Repair
----------------------------------------------------
iPhone 17 A 46h 1000 B(180) C
iPhone 17 Pro A 50h 1000 B(180) C
iPhone 17 ProMx A 53h 1000 B(180) C
iPhone Air A 40h 1000 B(180) C
--
Andy
"Do only that which is right and may your God go with you..."
"By reading this post, you acknowledge that I may later claim I had a
point, plan or plausible deniability. Terms subject to change!"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2