From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android


Given the endless discussions about batteries, I decided to do a data-led analysis of two different assessments: Tom's Hardware benchmarking exercise from earlier this year and the recently implement EU regulatory classifications.

See here for Tom's Hardware: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PhoneBattery-621D/analysis2025.html

See here for the EU data: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PhoneBattery-621D/EPRELanalysis.html

Both will need to be downloaded to be viewed properly and the analysis code
is also included as R Markdown files: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PhoneBattery-621D/

The take-homes are that there are some winners and losers, but the relative differences aren't huge. It is quite clear that the Apple models are not
the worst. Plus the results of the two datasets don't correlate. Not all models appear in both so that may be the bigger issue.

Other points of note is that there are some clear errors in the EU data,
which was a surprise, plus Motorola markets *very* different models in
Europe vs the US.

I would like to do a thorough of all the EU data, but getting the data is a pain in the arse, plus phone models are only identified by a model number -
not a name - which is actually surprisingly difficult to match from some of
the manufacturers' websites.

Have at it! :)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 21:45:56 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

would like to do a thorough of all the EU data, but getting the data is a pain in the arse, plus phone models are only identified by a model number - not a name - which is actually surprisingly difficult to match from some of the manufacturers' websites.

I agree with Chris that it's not easy to correlate the EPREL EU model
numbers with the phone models that are sold to the consumer, as I've tried myself to make that correlation & while it can be done, it's a lot of work.

I commend Chris for looking at the data objectively, because most of the
data people post is directly from Marketing, where they skew the results.

We have to keep in mind there are (at least) three major concerns at play
here, where they all involve the battery but in different use scenarios.
1. Efficiency (as defined by MARKETING BS, or by accepted EU regulations)
2. Daily life (as defined by whatever test case is considered reasonable)
3. Overall life (based on the physics of battery discharge degradation)

Knowing Apple always claims physics doesn't apply (e.g., batteries that "naturally" degrade only if they're subject to an iOS 10.2 update), nothing Apple ever says about the battery can ever be taken without suspicion.

The only thing we can "trust" is what the original battery capacity is.
iPhones have always had an atrociously laughably cheap battery capacity.

Those cheap batteries in all current and past iPhones will be a killer.
a. Apple's cheap-garbage capacity is a key calculation in efficiency.
b. Apple's cheap-garbage capacity is a key calculation in daily life.
c. Apple's cheap-garbage capacity is a key calculation in overall life.

Any phone with a cheap-garbage capacity is going to struggle in the tests.
All else being equal, which, in phones, is pretty much the case in wattage.

Rest assured that applies to Android as much as it applies to the iPhone.

Any phone with a cheap-garbage battery will struggle in these three tests:
a. Efficiency
b. Daily life
c. Overall life
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 2025-07-15 15:39, Marion wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 21:45:56 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

would like to do a thorough of all the EU data, but getting the data is a >> pain in the arse, plus phone models are only identified by a model number - >> not a name - which is actually surprisingly difficult to match from some of >> the manufacturers' websites.

I agree with Chris that it's not easy to correlate the EPREL EU model
numbers with the phone models that are sold to the consumer, as I've tried myself to make that correlation & while it can be done, it's a lot of work.

I commend Chris for looking at the data objectively, because most of the
data people post is directly from Marketing, where they skew the results.

We have to keep in mind there are (at least) three major concerns at play here, where they all involve the battery but in different use scenarios.
1. Efficiency (as defined by MARKETING BS, or by accepted EU regulations)
2. Daily life (as defined by whatever test case is considered reasonable)
3. Overall life (based on the physics of battery discharge degradation)

Knowing Apple always claims physics doesn't apply (e.g., batteries that "naturally" degrade only if they're subject to an iOS 10.2 update), nothing Apple ever says about the battery can ever be taken without suspicion.

The only thing we can "trust" is what the original battery capacity is. iPhones have always had an atrociously laughably cheap battery capacity.

