From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Placeholder for June 20, 2025 - Apple trolls - crying that the mean ole' EU banned their iPhone for sale in the EU - due to not meeting bare minimum lifetime battery-life specs which my $190 (or so) 2021 free Samsung Galaxy A32-5G *doubles* (because it doesn't have a crappy battery, that's why). <https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en>

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs.

It will be interesting to see $200 Androids which *double* that spec; but
let's just wait to see which devices *meet* bare minimum battery lifetimes.
--
Apple trolls can whine that the mean ole' EU is forcing Apple to meet
minimum battery lifeteime specs which they feel are unfair restrictions.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Marion <marion@facts.com> writes:

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs.

But you have already posted to it.

What's the point in having a battery that outlasts security updates
anyway?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On May 28, 2025 at 5:41:59 AM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs.

Those are the only iPhones for sale NOW. Why would that change on June 20?
Do you think that iPhone 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 and 8 are still for sale?

Bottom line is ALL current iPhones meet the specs. But you have been claiming that they failed. And - as always - you have been making this claim without providing a single link to support it.

Keep on digging that hole.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-05-28 11:41, Marion wrote:

Placeholder for June 20, 2025 - Apple trolls - crying that the mean ole' EU banned their iPhone for sale in the EU - due to not meeting bare minimum lifetime battery-life specs which my $190 (or so) 2021 free Samsung Galaxy A32-5G *doubles* (because it doesn't have a crappy battery, that's why). <https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en>

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs.

It will be interesting to see $200 Androids which *double* that spec; but let's just wait to see which devices *meet* bare minimum battery lifetimes.

You are shifting the goalposts.

You said:

+++·························
From: Marion <marion@facts.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-11,comp.os.linux.advocacy,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: My week with Linux: I'm dumping Windows for Ubuntu to see how it goes
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 20:27:05 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1012iqo$101r$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

...

You brazenly denied what is extremely well known to be public since it
involves an EU ruling which about battery life that Apple had to ask the EU
to postpone so that Apple could make at least one iPhone that (barely) met minimum battery-life standards - and - after you denying this extremely
well known public information - you demanded that I back it up - which
takes two seconds to find (more to copy and paste) to make your life easy. ·························++-

We demanded you post a source for this. An EU rule about Apple batteries not meeting the EU criteria that everybody knows about. This rule was in the past, according to your claim. It takes two seconds to find this, you claimed. We failed to find this (I asked chatgpt for it). You have failed to post any reliable link in three days, not the two seconds you claimed.

Now you are shifting to a ruling in the future.

And please remember that I have a track record of never buying Apple hardware, thus I can hardly be an Apple Troll. I am ready to believe your claim, but you still have to post the single link to the single paper where the EU says that Apple Batteries now are not up to EU criteria.

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-05-28 02:41, Marion wrote:

Placeholder for June 20, 2025 - Apple trolls - crying that the mean ole' EU banned their iPhone for sale in the EU - due to not meeting bare minimum lifetime battery-life specs which my $190 (or so) 2021 free Samsung Galaxy A32-5G *doubles* (because it doesn't have a crappy battery, that's why). <https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en>

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs.

It will be interesting to see $200 Androids which *double* that spec; but let's just wait to see which devices *meet* bare minimum battery lifetimes.

Holding you to account:

Checking the Apple site for Germany the phones for sale currently are:

iPhone 16 Pro

iPhone 16

iPhone 16e

iPhone 15

In other words, when you come back crowing about how Apple no longer
sells the iPhone <whatever>...

...I'll point out that it wasn't being sold before the EU directive.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 28 May 2025 09:41:59 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

Placeholder for June 20, 2025 - Apple trolls - crying that the mean ole' EU banned their iPhone for sale in the EU - due to not meeting bare minimum lifetime battery-life specs which my $190 (or so) 2021 free Samsung Galaxy A32-5G *doubles* (because it doesn't have a crappy battery, that's why). <https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en>

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs.

It will be interesting to see $200 Androids which *double* that spec; but let's just wait to see which devices *meet* bare minimum battery lifetimes. 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

The iPhone has *always* had cheap batteries - but it's getting better.

Apple has released a document titled "EU Energy Label for iPhone and iPad
(EN)" which details its compliance with the new EU regulation 2023/1669, effective June 20, 2025. This document is the most official source for
Apple's certifications and methodologies for meeting the EU requirements.

Crucially, the iPhone 14 and older models, based on Apple's own published specifications prior to the iPhone 15, do not officially meet the new EU requirement of 800 cycles while retaining 80% capacity. The official design specification for iPhone 14 and earlier models was a crappy 500 cycles,
which is significantly less than the new 800-cycle EU standard.

<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

In addition to the crappy lifetime of all iPhone cheap batteries, Apple
refused to certify an "A" grade the iPhone 15 series and any newer models released by June 2025) by promising a far-lower quality of "B".

Note: The Apple trolls *hate* Apple so much that they'll deny these facts simply because they won't read them, and if they do, they can't comprehend
them since Apple never told them in marketing iPhone batteries are crap.

Apple trolls read marketing bullshit - and they defend that bullshit.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-23 11:20, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 09:41:59 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

Placeholder for June 20, 2025 - Apple trolls - crying that the mean ole' EU >> banned their iPhone for sale in the EU - due to not meeting bare minimum
lifetime battery-life specs which my $190 (or so) 2021 free Samsung Galaxy >> A32-5G *doubles* (because it doesn't have a crappy battery, that's why).
<https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en>

I will NOT post to this thread until *after* that date when the news will
be obvious that only the iPhone 15/16 meet the EU's minimum lifetime specs. >>
It will be interesting to see $200 Androids which *double* that spec; but
let's just wait to see which devices *meet* bare minimum battery lifetimes. >> 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

The iPhone has *always* had cheap batteries - but it's getting better.

