| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:05:20 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,683 |
If anyone *still* can't find the discussions after *looking* in those >>archives, then ask me to find them for you - but - expect to be frowned >>upon
... by you, maybe. I think he's right. Post evidence for your claim, already. It should have taken less time than your posting of links to "archives".
P.S. I've never owned an Apple product in my life.
Specifically, all smartphones and tablets sold in the EU from June 20,Nope.
2025, must have sufficiently durable batteries capable of enduring at least 800 full charge-discharge cycles while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity. This is a significant standard mainly designed to counter Apple's strategy of putting the cheapest battery they can in the iPhone.
From June 20, 2025, all new smartphones and tablets will be required to carry a new label inside the product packaging. This label will display information on battery life, energy efficiency, and repairability. The battery section will show the number of charge cycles the battery is rated for before losing more than 20% of its original capacity.
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first proposed. Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for apple.
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first proposed.
Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for apple.
Specifically, all smartphones and tablets sold in the EU from June 20,and-tablets_en
2025, must have sufficiently durable batteries capable of enduring at
least 800 full charge-discharge cycles while retaining at least 80% of
their initial capacity. This is a significant standard mainly designed
to counter Apple's strategy of putting the cheapest battery they can in
the iPhone.
From June 20, 2025, all new smartphones and tablets will be required to
carry a new label inside the product packaging. This label will display information on battery life, energy efficiency, and repairability. The battery section will show the number of charge cycles the battery is
rated for before losing more than 20% of its original capacity.
Manufacturers must ensure that critical spare parts, including
batteries,
are available for up to seven years after the product is no longer sold.
They must also provide non-discriminatory access to repair software for professional technicians.
While the initial focus in June 2025 is on durability and easier repair,
the EU also has a broader Batteries Regulation that requires portable batteries to be easily removable and replaceable by the end user at any
time during the product's lifetime. This specific requirement is set to
come into force on February 18, 2027. However, there are narrow
exemptions for devices with certain durability ratings (like IP67 water
and dust resistance) that retain 83% capacity after 500 cycles and 80%
after 1000 cycles, potentially allowing Apple to cleverly avoid the
fully user-removable battery mandate.
The reaqosn it's important to prevent Apple from cleverly circumventing
the mandate is Apple hates its customer base so much it used to be the
only time Applke ever told the truth was in court. Yet, it turns out
Apple lies even then as Apple brazenly lies even in court in order to
defend why Apple shoves a non-greased pole up its customer's bung hole
for pure profit.
(See links in the sig where Apple no longer even tells the truth in
court!)
While Android phones typically double the EU's minimum lifetime
requirements, no Apple phone had ever even come close when these rules
were proposed years ago - but Apple (after requesting an extension) was
able to eke the iPhone 15 and up to the barest minimum battery-lifetime standards.
So the EU will allow Apple to sell the iPhone 15 and newer, but since
Apple puts the crappiest batteries in iPhones as part of their basic
strategy of customers standing in line at the Apple store to ditch their
old decrepit iPhone, no other iPhones will be allowed to be sold by
Apple in the EU.
REFERENCES: https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-
https://www.gsmarena.com/smartphones_and_tablets_to_get_a_new_label_in_june_indicating_battery_life_and_efficiency-
https://www.enhesa.com/resources/article/batteries-101-eu-regulations/ https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/5-ways-eu-scientists-are-making-batteries-better-safer-and-greener-2022-07-20_en
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first proposed. Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for apple.
Specifically, all smartphones and tablets sold in the EU from June 20,
2025, must have sufficiently durable batteries capable of enduring at least 800 full charge-discharge cycles while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity. This is a significant standard mainly designed to counter Apple's strategy of putting the cheapest battery they can in the iPhone.
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first proposed. >> Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for apple.
Source? Post a credible link, and not a link to an Arlen post in Usenet.
An article by the BBC, Le Monde, would be perfect.
If you post a link to an Usenet post by Arlen, then you are another
Arlen alias, and thus ignored.
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first proposed. >> Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for apple.
Source? Post a credible link, and not a link to an Arlen post in Usenet. An article by the BBC, Le Monde, would be perfect.
If you post a link to an Usenet post by Arlen, then you are another
Arlen alias, and thus ignored.
Given Apple published their response to the EU rules and knowing those
rules go into effect on June 20th, you'll find your answer simply by
waiting until then and watch every Apple iPhone being forbidden for sale in the EU after that date except for two models.