Those cheap batteries in all current and past iPhones will be a killer.
a. Apple's cheap-garbage capacity is a key calculation in efficiency.
b. Apple's cheap-garbage capacity is a key calculation in daily life.
c. Apple's cheap-garbage capacity is a key calculation in overall life.

Any phone with a cheap-garbage capacity is going to struggle in the tests. All else being equal, which, in phones, is pretty much the case in wattage.

Rest assured that applies to Android as much as it applies to the iPhone.

Any phone with a cheap-garbage battery will struggle in these three tests:
a. Efficiency

False.

b. Daily life

That would depend on the power draw of the device.

c. Overall life

As would that.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 21:45:56 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

would like to do a thorough of all the EU data, but getting the data is a
pain in the arse, plus phone models are only identified by a model number - >> not a name - which is actually surprisingly difficult to match from some of >> the manufacturers' websites.

<snip irrelevance>

It's notable that you claim to only deal with facts, but when presented
with real data and evidence your first instinct is to continue your unverifiable dogma.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Jul 16, 2025 at 3:33:54 AM EDT, "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 21:45:56 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

would like to do a thorough of all the EU data, but getting the data is a >>> pain in the arse, plus phone models are only identified by a model number - >>> not a name - which is actually surprisingly difficult to match from some of >>> the manufacturers' websites.

<snip irrelevance>

It's notable that you claim to only deal with facts, but when presented
with real data and evidence your first instinct is to continue your unverifiable dogma.

Which is the very definition of a troll.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 16.07.25 14:48, Tyrone wrote:

On Jul 16, 2025 at 3:33:54 AM EDT, "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 21:45:56 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

would like to do a thorough of all the EU data, but getting the data is a >>>> pain in the arse, plus phone models are only identified by a model number -
not a name - which is actually surprisingly difficult to match from some of
the manufacturers' websites.

<snip irrelevance>

It's notable that you claim to only deal with facts, but when presented
with real data and evidence your first instinct is to continue your
unverifiable dogma.

Which is the very definition of a troll.

*SIC*!
The typical characteristics of sociopaths.
--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 07:33:54 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

It's notable that you claim to only deal with facts, but when presented
with real data

I am dealing with facts.

I have always said that, by far, the most important factor for...
a. Battery efficiency
b. Battery daily life
c. Overall battery life
... is the initial capacity of the battery when new...

Hence, it's my opinion you should organize your data by battery capacity.
Not by model. Not by Marketing bullshit. But by initial battery capacity.

When you organize by battery capacity, that will be interesting data.
Useful too.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 2025-07-16 12:09, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 07:33:54 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

It's notable that you claim to only deal with facts, but when presented
with real data

I am dealing with facts.

I have always said that, by far, the most important factor for...
a. Battery efficiency
b. Battery daily life
c. Overall battery life
... is the initial capacity of the battery when new...

No.

a. Battery capacity has no relationship at all to the battery efficiency.

b. & c. Power draw is as important a consideration to the daily life and overall battery life of the device.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 07:33:54 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

It's notable that you claim to only deal with facts, but when presented
with real data

I am dealing with facts.

I have always said that, by far, the most important factor for...
a. Battery efficiency
b. Battery daily life
c. Overall battery life
... is the initial capacity of the battery when new...

Hence, it's my opinion you should organize your data by battery capacity.
Not by model. Not by Marketing bullshit. But by initial battery capacity.

I'm glad you say that's your opinion.

When you organize by battery capacity, that will be interesting data.
Useful too.

That'sa one-dimensional view. If you look at my figures you can see that although, on average, a bigger battery means longer life there is quite a
lot if variability between models. For example, in the Tom's hardware
benchmark at 5500 mAh there's over 100 minutes' difference between best and worst.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:41:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

Hence, it's my opinion you should organize your data by battery capacity.
Not by model. Not by Marketing bullshit. But by initial battery capacity.

