From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:26:30 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

Oh look. Arlen is cherry picking the results. AGAIN. Those numbers include tablets. Filter on phones only, and you get a much different story.

Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.
Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?

For these facts, see the thread "iPhone 17 Pro Max Battery Capacity Leaked". Which Arlen started and then abandoned because the facts got in the way of his
absurd-claim-of-the-day.

Huh? I haven't even *seen* what you're speaking of.
I'll respond to whatever was said when I get to that thread.

Samsung has 13 phones, 539.91 total hours = 41:32 average. Apple has 7 phones, 290 total hours = 41:26 average. Basically identical. 6 minutes difference.

Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.
Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.

Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?
I'm a scientist and engineer.

I only state the facts.
I don't care HOW the facts turn out; they're just facts.

The fact is Apple smartphones did *better* than your math shows above.

BUT, Apple is doing this on SMALLER BATTERIES than Samsung. Which means iPhones are lighter, more portable and MORE EFFICIENT.

That's official called "motivated reasoning", and it's just dead wrong.
Bro Science is what I call it.

The smaller batteries are cheap batteries Apple puts in the iPhone.
They have the largest effect on overall iPhone battery life, Tyrone.

That's just physics.

However, to Apple's credit, the iPhone 17 is rumored to be the first iPhone with a not cheap battery in Apple's entire history of making smartphones.

That's progress.
I hope the dismal scores in the EPREL on efficiency made Apple do that.

Why ARE Android phones such power sucking junk?
Are they running Intel space heaters and using fans to keep cool?

The fact is that almost every Android OEM achieved at least one A in efficiency, while Apple's entire product line couldn't achieve an A.

If the iPhone 16 Pro Max had a 6000 mAh battery, it would run for more than 22
hours. 3 to 4 hours longer than any Android phone with a 6000 mAh battery.

Heh heh heh... I'm way ahead of you Tyrone. Always keep that in mind.
Notice the SUBJECT line does NOT say "phones", now does it.

Why do you think I said "mobile device battery endurance" Tyrone?
You think I'm stupid like you uneducated Apple trolls are, Tyrone?

I never once said it was only "phones", Tyrone. Because I'm not stupid.
You're stupid. I'm not. Big difference there, Tyrone.

I knew full well I'd be writing this post so I wrote it ahead of time.
I've already done the math - see my prior sig - I said I did it already.

First off, since I'm not a religious zealot like you Apple trolls are, I
did the math for Google which, surprise, came out even worse than Apple!

Secondly, I already did the "Apple-style" (truncation) math.
It makes no difference whatsoever despite you Apple trolls saying it does.

The fact you Apple trolls say Apple "underestimated" the math shows how incredibly stupid you uneducated Apple trolls really are, Tyrone.

IT doesn't matter how you truncate it (or average it).
Wanna' know how I know that, Tyrone?

Because I do the math BEFORE I post.
You uneducated Apple trolls merely make excuses for Apple.

IF there's anyone who needs to make excuses though, it's Pixel owners!

Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669
Enter "Google" in the "Brand or trademark" field.
Battery endurance per cycle
GUR25 49h 12min
GEC77 50h 44min
G6GPR 40h 06min
GZC4K 49h 30min
GTF7P 52h 19min

Google Battery Endurance Summary
Original decimal average:
Total = 241.85 hours, Average over 5 models = 48.37 hours

Rounded to nearest whole hour (Apple-style):
Values: 49, 51, 40, 50, 52 ? Total = 242 ? Average = 48.4 hours

Truncated to whole hour (Apple-style):
Values: 49, 50, 40, 49, 52 ? Total = 240 ? Average = 48.0 hours

Brand Comparison (All using Apple-style truncated values):
Samsung Average endurance 73.07 hours (from 28 models)
Apple Average endurance 63.1 hours (from 19 models)
Google Average endurance 48.0 hours (from 5 models)

Breakdown by tablets versus smartphones in the EPREL database:
Apple 16 smartphones, 3 tablets
Samsung 22 smartphones, 6 tablets
Google 5 smartphones, 0 tablets

Quick summary of the math.
Apple smartphones:
Values = 62, 72, 67, 72, 67, 62, 41, 67, 67, 37, 48, 48, 37, 34, 45, 40
Total = 1,070h, Average = 66.9 hours

Apple Tablets:
Values = 73, 73, 77
Total = 223h, Average = 74.3 hours

Samsung Smartphones:
Models with typical identifiers (e.g. SM-A, SM-G, SM-S):
Values = 40, 38, 37, 45, 41, 43, 44, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 41, 44,
38, 43, 44, 37, 41, 42, 41, 41
Total = 906h, Average = 41.2 hours

Samsung Tablets:
Models starting with SM-X:
Values = 98, 55, 142, 142, 96, 99
Total = 632h, Average = 105.3 hours

Google Smartphones only (no tablets):
Values = 49, 50, 40, 49, 52
Total = 240h, Average = 48.0 hours

I would conclude from that data alone, that for smartphones, Apple shows a clear lead over both Samsung and Google but only when tablets are removed
from the averages.