Two models.
And only two models.
Since you can't find the answer now, try to buy an iPhone 14 in the EU
after that date and you'll find your answer out.
Even the iPhone 15 only met the rules because Apple changed the algorithm. https://www.fudzilla.com/news/mobile/58502-apple-fiddles-with-its-battery-lifespan-adverts-to-dodge-eu-rules
Didn't we regain independence from the Socialist Republic of Europeland?
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:Source? Post a credible link, and not a link to an Arlen post in Usenet.
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first proposed. >>> Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for apple. >>
An article by the BBC, Le Monde, would be perfect.
If you post a link to an Usenet post by Arlen, then you are another
Arlen alias, and thus ignored.
Given Apple published their response to the EU rules and knowing those
rules go into effect on June 20th, you'll find your answer simply by
waiting until then and watch every Apple iPhone being forbidden for sale in the EU after that date except for two models.
Two models.
And only two models.
Since you can't find the answer now, try to buy an iPhone 14 in the EU
after that date and you'll find your answer out.
Even the iPhone 15 only met the rules because Apple changed the algorithm. https://www.fudzilla.com/news/mobile/58502-apple-fiddles-with-its-battery-lifespan-adverts-to-dodge-eu-rules
I'm surprised the EU allowed Apple that subterfuge, but if Apple didn't change the algorithm, it would have only been one model allowed for sale.
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first
proposed.
Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for
apple.
Source? Post a credible link, and not a link to an Arlen post in
Usenet. An article by the BBC, Le Monde, would be perfect.
If you post a link to an Usenet post by Arlen, then you are another
Arlen alias, and thus ignored.
Given Apple published their response to the EU rules and knowing those
rules go into effect on June 20th, you'll find your answer simply by
waiting until then and watch every Apple iPhone being forbidden for sale in the EU after that date except for two models.
Two models. And only two models.
Since you can't find the answer now, try to buy an iPhone 14 in the EU
after that date and you'll find your answer out.
Even the iPhone 15 only met the rules because Apple changed the algorithm. https://www.fudzilla.com/news/mobile/58502-apple-fiddles-with-its- battery-lifespan-adverts-to-dodge-eu-rules
I'm surprised the EU allowed Apple that subterfuge, but if Apple didn't change the algorithm, it would have only been one model allowed for sale.--
No need to respond now.
Wait and see what Apple can no longer sell after June 20th, 2025.
This is good for the consumer. Bad for Apple. People can now keep their phones longer before the batteries die.
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first
proposed.
Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for
apple.
Source? Post a credible link, and not a link to an Arlen post in
Usenet. An article by the BBC, Le Monde, would be perfect.
If you post a link to an Usenet post by Arlen, then you are another
Arlen alias, and thus ignored.
Given Apple published their response to the EU rules and knowing those
rules go into effect on June 20th, you'll find your answer simply by
waiting until then and watch every Apple iPhone being forbidden for sale in the EU after that date except for two models.
Two models. And only two models.
Since you can't find the answer now, try to buy an iPhone 14 in the EU
after that date and you'll find your answer out.
Even the iPhone 15 only met the rules because Apple changed the algorithm. https://www.fudzilla.com/news/mobile/58502-apple-fiddles-with-its- battery-lifespan-adverts-to-dodge-eu-rules
I'm surprised the EU allowed Apple that subterfuge, but if Apple didn't change the algorithm, it would have only been one model allowed for sale.
No need to respond now.
Wait and see what Apple can no longer sell after June 20th, 2025.
This is good for the consumer. Bad for Apple. People can now keep their phones longer before the batteries die.
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:Source? Post a credible link, and not a link to an Arlen post in Usenet.
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first proposed. >>> Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for apple. >>
An article by the BBC, Le Monde, would be perfect.
If you post a link to an Usenet post by Arlen, then you are another
Arlen alias, and thus ignored.
Given Apple published their response to the EU rules
and knowing those
rules go into effect on June 20th, you'll find your answer simply by
waiting
the EU after that date except for two models.
Two models.
And only two models.
Since you can't find the answer now, try to buy an iPhone 14 in the EU
after that date and you'll find your answer out.
Even the iPhone 15 only met the rules because Apple changed the algorithm. https://www.fudzilla.com/news/mobile/58502-apple-fiddles-with-its-battery-lifespan-adverts-to-dodge-eu-rules
I'm surprised the EU allowed Apple that subterfuge, but if Apple didn't change the algorithm, it would have only been one model allowed for sale.