I'm glad you say that's your opinion.

Hi Chris,

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

I've realized most of you haven't ever taken a logic class in college where there's a concept of deductive reasoning which takes into account facts and logical deductions based on those facts, which are often called opinions.

Hence, moving forward, I will strive to be very clear to you what I state
that is a fact versus what I state that is my assessment of many facts.

An example of a fact is no iPhone has anywhere near the battery capacity of
my free (~$180 MSRP) Android phone. That's just a fact. It's not arguable.

Yet, the iTrolls argue endlessly if I stated that simple fact, Chris.
You know this to be true. And yet, the fact is a fact even after all that.

What I often deduce, from that fact & from many (many!) other related
facts), is that my phone has a "better battery" than any iPhone ever made.

But wait... there's more that I deduce from many (many!) similar facts.

I deduce that Apple put el cheapo batteries into the iPhone, for example,
where I'm aware of Kuo's own assessment that Apple cheaps out on them.

I predicted the iPhone would fare badly in the EU efficiency tests too,
where, again, I'm aware battery size factors into the Efficiency rating.

And yet, a "B" is an "opinion" of "fared badly", where I predicate that assessment on many (many!) facts, including Apple has been touting
efficiency for over a decade (which the iTrolls want me to confirm, but
that's absurd since it means they're too stupid to learn what everyone on
the planet other than the iTrolls is already extremely well aware of).

The iTrolls want me to prove that the sun comes up on the morning, Chris.

Worse, the iTrolls never took astronomy where I have taken it and therefore whey I say the fact that the sun came up this morning and then the
prediction that it will come up tomorrow morning too, I based that not only
on the one fact but on many (many!) facts about celestial motions - which
none of the Apple religious zealots know anything about so they argue
endlessly about the single fact of the sun coming up not being a fact to
them but only an opinion to them.

Simply because they can't do any deductive reasoning on their own.
So they attack not only the facts, but all the assessments of those facts.

Where "opinions" will always differ between reasonably different people,
and rest assured, an Apple zealot is nothing like a normal person Chris.

So while Apple zealots dispute not only opinions, but every fact about
Appel that they don't like - the fact is still a fact nonetheless.

And the fact is iPhone batteries are puny compared to my cheap (free)
Android, and the assessment is that iPhone batteries are, by and large,
smaller than most Android phones - where the predictive assessment is that
it's unfair to compare an iPhone to an Android with a much larger battery.

Hence, my "opinion" that it's a better analysis of battery-related
performance to compare iPhones to Androids of similar sized batteries.

When you organize by battery capacity, that will be interesting data.
Useful too.

That's a one-dimensional view.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

See above. The Apple zealots don't understand that my assessments are based
not on a single fact; they are based on many (many!) facts, Chris.

Bear in mind I have a higher degree in EE, when I assess that the battery capacity is hugely influential, it's not based simply on the one fact.

For example, what do you know about internal resistance of a battery?
Or what do you know about redox potentials, Chris?

My main point on assessments is that they're based on many (many!) facts,
which none of the Apple trolls have the education to even comprehend.

So they brazenly deny that the sun comes up in the morning (as Rudy did actually) because they're desperate to add FUD about my assessments.

Hence, it's NOT a one-dimensional view, IMHO, that the battery capacity is
the single most important criteria for three benchmark tests, Chris:
a. The EU benchmarks on "efficiency" (measured as an alphabetical score)
b. The life of the battery during a single day (measured in hours)
c. The lifetime of the battery (which is measured in charge cycles)

If you look at my figures you can see that
although, on average, a bigger battery means longer life there is quite a
lot if variability between models.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

For two reasons, I haven't "seen" your figures, the first of which is that
I opened your links up the moment I saw them after you posted where my privacy-based web browser couldn't access anything so I gave up instantly.