Note the subject line says "mobile devices" because I knew that.

Conversely, in tablets, Samsung dominates with especially high endurance numbers.

So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?
It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet
numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.

Summary of averages by brand & type:
Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)
--
There's a reason I said in the OP... But wait...there's more...


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On Jul 4, 2025 at 1:43:12 PM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:26:30 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

Oh look. Arlen is cherry picking the results. AGAIN. Those numbers include >> tablets. Filter on phones only, and you get a much different story.

Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.
Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?

No, nothing to "wonder about", because you were trying to change the subject AGAIN.

Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.
Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.

Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?
I'm a scientist and engineer.

LOL, good one. You are so full of shit. Scientists don't say things like "It is common knowledge" and then spout some totally bullshit claim with NO EVIDENCE. You do that crap every day.

Not to mention that you have to be an adult to be a "scientist". Children
just pretend to be scientists.

So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?
It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet
numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.

So, you FINALLY admit that iPhones ARE efficient? And no one was EVER talking about tablets. Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.

Summary of averages by brand & type:
Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)

No one was EVER talking about tablets. Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.

And AGAIN, iPhones use smaller batteries, because iPhones are more efficient.
NOT "crappy cheap batteries because Apple is a shitty company" as you ALWAYS claim.

When ARE you going to grow up?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On 2025-07-05 11:23, Tyrone wrote:

On Jul 4, 2025 at 1:43:12 PM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:26:30 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

Oh look. Arlen is cherry picking the results. AGAIN. Those numbers include >>> tablets. Filter on phones only, and you get a much different story.

Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.
Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?

No, nothing to "wonder about", because you were trying to change the subject AGAIN.

Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.
Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.

Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?
I'm a scientist and engineer.

LOL, good one. You are so full of shit. Scientists don't say things like "It is common knowledge" and then spout some totally bullshit claim with NO EVIDENCE. You do that crap every day.

Not to mention that you have to be an adult to be a "scientist". Children just pretend to be scientists.

So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?
It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet
numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.

So, you FINALLY admit that iPhones ARE efficient? And no one was EVER talking
about tablets. Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.

Summary of averages by brand & type:
Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)

No one was EVER talking about tablets. Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.

And the Samsung tablet advantage appears to be down to two models that
have HUGE batteries with huge weights to go along with them.

The Samsung Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro (SM-X350) and one other model number
with the same name (SM-X356B) both have "Battery endurance per cycle"
ratings of 142h 50min.

That's nearly 50% higher than the next highest Samsung tablet at 99h 06min.

The Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro has that endurance because it has a
10,000mA-hr battery...

...and weighs 1.5 POUNDS.

Nearly a quarter of a pound more than the heaviest iPad Pro.

If compared to an iPad Pro of nearly the same screen size, it is fully
50% heavier.

How long might those two devices run if you just added a 0.22 or 0.52
pound battery to the back of them?

And AGAIN, iPhones use smaller batteries, because iPhones are more efficient.
NOT "crappy cheap batteries because Apple is a shitty company" as you ALWAYS
claim.

When ARE you going to grow up?

Amen.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On Jul 5, 2025 at 3:13:51 PM EDT, "Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-05 11:23, Tyrone wrote:

On Jul 4, 2025 at 1:43:12 PM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:26:30 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

Oh look. Arlen is cherry picking the results. AGAIN. Those numbers include >>>> tablets. Filter on phones only, and you get a much different story.

Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.
Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones? >>

No, nothing to "wonder about", because you were trying to change the subject >> AGAIN.

Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.
Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.

Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?
I'm a scientist and engineer.

LOL, good one. You are so full of shit. Scientists don't say things like "It
is common knowledge" and then spout some totally bullshit claim with NO
EVIDENCE. You do that crap every day.

Not to mention that you have to be an adult to be a "scientist". Children >> just pretend to be scientists.

So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?
It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet
numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.

So, you FINALLY admit that iPhones ARE efficient? And no one was EVER talking
about tablets. Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.

Summary of averages by brand & type:
Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)

No one was EVER talking about tablets. Again, you are desperately trying to >> change the subject.

