From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

I am trying to find more information about phones sold in the UK/EU. Specifically, I love that they hold OEMs' feet to the regulatory fire.
Unlike the USA, where it's a free for all in terms of OEM regulation.

Searching, I located the EU database for the recently enacted June 20th,
2025 EU new energy labeling regulations for smartphones and tablets.
<https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/home>

From that site, I was able to locate the iPhone-specific efficiency PDF.
<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

But there are many EU/UK regulations that hold OEM's feet to the fire.
For example, the "written promised years of full support" for the UK.

Where can we find the written reports by the OEMs for UK/EU phones?
(Obviously it's going to be multiple official government sites.)

Here's one I found in my searches but there must be many others.
1. Go to the EPREL Public website: https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/
2. Select "Smartphones and tablets" from the product groups.
3. Search by Brand: Enter "Samsung".
4. Search by Model Identifier for the specific EU variant.

This is tricky because the web site is for professionals, not laymen.
So it expects us to already know a Pixel 9 is an EU "GUR25" device.

Specifically that site wants a GTIN (Global Trade Item Number).
In the EU, that GTIN is often 13 digits (similar to a 12-digit bar code).
But where do you look up the GTIN for a variety of phones sold in the EU?

The site also can take a Registration Identifier, which is an internal ID
used by the EPREL system, which is assigned once a product is registered. Again, how does a layperson find either the GTIN or the Registration ID?

To test the system of searches, I plugged in my model identifier for my
free from T-mobile USA-variant of the Samsung Galaxy A32-5G (SM-A326U).

But, of course, that's an American model so it's not in the EU database.
With much effort, I found A32-5G European variants to look up the data.
GTIN 8806090963049 (black 64GB SM-A326B/DS)
GTIN 8806090963865 (black 128GB SM-A326BZKVEUB)
GTIN 8806092089501 (violet 128GB SM-A326BLVVEUB)
GTIN 8806090963858 (black 128GB SM-A326B/DS)
GTIN 8806092220935 (black 64GB SM-A326BZKUEUE dualSIM Enterprise)
GTIN 8806092220911 (Another Enterprise Edition, model SM-A326BZKVEEB)
etc.

Once you have the European GTIN for the EPREL database, then you can look
up the regulatory filings for each phone that is sold in the EU today.

But most of the time, you won't have any idea what the GTIN is, right?
Even so, you can look up filings for your phone if it is sold in the EU.

Here's how, I think, to get the OEM's June 20th 2025 regulatory filings:
1. Go to the EPREL database: <https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/>
2. Select the product category: "Smartphones and tablets"
<https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669>
3. First search by brand, e.g., Google, Apple, Samsung, etc.
4. Refine by "Model identifier" using the European model numbers above
(e.g., SM-A326B or SM-A326B/DS)
5. If a product listing exists, the GTIN should be visible also.
6. Once you have the GTIN, you can directly search by that GTIN.

I just now ran a search for about a dozen brands sold in the EU.

Sorted alphabetically, the results for their best scores are...
The Apple A3287 iPhone 16 rating is "B" (with B being worse than A).
The ASUS ASUSAI2501H rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Fairphone (Gen.6) FP6 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Google GUR25 (Pixel) rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Nokia (HMD) TA-1600 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Nothing cmf A001 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS rating is "A" (with A being the best).
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A" (with A being the best).

The main question asked here of the UK folks is where can we get the UK regulatory filings for smartphones sold in the UK (e.g., support promises)?

EU filings are as shown in detail above.
But where are the UK filings?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 11:59:00 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

I'm trying to search for "run time" and not finding it. What is the
correct key word for searching the articles to find that data?

Carlos,

I've studied the inefficiency of iPhones for years compared to Android.

Every OEM has a way to fudge the numbers to make their products look good.
It's an age-old marketing trick that works on people without introspection.

Nobody is better than Apple in claiming an efficiency that is a brazen lie. Nobody can ever reproduce Apple's "efficiency" claims in the real world.

The only fair test is a universal test that all OEMs already agree to.
In some ways that already exists in the EU's new EPREL of June 20th, 2025.

Apple, Samsung, Google and all the others agreed to the testing standards. Years ago.

Here's a quick summary, but you can look up the details in the EU database.

Energy Efficiency Index (EEI):
This is the underlying numerical calculation that determines the Energy Efficiency Class. The lower the EEI, the more energy-efficient the device.

Energy Efficiency Class (EEC):
This is the letter grade (A to G, where A is the most efficient and G is
the least efficient) that is assigned based on the calculated EEI. This is
the prominent letter you see on the EU energy label.

All the OEMs had *years* to meet the known deadline of June 20th, 2025.
Every OEM paid an independent testing agency to calculate their scores.

Most OEMs used the same agency that was part of making the standards.
Guess what Energy Efficiency Class scores were for phones sold in the EU?

The Energy Efficiency Class (EEI - Energy Efficiency Index) on the EPREL
label is primarily based on the battery endurance per charge cycle. This is measured using a standardized "Day of Use Simulation" test.

The testing methodology is designed to mimic real-world smartphone usage. A company called SmartViser played a key role in developing this testing methodology and their "viSer EEI" application is used for these tests. The process typically involves:

Standardized Activities Loop: The device is put through a continuous loop
of various activities that simulate a typical user's day, from 100% battery charge down to power off. For smartphones, this loop includes:

Phone call (4 min)
Idle (30 min)
Web Browse (9 min)
Idle (30 min)
Video streaming (4 min)
Gaming (1 min)
Idle (30 min)
Data transfer: HTTP upload and download (8 min)
Idle (30 min)
Video playback (4 min)

Controlled Environment:
The testing is conducted in a controlled environment using a network
simulator to ensure repeatability and reliability. Factors like ventilation
and temperature are specified to maintain consistent conditions.