The second reason is I read what you wrote and I already saw the flaws in
your reasoning in terms of how I would have thought an assessment should
be.

I don't trust marketing bullshit. Do I even need to mention that to you?
So I don't trust almost all the marketing bullshit that is out there.

If they truly compared iPhones on FUNCTIONALITY against Android, the iPhone would always lose big time, for example. But that makes for bad press (and
even less for Apple advertising revenue).

It's not the Apple hardware, per se, that shows the iPhone lacks
functionality (although iPhones generally lack the hardware of Android,
which I can prove in battery capacity, ram capacity, display technology, external ports, internal slots, etc.)....

No, it's not only that iPhone hardware sucks (for the most part), but that
the iOS operating system sucks in terms of allowing functionality, where
you don't want to get me started on how many things iOS can't do versus how many things Android can't do because it's not a fair fight.

Apple always loses (bit time) on functionality; and yet that would make for
bad press so the news articles (which are really shills) don't say it.

So I don't trust most benchmarks which are often shills for the most part.

BTW, that's an "opinion" based on decades of facts.

For example, in the Tom's hardware
benchmark at 5500 mAh there's over 100 minutes' difference between best and worst.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

I haven't read the Tom's Hardware article (mainly because I don't trust
shills, but I can't say if it's a shill or not yet - so it's an opinion).

I'll look at that because my "opinion" which is based on facts (many
facts!), is that the only "fair" battery-life comparison of two completely different systems in terms of which is more efficient, is to compare phones
of equal battery capacity.

BTW, if we were comparing "something else", there may be different normalization such as when Apple trolls try to compare a cheap Android to
an expensive iPhone where not only do the Apple trolls ignore that the
iPhone will always lose out on functionality, but that they say the iPhone
is better because they ONLY compare them to cheap Androids - or - they only compare them to the Androids which are sold only to people with too much
money (where the lack of basic functionality isn't a problem for them).

In short, I won't reply again to this thread until I've given you the
common decent courtesy of reading not only what you wrote (which I read),
but what your based your writing upon (namely the input data you cited).

Good work, Chris.
I commend you for your good work.

I'm waiting for others to respond to your good work to see what they think also, but I haven't looked at your input or output data other than what you wrote in the Usenet article - so I won't respond back until I do look at
it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:41:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

Hence, it's my opinion you should organize your data by battery capacity. >>> Not by model. Not by Marketing bullshit. But by initial battery capacity. >>

I'm glad you say that's your opinion.

<yawn>

Hence, my "opinion" that it's a better analysis of battery-related performance to compare iPhones to Androids of similar sized batteries.

Which you can do with my analyses. I dare you to look.

When you organize by battery capacity, that will be interesting data.
Useful too.

That's a one-dimensional view.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

See above. The Apple zealots don't understand that my assessments are based not on a single fact; they are based on many (many!) facts, Chris.

None of which you can substantiate.

<further yawn>

If you look at my figures you can see that
although, on average, a bigger battery means longer life there is quite a
lot if variability between models.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

For two reasons, I haven't "seen" your figures, the first of which is that
I opened your links up the moment I saw them after you posted where my privacy-based web browser couldn't access anything so I gave up instantly.

Of course you gave up. You dogma wouldn't let you look at heresy.

The second reason is I read what you wrote and I already saw the flaws in your reasoning in terms of how I would have thought an assessment should
be.

And yet you don't share them... I call your bluff.

<even more yawn >

For example, in the Tom's hardware
benchmark at 5500 mAh there's over 100 minutes' difference between best and >> worst.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

And yet you only talk about absolute battery capacity of very different hardware. When quoting science you can't pick and choose. You're flip
flopping like a fish out of water.

<snip>

In short, I won't reply again to this thread until I've given you the
common decent courtesy of reading not only what you wrote (which I read),
but what your based your writing upon (namely the input data you cited).

I look forward to it. Unlike you I'm prepared to receive peer review.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2