And the Samsung tablet advantage appears to be down to two models that
have HUGE batteries with huge weights to go along with them.

The Samsung Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro (SM-X350) and one other model number
with the same name (SM-X356B) both have "Battery endurance per cycle"
ratings of 142h 50min.

Yes, I saw that. He was using THOSE numbers in a (yet another) lame, pathetic attempt to "make Apple look bad". 2 tablets with gigantic batteries when NO
ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT TABLETS.

That's nearly 50% higher than the next highest Samsung tablet at 99h 06min.

The Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro has that endurance because it has a
10,000mA-hr battery...

...and weighs 1.5 POUNDS.

Nearly a quarter of a pound more than the heaviest iPad Pro.

Indeed. AGAIN, Apple mobile devices are truly mobile BECAUSE they don't have huge, heavy batteries BECAUSE they don't NEED huge, heavy batteries.

If "long battery run time" is all that matters, then hook it up to a fucking
25 pound car battery and run it for weeks!

If compared to an iPad Pro of nearly the same screen size, it is fully
50% heavier.

How long might those two devices run if you just added a 0.22 or 0.52
pound battery to the back of them?

15 hours? 17 hours?

But AGAIN, tablets don't matter because no one carries a tablet with them wherever they go. That's what phones are for. Tablets are used at home.

And AGAIN, iPhones use smaller batteries, because iPhones are more efficient.
NOT "crappy cheap batteries because Apple is a shitty company" as you ALWAYS
claim.

When ARE you going to grow up?

Amen.

A "scientist" who admits to "furiously Googling" in an attempt to prove us wrong on the FACT of SMB servers running on iOS. An actual SCIENTIST would have taken our very detailed instructions and performed the experiment, on one of the "many iOS devices" he always claims to have.

That's what real scientists do. They respond to the challenge. Their natural curiosity drives them to experiment and see the results with their own eyes.

A real scientist would not call us liars and claim we are "making up functionality that does not exist". A real scientist would NEVER claim that "everyone knows" and it is "common knowledge" that it can't possibly work on iOS because it does not work on Android.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 18:23:01 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.
Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?

No, nothing to "wonder about", because you were trying to change the subject AGAIN.

The subject is in the subject line, Tyrone

Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.
Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.

Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?
I'm a scientist and engineer.

LOL, good one. You are so full of shit. Scientists don't say things like "It is common knowledge" and then spout some totally bullshit claim with NO EVIDENCE. You do that crap every day.

Not to mention that you have to be an adult to be a "scientist". Children just pretend to be scientists.

The problem with you Make Apple Great Again MAGA Apple trolls, Tyrone, is
you are so desperate to find something - anything! - that Apple is better
at, that you deny all the things that Apple is far worse than Android at.

Which is basically almost everything, where overall efficiency is a "B".

And overall efficiency, as defined by all the OEMs together with the EU, is
NOT Apple's strong suite since almost everyone but Apple could earn an A.

Still, since I'm balanced (as I don't care who is better - I'm not MAGA
like you Apple trolls are) - Apple does have better one-day endurance on a brand new phone than Samsung or Google - but Samsung clearly has the edge
in tablets.

So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?
It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet
numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.

So, you FINALLY admit that iPhones ARE efficient? And no one was EVER talking
about tablets. Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.

Tyrone, you need to be able to separate your metrics from each other.
Overall efficiency is not the same as one-day endurance. They're different.

Summary of averages by brand & type:
Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)

No one was EVER talking about tablets.
Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.

The subject is in the subject line, Tyrone. Please take a L@@K at it.
Don't you wonder why the iPad newsgroup was included in on this subject?

And AGAIN, iPhones use smaller batteries, because iPhones are more efficient.

You clearly don't have any education when you make statements like that.

Bro science is officially called motivated reasoning, where what matters is
a host of metrics in efficiency and Apple clearly only earned a B on them.

Your religious zealotry to Make Apple Great Again is hampering your
arguments, because Efficiency is more than just a single metric.

And clearly almost every Android OEM earned at least one A on those
metrics, while Apple couldn't manage an A with any iPhone being sold.

I'm shocked. Shocked I say. Apple's oft-advertised efficiency was a lie.


The fact you have no education is what's confusing you because you think
every metric that mentions the word "battery" must be all about efficiency.

HINT: It's not.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 19:46:05 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

The Samsung Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro (SM-X350) and one other model number
with the same name (SM-X356B) both have "Battery endurance per cycle"
ratings of 142h 50min.

Yes, I saw that. He was using THOSE numbers in a (yet another) lame, pathetic
attempt to "make Apple look bad". 2 tablets with gigantic batteries when NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT TABLETS.

