From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-04, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 22:35:16 -0000 (UTC), Marion <marion@facts.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 20:10:53 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

Is it just the word ´dismal¡ you object to or are you dismissing
the fact that Apple batteries are inferior because a B grade is
better than a C or D grade?

I object to the use of "dismal". If they are grade "B", there are
worse classifications, as C, D, E...

You don't like the word dismal?

Then pick any word you like for Apple lying to you about iPhone
efficiency.

Deceitful... duplicitous... despicable... dishonest...
disassembling... deceptive... discrepant...

Christ. Is there a grown-up version of these newsgroups?

Not since Marion (under his many, many different nyms) and his buddies
started trolling the Apple newsgroups on the regular, no. I'll hand it
to them: they have successfully converted the Apple news groups into troll-infested *.advocacy groups. Useful conversations are completely
drowned out by their continuous trolls. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

Jolly Roger appears to have wrote:

Useful conversations are completely
drowned out by their continuous trolls

Says the biggest troll of them all.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:45:49 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

I'm always stating facts, and the fact is the iPhone earned a B.
Meanwhile, plenty of Android's earned an A.

Many were also graded far lower.

I'm not sure why you're stating the glaringly obvious, Chris.
As if there's some hidden meaning in it that only you get but nobody else.

Is it because you just don't get the point of why a B matters to Apple?

How hard is this for you to understand a fundamental concept, Chris?
1. Apple touted, for years, their supposedly superior efficiency.
2. Even as nobody (yes, nobody) could ever reproduce it, save for Apple.
3. And then, Apple pays a 3rd part to reproduce it (in effect).
And they can't.

The point, Chris is Apple touted an efficiency that doesn't exist.

Those are just facts.
Apple zealots may dislike those facts, but they're still facts.

The facts are no iphone is rated below a B. Plenty of Androids are.

The point isn't that a twenty-dollar Android couldn't earn an A, Chris.
The point is APPLE couldn't earn an A.

When you tie those facts into Apple's advertising,

Which you've never substantiated. Like all your other claims.

Jesus Christ Chris. You and Alan Baker must be the only two people on this planet who have never heard Apple's oft-touted claims of efficiency.

Do you want me to substantiate that the sun comes up in the morning, Chris?

And yet, that efficiency doesn't exist, right?

Wrong.

You MAGA zealots (Make Apple Great Again) think that by denying everything,
is a perfectly good rebuttal to facts that everyone can plainly see, Chris.

Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669
Enter "Apple" in the "Brand or trademark" field.

Look for an efficiency rating of A, Chris.
It doesn't exist.

Certainly the iPhone not more efficient than the Android models that I had >> listed, all of which earned an A,

You're conflating your obsession of batteries with the overall grading
scheme which covers five aspects. Only two of which relate to the battery.

We recently covered batteries in gory detail in a different thread, Chris. Specifically daily run time on a perfectly good brand-new battery.
*Just facts - from EPREL on overall mobile device endurance*
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=60133&group=comp.mobile.android#60133>

Hint: You'll be shocked. Shocked I say. At how well Apple did.
(Which, by the way, proves I'm eminently fair to both sides of the story.)

An A vs B comparison may have *nothing* to do with the battery, but
something else completely.

This is very true so it impresses me, Chris, that you understand that.

For those who claim I'm not fair (simply because I state facts about Apple products that they're unaware of, and which they apparently hate, please
see the aforementioned thread, where Apple does win in some battery areas.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 17:14:25 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

The point isn't that a twenty-dollar Android couldn't earn an A, Chris.
The point is APPLE couldn't earn an A.

Did you even read their report? They quite easily could have graded their phones as A, but chose not to due to the ambiguity of the test results.

Jesus Christ, Chris. I already talked about that at length.
Why is it that you get nothing the first, second or even the third time.

I said it was brilliant, Chris, for Apple to cast aspersions on a process
that they themselves had approved, agreed upon and knew about for years.

You're like MAGA people when Trump lost the election in an election process that everyone had agreed is the election - and then - when Trump lost - he cries the election process was rigged - casting aspersions on the whole process.

What they did was try to find something, anything - it didn't matter what - such as people putting boxes on the floor - and then they cast aspersions
on the whole process by "proving people put boxes on the floor".

What Apple is doing is no different, Chris, which is why you are MAGA.
You're repeating Apple's baseless aspersions as if they are truth.

Apple didn't say which (of the scores, hundreds, maybe even thousands) of
tests that they "voluntarily downgraded", but by NOT mentioning which, they cast aspersions on the whole process - just because they lost the election.