No need to respond now.
Wait and see what Apple can no longer sell after June 20th, 2025.
This is good for the consumer. Bad for Apple.
People can now keep their phones longer before the batteries die.
Hank <hankrobins@notspam.uk> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:Source? Post a credible link, and not a link to an Arlen post in Usenet. >>> An article by the BBC, Le Monde, would be perfect.
But when examining how long a battery's life will be, you need to
examine both the battery's capacity...
All iphones failed the eu's minimum battery life test when first proposed. >>>> Take it up with the eu if you want them to change the test just for apple. >>>
If you post a link to an Usenet post by Arlen, then you are another
Arlen alias, and thus ignored.
Given Apple published their response to the EU rules
When was that and where?
and knowing those
rules go into effect on June 20th, you'll find your answer simply by
waiting
This is the future. You claimed Apple had failed in the past. Where's your evidence?
until then and watch every Apple iPhone being forbidden for sale in
the EU after that date except for two models.
Two models.
And only two models.
You make it sound like it's a huge attrition. Apple only sells four models
in total and three of which there are less than a year old. I'd be very surprised.
Since you can't find the answer now, try to buy an iPhone 14 in the EU
after that date and you'll find your answer out.
You can't buy one anywhere in the world from Apple! That model was discontinued in February 2025. It was also removed from sale in December
2024 in the EU because it didn't have a USB-C port.
Even the iPhone 15 only met the rules because Apple changed the algorithm. >> https://www.fudzilla.com/news/mobile/58502-apple-fiddles-with-its-battery-lifespan-adverts-to-dodge-eu-rules
Ignoring your choice of "source" for the time being, there can be perfectly valid reasons for the update.
For example, there could have been a draft spec which stated the limit was 500 cycles and so Apple declares that they meet it. Even if they know their phones can last much longer (i.e. >1000). Then, the spec is finalised at
1000 so Apple update their declaration to state that they *also* meet that spec.
Another, could be purely commercial. At 500 cycles they know they'll have a 0.01% failure rate which will likely cost them $X million in warrantee returns. At 1000 cycles it may be a 0.03% failure rate which will cost them $Y million. They simply accept the $Y or $X as a cost to the business.
Finally, it's also possible the testing criteria by the EU were less stringent than Apple's when finalised and so the numbers were updated accordingly.
I'm surprised the EU allowed Apple that subterfuge, but if Apple didn't
change the algorithm, it would have only been one model allowed for sale.
Note: the above article is from Feb 2024. 3/4 currently available iphones were released since then. In full knowledge of the requirements coming in next month.
No need to respond now.
Wait and see what Apple can no longer sell after June 20th, 2025.
I predict no change.
This is good for the consumer. Bad for Apple.
People can now keep their phones longer before the batteries die.
Apple phones are already supported for longer and have been for years than other manufacturers. So Apple customers will likely experience very little change.
That isn't to say that these regulations - for batteries for a wide range
of consumer items - are not welcome. It'll get rid of all cheap tat
flooding the market and ending up in landfill within a year or two.
Much to yours and Arlen's dismay, Apple isn't the bad guy that the EU is targeting.
On 2025-05-27 11:44, Chris wrote:
Hank <hankrobins@notspam.uk> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
You're assuming that "Hank" is a distinct person from Arlen...
On 2025-05-27 20:58, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-27 11:44, Chris wrote:
Hank <hankrobins@notspam.uk> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
...
You're assuming that "Hank" is a distinct person from Arlen...
I don't know yet, but it is certainly possible. He appeared on March on
this Android group. All 4 posts from him supporting Arlen.
On 2025-05-27 13:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2025-05-27 20:58, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-27 11:44, Chris wrote:
Hank <hankrobins@notspam.uk> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
...
You're assuming that "Hank" is a distinct person from Arlen...
I don't know yet, but it is certainly possible. He appeared on March on this Android group. All 4 posts from him supporting Arlen.
Also, his "speech patterns" seem very familiar.
:-)
In uk.telecom.mobile Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 13:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2025-05-27 20:58, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-27 11:44, Chris wrote:
Hank <hankrobins@notspam.uk> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
...
You're assuming that "Hank" is a distinct person from Arlen...
I don't know yet, but it is certainly possible. He appeared on March on
this Android group. All 4 posts from him supporting Arlen.
Also, his "speech patterns" seem very familiar.