That's nearly 50% higher than the next highest Samsung tablet at 99h 06min. >>
The Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro has that endurance because it has a
10,000mA-hr battery...

...and weighs 1.5 POUNDS.

Nearly a quarter of a pound more than the heaviest iPad Pro.

Indeed. AGAIN, Apple mobile devices are truly mobile BECAUSE they don't have huge, heavy batteries BECAUSE they don't NEED huge, heavy batteries.

Look Tyrone, you're MAGA and I'm not so we approach science differently.
You want to Make Apple Great Again, which drives everything you do.

Me? I just want to know what the facts are.
And the facts are if I take every mobile device sold in the EU from Google
and Samsung and Apple and I compare their one-day endurance cycle on a
brand new phone with a brand new battery, the Samsung line has a 16%
greater endurance than Apple, and Apple has greater endurance than Google.

You MAGA Apple zealots don't like that fact; but it's just a fact.

Then, you complained that mobile devices include tablets, which, of course,
I was aware of since I added the iPad newsgroup. You said it was changing
the goal post but the goal post was set in the subject line of this thread.

You just don't like the subject line of this thread.
Why not?

Because you're MAGA. Make Apple Great Again. That's why.
You fight to the death any aspersions which are cast toward Apple's way.

However, I had already removed tablets in my followup because I knew what
the results were with and without tablets. I'm not stupid like you are.

Then, and only then, Apple came out on top for one-day endurance on a brand
new battery. Google was on the bottom. Samsung in the middle.

And I have no qualms with stating those facts.
I don't care what the facts reveal - I just interpret them as they come.

Then you called that one-day endurance the overall efficiency, which it decidedly is not, as the best Apple could do on iPhone efficiency was a B, whereas both Samsung and Google each earned at least an A in some models.

You MAGA uneducated Apple religious zealot trolls whose only goal is to
Make Apple Great Again need to separate "efficiency" from "endurance".

They're not the same metric.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On 7/4/25 13:43, Marion wrote:

...
Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?

The USS Nimitz is a "mobile device".


-hh
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On 2025-07-05 18:08, Marion wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 19:46:05 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

The Samsung Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro (SM-X350) and one other model number
with the same name (SM-X356B) both have "Battery endurance per cycle"
ratings of 142h 50min.

Yes, I saw that. He was using THOSE numbers in a (yet another) lame, pathetic
attempt to "make Apple look bad". 2 tablets with gigantic batteries when NO >> ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT TABLETS.

That's nearly 50% higher than the next highest Samsung tablet at 99h 06min. >>>
The Galaxy Tab Active5 Pro has that endurance because it has a
10,000mA-hr battery...

...and weighs 1.5 POUNDS.

Nearly a quarter of a pound more than the heaviest iPad Pro.

Indeed. AGAIN, Apple mobile devices are truly mobile BECAUSE they don't have >> huge, heavy batteries BECAUSE they don't NEED huge, heavy batteries.

Look Tyrone, you're MAGA and I'm not so we approach science differently.
You want to Make Apple Great Again, which drives everything you do.

Me? I just want to know what the facts are.
And the facts are if I take every mobile device sold in the EU from Google and Samsung and Apple and I compare their one-day endurance cycle on a
brand new phone with a brand new battery, the Samsung line has a 16%
greater endurance than Apple, and Apple has greater endurance than Google.

Yes, that is a fact.

However it is an IRRELEVANT fact.

It lumps all devices together where two of the devices are HUGE.

It doesn't take into account in any manner what the market share of each device is.

You MAGA Apple zealots don't like that fact; but it's just a fact.

Then, you complained that mobile devices include tablets, which, of course,
I was aware of since I added the iPad newsgroup. You said it was changing
the goal post but the goal post was set in the subject line of this thread.

You just don't like the subject line of this thread.
Why not?

Because you're MAGA. Make Apple Great Again. That's why.
You fight to the death any aspersions which are cast toward Apple's way.

However, I had already removed tablets in my followup because I knew what
the results were with and without tablets. I'm not stupid like you are.

Then, and only then, Apple came out on top for one-day endurance on a brand new battery. Google was on the bottom. Samsung in the middle.

And I have no qualms with stating those facts.
I don't care what the facts reveal - I just interpret them as they come.

Then you called that one-day endurance the overall efficiency, which it decidedly is not, as the best Apple could do on iPhone efficiency was a B, whereas both Samsung and Google each earned at least an A in some models.

Because Apple deliberately downrated their devices.