Measurement and Calculation:
The viSer EEI application measures the energy consumption during these activities and calculates the Energy Efficiency Index (EEI). This index is
then translated into the A-G energy efficiency class.

Every Apple troll is shocked that Apple scored so badly.
Especially when Apple marketing touts their (bogus) efficiency.

Yet I wasn't shocked in the least.
You know that because I telegraphed weeks ago what results would be.

Here are a sample of results.
No Apple iPhone received any rating better than a "B" EEC.
The ASUS ASUSAI2501H EEC rating is "A"
The Fairphone (Gen.6) FP6 EEC rating is "A"
The Google GUR25 (Pixel) EEC rating is "A"
The Honor DNP-NX9 EEC rating is "A"
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) EEC rating is "A"
The Nokia (HMD) TA-1600 EEC rating is "A"
The Nothing cmf A001 EEC rating is "A"
The Oppo CPH2695 EEC rating is "A"
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS S25 EEC rating is "A"
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G EEC rating is "A"

Of all the OEMs, only Apple's iPhones could not achieve an A EEC.
Apple spent pages crafting (brilliant) excuses - but they're all lies.

The reason they're lies is nobody else needed those excuses; just Apple.
And yet, everyone used the same tests reported by the same agencies.

Which they *agreed* to using, years ago.
Which puts Apple's myriad excuses for lousy efficiency to shame.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:15:04 -0400, -hh wrote :

Yet, only Apple phones dismally failed in efficiency.

Where your claimed 'failure' was a grade of a "B" instead of an "A".

I never disagree with anyone, no matter what his past history may be, who
makes a logically defensible sensible assessment of well-known facts.

Yes. You are correct. The efficiency rating goes from A to G.
Certainly both A & B would be considered to be far better than F & G.

YMMV, but I recall "B" as always having been a passing grade.

Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.
Even the Android OEMs had scores that were less than A on some phones.
I only picked the "A" score to highly Apple can't achieve it.

This is important.
Why?

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

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.

That is not under debate.

Where "That" is that they got a passing grade of a "B", and that you're still whining and butthurt about it as a justification to troll.

No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.
I fully understand why you call all actual facts to be trolls.

But you claiming every fact about Apple being a troll is you being a 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.

We all must agree on that fact.
The only remaining question is why.

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.

We've covered many times that NOBODY can ever reproduce Apple's benchmarks. Nobody.

In fact, Apple claims "efficiency" of the "processor".
Most people think that means "efficiency of the phone".

It doesn't.
The proof is that iPhone efficiency is crap compared to Apple's claims.

That's just a fact.
The only question that remains, is why?

who wish to disagree can start with showing how there was no harm ever caused to consumers by manufacturers who rigged GPU tests on PC boards.

For you to claim the standardized EU tests are "rigged" is disingenuous.

It's like losing an election and saying the voting machines were rigged.
It's a desperate excuse.

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.

Only Apple couldn't achieve an "A" score on efficiency.
Only Apple whined lame excuses for why their iPhone efficiency sucks.

You're shocked that iPhone efficiency was a lie all along.
I'm not.

The standardized test, which Apple agreed to, showed efficiency sucks.
Or, in your point of view, the efficiency is less than that of Android.

Even though Apple has touted their "claimed" efficiency for decades.
Where is it?

It's not there.
The only question now is why.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.mobile

What's interesting is the UK requirement of all OEMs to state, in writing,
a promise of how long full support will be, has made it into the EU EPREL!

<https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en#energy-label>

Looking for my phone in the EU database (2021 Samsung A32-5G)...
1. <https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669>
2. Model identifier = SM-A326U > Search > (No result) > Drat.
3. Brand or trademark = Samsung > Search > (plenty of results)
4. Picking the closest I can find to an "A-series" Samsung...
I note that *none* of the five EU SM-A* Samsung series achieved an A.
Two of the five EU Samsung SM-A series phones achieved a B.
The other three EU Samsung SM-A series phones achieved a C.

Let's pick the "SM-S938B/DS" which achieved a B & let's try to figure out
what model of Samsung that happens to be by tapping "More Details"

Drat. I had to google to find out that it's an S25-Ultra.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=SM-S938B%2FDS&>
<https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-SM-S938B-Smartphone-Factory-Unlocked/dp/B0DV45CFNP>

Now back to that "More Details" cite which explains the "B" rating in more detail independent tests showed for the Galaxy S25 Ultra sold in the EU. <https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2339789> There are a ton of things that the EU forced the OEMs to test & report on.

Notice "Required output power = 10 Watts" puts the lie to what some people
say of "every charger works" since a typical old brick is only half the "required" power for this particular phone.

Also note the "Minimum guaranteed availability of operating system security updates, corrective updates and functionality updates (years)" is only 5
years, and not the 6 years Samsung has promised for newer A-series' phones.

It may be due to "Model placed on the Union market from 24/12/2024".
There's also a "Product information sheet" & a "Label for printing".
More to the point, there is also a "Better understand this label" link.

This is the explanation of the label and, in particular, of the B rating. <https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en#energy-label>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2