You don't see that because you're MAGA Chris, but there's nobody
intelligent who doesn't see it since Apple didn't state WHAT they
downgraded. Hell, they could have not liked the fonts for Christ's sake.

We *know* Apple truncated the brand-new endurance scores, so now that gives them the backing to say they "voluntarily downgraded" them, but I already
ran the math on 20 Samsung models, 5 Google models & 19 Apple models.

Even though Apple alone truncated the endurance, it makes no difference in
the average, Chris. Which is the main point of why Apple is so brilliant.

You and the rest of the uneducated MAGA Apple trolls believe Apple when
they say they don't like the fonts so EVERYTHING - by association - is
wrong - just like Rudy Guiliani did - but it's BS, Chris. You are MAGA.

These are facts:
a. Apple alone couldn't earn an A in efficiency.
b. Apple declared they didn't like the fonts (or whatever they didn't say)
c. Because Apple didn't like fonts, Apple says the whole process is rigged

While it's clever marketing, it's not only absurd for you to fall for it,
but it's duplicitous since Apple was part of the process all along.

It's no different than MAGA people saying the election was rigged.

When you tie those facts into Apple's advertising,

Which you've never substantiated. Like all your other claims.

Jesus Christ Chris. You and Alan Baker must be the only two people on this >> planet who have never heard Apple's oft-touted claims of efficiency.

Hardly.

Chris,
What makes you an uneducated ignorant Apple troll is that you can't look up anything. You are in the same category as Alan Baker is.

You dispute everything.
Yet you know nothing.

But worse, you look up nothing.
That's why you are what you are.

Do you want me to substantiate that the sun comes up in the morning, Chris?

I can understand why you're going for hyperbole. You are getting caught
out.

Jesus Christ. You're seriously claiming that you're completely ignorant of
what Apple has been touting for at least a decade for the iPhone, Chris?

Seriously?

Anyone that ignorant has no right whatsoever to declare ANYTHING false.

Look for an efficiency rating of A, Chris.
It doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist for *any* phone, numbnuts. Efficiency is not part of the
EU rating.

This Apple battery efficiency claim is simply a fever dream of yours.

Huh? Did you read the explanation of the ratings Chris?
They use the word "efficiency" in those explanations.

Seriously, you worry me. Not so much your ignorance as all Apple trolls are ignorant. Nor so much as you can't look anything up. As that's MAGA of you.

But you dispute what NOBODY intelligent would dispute, Chris.
It's what makes you the MAGA Apple troll that you are.

Hint: You'll be shocked. Shocked I say. At how well Apple did.

Doubt it.

Actually, if you look at only smartphones, and if you remove tablets, Apple
did surprisingly well. Notice I proved that. Because I'm all about facts.

Samsung kicked the pants off of Apple in tablets; but not in iPhones.
Fancy that.

I'm all about facts.
You're MAGA. I'm not.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-04 09:24, Marion wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 03:20:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

You don't like the word dismal?

Then pick any word you like for Apple lying to you about iPhone efficiency. >>>
Deceitful... duplicitous... despicable... dishonest... disassembling...
deceptive... discrepant...

Dishonest. You, that is, for using those words dishonestly.

I'm always stating facts, and the fact is the iPhone earned a B.
Meanwhile, plenty of Android's earned an A.

Sure.

It is just a B instead of A. That is not "dismal" It is "worse than".
Just a bit worse than, one level. Not five. Five levels down would be
dismal.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:59:38 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

It is just a B instead of A. That is not "dismal" It is "worse than".
Just a bit worse than, one level. Not five. Five levels down would be dismal.

Nobody disagrees that it's "just a B" instead of an "A" in efficiency.
That's the whole point. Apple couldn't earn an A while others did.
Even as Apple has touted their legendary "efficiency" for years.

You think the "big deal" is Apple earned a "B".
But the big deal is that Apple lied.

Knowing Apple lied all these years, call it whatever word you want.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-05 17:36, Marion wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:59:38 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

It is just a B instead of A. That is not "dismal" It is "worse than".
Just a bit worse than, one level. Not five. Five levels down would be
dismal.

Nobody disagrees that it's "just a B" instead of an "A" in efficiency.
That's the whole point. Apple couldn't earn an A while others did.

Actually, Apple explicitly states their phones DID earn an "A".

Even as Apple has touted their legendary "efficiency" for years.