You MAGA uneducated Apple religious zealot trolls whose only goal is to
Make Apple Great Again need to separate "efficiency" from "endurance".

Indeed they are not.

Which is why you've run away from talking about efficiency.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 15:40:56 -0400, -hh wrote :

Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?

The USS Nimitz is a "mobile device".

It used to be Apple tells the truth only in court.
But even that is no longer the case.
*Apple lied, yet again, this time, criminally under oath!*
<https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/30/court-finds-apple-executive-lied-under-oath.html>

Knowing that Apple never tells the truth, even in court and knowing Apple
spins the most clever of lies, um, er, I mean excuses (e.g., you're holding
it wrong, or Apple battery physics is tied to the iOS version, or it's "courageous" to remove functionality that works just fine, or it's green to make you go buy the correct charger for your phone, etc.)...

It's revealing that Apple lied that they "downgraded" their efficiency.

Nobody else had to make inanely absurd excuses.
Just Apple.

Nobody else couldn't earn an A in efficiency either.
Only Apple.

And, nobody else (to my knowledge) has been touting efficiency for years.
A claimed efficiency that is known that no 3rd party has ever reproduced.

Hmmm... interesting, isn't it.

What metric did Apple downgrade?
Apple didn't say.

Hmmm... So Apple was part of the process, and Apple used the same testing companies everyone else used, and Apple knew about the standards years in advance, and, only now, when they fail to earn an A, all of a sudden, Apple casts undeclared aspersions on the entire testing process?

Who does that?

It's deceitful.
It's Apple.

Now, we as rather well educated and logical adults are all seeking to find
out EXACTLY what Apple "voluntarily downgrade" since Apple didn't say what.

Hmmm... they truncated the battery endurance.
But that makes no difference whatsoever in the numbers.

If you truncate Samsung's results, it comes out the same essentially.
Same with Google.

Clever Apple.
Very clever.

They "voluntarily downgrade" a metric that doesn't even matter.

You'll never hear me say Apple isn't brilliant, but at the same time you'll likely never hear me say the Apple trolls are smart enough to see through
the subterfuge.

The Apple trolls will eat up that "voluntary downgrade" like sheep led to slaughter. Why? Because they're MAGA religious zealots, that's why.

They have no idea what Apple downgraded, and yet they will claim Apple downgraded EVERYTHING just so they can be nice guys.

Only an Apple troll believes that, especially since everyone who knows
anything is well aware Apple only tell the truth in cour... oh wait.

Apple has been referred to for CRIMINAL prosecution for their recent lies.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.ipad

On 2025-07-07 15:05, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 15:40:56 -0400, -hh wrote :

Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones? >>

The USS Nimitz is a "mobile device".

It used to be Apple tells the truth only in court.
But even that is no longer the case.
*Apple lied, yet again, this time, criminally under oath!*
<https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/30/court-finds-apple-executive-lied-under-oath.html>

Knowing that Apple never tells the truth, even in court and knowing Apple spins the most clever of lies, um, er, I mean excuses (e.g., you're holding it wrong, or Apple battery physics is tied to the iOS version, or it's "courageous" to remove functionality that works just fine, or it's green to make you go buy the correct charger for your phone, etc.)...

It's revealing that Apple lied that they "downgraded" their efficiency.

Nobody else had to make inanely absurd excuses.
Just Apple.

Nobody else couldn't earn an A in efficiency either.
Only Apple.

And, nobody else (to my knowledge) has been touting efficiency for years.
A claimed efficiency that is known that no 3rd party has ever reproduced.

Hmmm... interesting, isn't it.

What metric did Apple downgrade?
Apple didn't say.

You're lying or ignorant...

...and probably both:

'As an additional cautionary measure, Apple went one step further and downgraded some of its scores to factor in test method ambiguities and variance. For example, Energy Efficiency Index scores for iPhone models
on the EU market in June 2025 all qualified for the highest “A” grade,
but Apple chose to voluntarily derate scores to a “B” grade to minimize the probability that a third-party tester interpreting the regulation differently would achieve a lower grade. We also downgraded scores for
the Repeated Free Fall Reliability Class for the same reason.'

So Apple absolutely DID say precisely which metrics they downgraded:

"Energy Efficiency Index"

"Repeated Free Fall Reliability Class"

Hmmm... So Apple was part of the process, and Apple used the same testing companies everyone else used, and Apple knew about the standards years in advance, and, only now, when they fail to earn an A, all of a sudden, Apple casts undeclared aspersions on the entire testing process?

Prove that "Apple was part of the process".

Prove that "Apple used the same testing companies everyone else used"

For once.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2