:-)
I think you can assume that any new poster who shows up out of the blue with... a certain argumentative stance - is an Arlen sock.
The content doesn't change even if the name at the top does.
In uk.telecom.mobile Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 13:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2025-05-27 20:58, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-27 11:44, Chris wrote:
Hank <hankrobins@notspam.uk> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
...
You're assuming that "Hank" is a distinct person from Arlen...
I don't know yet, but it is certainly possible. He appeared on March on this Android group. All 4 posts from him supporting Arlen.
Also, his "speech patterns" seem very familiar.
:-)
I think you can assume that any new poster who shows up out of the blue with... a certain argumentative stance - is an Arlen sock.
The content doesn't change even if the name at the top does.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In uk.telecom.mobile Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 13:37, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2025-05-27 20:58, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-27 11:44, Chris wrote:
Hank <hankrobins@notspam.uk> wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote to us on Tue, 27 May 2025 12:57:28 +0200:
On 2025-05-26 22:59, Hank wrote:
On 5/26/2025 10:55 PM, Alan wrote:
...
You're assuming that "Hank" is a distinct person from Arlen...
I don't know yet, but it is certainly possible. He appeared on March on >>>> this Android group. All 4 posts from him supporting Arlen.
Also, his "speech patterns" seem very familiar.
:-)
I think you can assume that any new poster who shows up out of the blue
with... a certain argumentative stance - is an Arlen sock.
The content doesn't change even if the name at the top does.
'Hank' is still on my maybe-list, because he's still somewhat
restrained in this rather heated (non-)'debate'.
But as soon as he starts insulting everybody, calling them idiots (and worse), starts boasting, etc., he'll be number hundred and one.
REFERENCES: https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en
https://www.gsmarena.com/smartphones_and_tablets_to_get_a_new_label_in_june_indicating_battery_life_and_efficiency-news-67455.php
https://www.enhesa.com/resources/article/batteries-101-eu-regulations/ https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/5-ways-eu-scientists-are-making-batteries-better-safer-and-greener-2022-07-20_en
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.
Because Apple advertises they're more "efficient".
And yet, they're not.
Incorrect: they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on
this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.
If iPhones are so wonderfully efficient, why can't Apple get an A?
The answer is obvious - but that's the question we have to ask.
Not at all, because anyone with a well grounded background in T&E knows
that all tests have constraints & limitations, and there's also a lot of assumptions which go into weightings for a summary score.
For example, the EU tests & applies weighting factors for:
* Scale of energy efficiency classes;
* Energy efficiency class;
* Battery endurance per cycle;
* Repeated free fall reliability;
* Battery endurance in cycles;
* Repairability;
* Ingress Protection rating.
From an engineering design perspective, there's going to be trades
which need to be made between these subsets to achieve the highest
overall summary score .. and within other non-listed constraints too,
such as the product's price point. It may very well be preferable to
accept a slightly lower raw energy efficiency to put more budget into a better battery endurance...or vice-versa: the classical approach is to
seek to optimize the final summary score.
No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.
Calling a "B" score as "dismally failed in efficiency" is the troll.
All you're doing is making lame excuses for why iPhones aren't efficient.
Despite the millions of dollars of Apple propaganda to the contrary, the
starkly obvious fact remains that iPhones are less efficient than Androids.
Incorrect: less than *some* Androids, as per *some* tests. But the
opposite is true to: that's the nature of complex systems.
In the meantime, let's not forget how there's been many companies who
have deliberately gamed various benchmark tests, which illustrates that
such tests can have limited relevance & value to end consumers.
Oh. I'm no babe in the woods. Neither are you. In fact, you're talking
about Apple aren't you. Apple has gamed the system for decades.
Nope. The $25B fine I mentioned was paid by Volkswagen.
For you to claim the standardized EU tests are "rigged" is disingenuous.
No, I'm noting that standardized tests can be rigged by corporations,
with VW's "Dieselgate" being a very prominent & recent example.
Accept the facts; then work on the reasons.
1. Every major OEM agreed to the benchmark tests years ago, Apple included. >> 2. Every OEM had a vote on what those tests would be, including Apple.
3. Every OEM chose an independent testing agency to run the tests for them.
Irrelevant. I'm sure that if we were to review the diesel testing standards, we'd find that VW also agreed to them/etc/etc. Yet that
didn't positively prevent them from later gaming those benchmark tests.
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: 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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...
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?
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.
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...
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...
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.
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...