You think the "big deal" is Apple earned a "B".
But the big deal is that Apple lied.

Knowing Apple lied all these years, call it whatever word you want.

'For example, Energy Efficiency Index scores for iPhone models on the EU market in June 2025 all qualified for the highest rCLArCY grade, but Apple chose to voluntarily derate scores to a rCLBrCY grade to minimize the probability that a third-party tester interpreting the regulation
differently would achieve a lower grade.'

<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

Page 9
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-05 13:14, Chris wrote:

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:45:49 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

I'm always stating facts, and the fact is the iPhone earned a B.
Meanwhile, plenty of Android's earned an A.

Many were also graded far lower.

I'm not sure why you're stating the glaringly obvious, Chris.
As if there's some hidden meaning in it that only you get but nobody else. >>
Is it because you just don't get the point of why a B matters to Apple?

How hard is this for you to understand a fundamental concept, Chris?
1. Apple touted, for years, their supposedly superior efficiency.
2. Even as nobody (yes, nobody) could ever reproduce it, save for Apple.
3. And then, Apple pays a 3rd part to reproduce it (in effect).
And they can't.

The point, Chris is Apple touted an efficiency that doesn't exist.

Those are just facts.
Apple zealots may dislike those facts, but they're still facts.

The facts are no iphone is rated below a B. Plenty of Androids are.

The point isn't that a twenty-dollar Android couldn't earn an A, Chris.
The point is APPLE couldn't earn an A.

Did you even read their report? They quite easily could have graded their phones as A, but chose not to due to the ambiguity of the test results.

When you tie those facts into Apple's advertising,

Which you've never substantiated. Like all your other claims.

Jesus Christ Chris. You and Alan Baker must be the only two people on this >> planet who have never heard Apple's oft-touted claims of efficiency.

Hardly.

Do you want me to substantiate that the sun comes up in the morning, Chris?

I can understand why you're going for hyperbole. You are getting caught
out.

And yet, that efficiency doesn't exist, right?

Wrong.

You MAGA zealots (Make Apple Great Again) think that by denying everything, >> is a perfectly good rebuttal to facts that everyone can plainly see, Chris. >>
Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669 >> Enter "Apple" in the "Brand or trademark" field.

Look for an efficiency rating of A, Chris.
It doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist for *any* phone, numbnuts. Efficiency is not part of the
EU rating.

This Apple battery efficiency claim is simply a fever dream of yours.

To be fair to always-wrong Arlen, their apparently IS an efficiency
score and Apple acknowledges as much:

<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

'Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) normalizes the measured Battery Endurance
per Cycle by the devicerCOs battery capacity to yield an energy efficiency score that is independent of the battery capacity.'
(Page 10)

'Energy Efficiency Index (EEI)

While the Battery Endurance per Cycle metric will be a function of the devicerCOs energy efficiency and battery capacity (i.e. larger batteries
will lead to proportionally larger Battery Endurance per Cycle values),
the EEI score is intended to present consumers with a normalized rCo and, therefore, comparable rCo metric on energy efficiency. The EEI score is represented as a grade from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient).
The EEI score is calculated by dividing the Battery Endurance per Cycle duration, in hours, by the battery capacity, in Watt-hours, as shown in
the equation on the left.'
(Page 12).

Certainly the iPhone not more efficient than the Android models that I had >>>> listed, all of which earned an A,

You're conflating your obsession of batteries with the overall grading
scheme which covers five aspects. Only two of which relate to the battery. >>

We recently covered batteries in gory detail in a different thread, Chris. >> Specifically daily run time on a perfectly good brand-new battery.
*Just facts - from EPREL on overall mobile device endurance*
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=60133&group=comp.mobile.android#60133>

Hint: You'll be shocked. Shocked I say. At how well Apple did.

Doubt it.

It is interesting to note that if you look at all the Samsung phones in
the EU's website (13 in all are listed)...

...only 3 of them surpass Apple iPhones' efficiency index.

Arlen made much of the aggregate scores for battery endurance...

...so maybe he'd be as interested in averages for efficiency!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 16:05:57 -0400, Alan wrote:

'For example, Energy Efficiency Index scores for iPhone models on the EU market in June 2025 all qualified for the highest |Ai grade, but Apple
chose to voluntarily derate scores to a |Bi grade to minimize the probability that a third-party tester interpreting the regulation differently would achieve a lower grade.'

When only we counted the vote we won the election but when everyone else counted the votes we always lost so we voluntarily conceded the election.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2