From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-02 04:18, Alan wrote:

On 2025-07-01 14:46, Marion wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :

Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.

Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.

You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B.
I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad.

Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.

Incorrect:-a they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on
this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.

I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy
batteries.

And the lying continues.

A "B" score on an A-G scale...

...isn't dismal.

Absolutely correct.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-07-02 04:18, Alan wrote:

On 2025-07-01 14:46, Marion wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :

Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.

Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.

You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B.
I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad.

Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.

Incorrect:-a they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on >>>> this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.

I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy
batteries.

And the lying continues.

A "B" score on an A-G scale...

...isn't dismal.

Absolutely correct.

Is it just the word rCLdismalrCY 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?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-03 08:55, badgolferman wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-07-02 04:18, Alan wrote:

On 2025-07-01 14:46, Marion wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :

Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.

Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.

You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B. >>>> I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad. >>>>

Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.

Incorrect:-a they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on >>>>> this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.

I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy
batteries.

And the lying continues.

A "B" score on an A-G scale...

...isn't dismal.

Absolutely correct.

Is it just the word rCLdismalrCY 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?

What objective evidence have you seen that "Apple batteries are inferior"?

And I object to the word "dismal", because a grade of "B" on an A-G
scale doesn't match the definition of the word.

You agree with that factual assessment, right?

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

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-03 17:55, badgolferman wrote:

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2025-07-02 04:18, Alan wrote:

On 2025-07-01 14:46, Marion wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :

Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.

Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.

You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B. >>>> I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad. >>>>

Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.

Incorrect:-a they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on >>>>> this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.

I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy
batteries.

And the lying continues.

A "B" score on an A-G scale...

...isn't dismal.

Absolutely correct.

Is it just the word rCLdismalrCY 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...
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

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

Is it just the word |dismali 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...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 15:55:15 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :

Is it just the word |dismali 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?

Hi badgolferman,

The Apple trolls think the point is that the iPhone earned a B.
That's not the point.

Or, the Apple trolls think they can get around the lousy score by using a different adjective for why Apple lied all these years about efficiency.

The point is Apple lied.
Apple said, for years, they had better efficiency.

Yeah, sure. Better efficiency than a twenty-dollar Android perhaps.
But almost every Android OEM had better efficiency than the iPhone.


That's the point.
Apple lied.

There is no efficiency.
I'm shocked. Shocked I say.

How could Apple have lied to us all these years.
That's the point.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-03 15:38, Marion wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 15:55:15 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :

Is it just the word -|dismal-i 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?

Hi badgolferman,

The Apple trolls think the point is that the iPhone earned a B.
That's not the point.

Or, the Apple trolls think they can get around the lousy score by using a different adjective for why Apple lied all these years about efficiency.

The point is Apple lied.
Apple said, for years, they had better efficiency.

Yeah, sure. Better efficiency than a twenty-dollar Android perhaps.
But almost every Android OEM had better efficiency than the iPhone.

That's the point.
Apple lied.

There is no efficiency.
I'm shocked. Shocked I say.

How could Apple have lied to us all these years.
That's the point.

Apple's iPhones clearly DO have greater efficiency.

This is evidenced by the fact that iPhones with smaller batteries have
run times greater than other smartphones with larger batteries.

(And Quisling, by your rules you're not allowed to point out that I've provided no support here for that claim)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-03 15:35, Marion wrote:

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

Is it just the word -|dismal-i 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...

It's not lying.

Apple CHOSE to derate their devices to a "B" rating.

This is easily seen in that EVERY Apple device in the EU database is
listed with an endurance time that is an even number of hours.

<https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669>

Add "Apple" as a "Brand or trademark" and see for yourself.

19 devices listed and every single one has an endurance that ends in
"00min".

Since logic (you love "logic", right!) tell us that Apple would never be allowed to round the numbers UP for their products, they are clearly
rounding them down.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On 2025-07-04 00:35, Marion wrote:

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

Is it just the word -|dismal-i 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...

Dishonest. You, that is, for using those words dishonestly.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

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.

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

When you tie those facts into Apple's advertising, that's where the
duplicity arises - where you know I dislike when marketing lies to us.

Everyone who knows anything about the iPhone is aware that Apple has been touting an efficiency over and above that of everyone else, right?

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

Certainly the iPhone not more efficient than the Android models that I had listed, all of which earned an A, although I'm sure that iPhone is more efficient than many twenty-dollar Androids are from the same OEMs.

What word would you use to describe Apple's oft-repeated marketing claim of superior efficiency knowing that not a single iPhone could earn an A?
--
Note: The term twenty-dollar Androids is used because Apple religious
zealots love to compare a $1K iPhone to that of a cheap Android.

Also, only a fool believes Apple's excuses that the same testing company
that everyone else used gave results that Apple didn't agree with while no other OEM felt the need to make such lame excuses about their efficiency, especially since Apple was part of the years-long process of these
regulations, and none of it was a surprise to Apple - but note - the iPhone
17 is rumored in the news today to actually have a modern-sized battery.
Fancy that. Apple can improve when regulations prove their batteries suck.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

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 |dismali 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?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2