You've never presented any evidence that iPhone batteries were of any
less quality than any other smartphone's batteries.

Apple has released a document titled "EU Energy Label for iPhone and iPad (EN)" which details its compliance with the new EU regulation 2023/1669, effective June 20, 2025. This document is the most official source for Apple's certifications and methodologies for meeting the EU requirements.

Crucially, the iPhone 14 and older models, based on Apple's own published specifications prior to the iPhone 15, do not officially meet the new EU requirement of 800 cycles while retaining 80% capacity. The official design specification for iPhone 14 and earlier models was a crappy 500 cycles,
which is significantly less than the new 800-cycle EU standard.

<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

I don't know what you're providing that as a reference as it doesn't
mention the iPhone 14 at all.

In fact, it doesn't mention anything about ANY iPhone in relation to
battery longevity data.

In addition to the crappy lifetime of all iPhone cheap batteries, Apple refused to certify an "A" grade the iPhone 15 series and any newer models released by June 2025) by promising a far-lower quality of "B".

'For example, we’ve found that various choices in testing — all
consistent with the requirements of the regulation — can yield Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) and resistance to accidental drop results that
vary by one, two, or even three letter grades.'

Note: The Apple trolls *hate* Apple so much that they'll deny these facts simply because they won't read them, and if they do, they can't comprehend them since Apple never told them in marketing iPhone batteries are crap.

Apple trolls read marketing bullshit - and they defend that bullshit.

There is literally NOTHING in your supplied reference to read that
supports a single word you've said.

In short, the one spewing bullshit...

...is YOU!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 28 May 2025 13:33:31 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

Bottom line is ALL current iPhones meet the specs.

BTW, all current iPhones (15+) earn a B rating from Apple. Not A.

<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

It's no longer shocking the Apple trolls *hate* Apple for lying to them.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-23 12:18, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 13:33:31 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

Bottom line is ALL current iPhones meet the specs.

BTW, all current iPhones (15+) earn a B rating from Apple. Not A.

<https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

Actually:

'For example, Energy Efficiency Index scores for iPhone models on
the EU market in June 2025 all qualified for the highest “A” grade'

It's no longer shocking the Apple trolls *hate* Apple for lying to them.

'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 that's lying by omission, isn't it?

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

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 23/06/2025 14:39, Alan wrote:

There is literally NOTHING in your supplied reference to read

I read it.

The lousy b score from apple was calculated by dividing battery endurance
per cycle duration, in hours, by the battery capacity, in watt-hours.

Apple explained that their marketing tests that nobody else could reproduce showed internally that it was an a but nobody could reproduce that a so
it's a b due to apple internal measurements that they widely market as
truth were not even close to being objectively independently reproducible.

But it's not only the iphone battery that has a lousy rating.
Apple iPhones have a c reliability rating.
Again, despite what marketing would have you believe.

And a c repairability rating.
Again, they explained they were advertising higher than reality showed but since nobody could reproduce the internal iphone tests objectively outside
of apple, they had to claim the rating that others would have found for it.

battery = b
reliability = c
repairability = c

Compare dismal iphone ratings to samsung phones in the same price range.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 23/06/2025 15:26, Alan wrote:

'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.'

The lousy b score was calculated in part by dividing battery endurance per cycle duration, in hours, by the battery capacity, in watt-hours.

Apple explained that their marketing tests that nobody else could reproduce showed internally that it was an a but nobody could reproduce that a so
it's a b due to apple internal measurements that they widely market as
truth were not even close to being objectively independently reproducible.

But it's not only the iphone battery that has a lousy rating.
Apple iPhones have a c reliability rating.
Again, despite what marketing would have you believe.

And a c repairability rating.
Again, they explained they were advertising higher than reality showed but since nobody could reproduce the internal iphone tests objectively outside
of apple, they had to claim the rating that others would have found for it.

battery = b
reliability = c
repairability = c

Compare those iphone ratings to samsung phones in the same price range.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Jun 23, 2025 at 2:39:47 PM EDT, "Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

There is literally NOTHING in your supplied reference to read that
supports a single word you've said.

In short, the one spewing bullshit...

...is YOU!

And this surprises you? Arlen NEVER EVER posts a single link that supports
his absurd-claim-of-the-day. He just posts LOTS of links on the assumption
that everyone here is as stupid as he is. As in "Wow, look at all those links.
It MUST be true!"

Then you read the links and see that they don't say anything relating to the absurd-claim-of-the-day. Or the links are Arlen and his sock puppets
discussing the absurd-claim-of-the-day.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-23 12:31, Ulysses Nostos wrote:

On 23/06/2025 14:39, Alan wrote:

There is literally NOTHING in your supplied reference to read

I read it.

The lousy b score from apple was calculated by dividing battery endurance
per cycle duration, in hours, by the battery capacity, in watt-hours.

Apple explained that their marketing tests that nobody else could reproduce showed internally that it was an a but nobody could reproduce that a so
it's a b due to apple internal measurements that they widely market as
truth were not even close to being objectively independently reproducible.

But it's not only the iphone battery that has a lousy rating.
Apple iPhones have a c reliability rating.
Again, despite what marketing would have you believe.

And a c repairability rating.
Again, they explained they were advertising higher than reality showed but since nobody could reproduce the internal iphone tests objectively outside
of apple, they had to claim the rating that others would have found for it.

battery = b
reliability = c
repairability = c

Compare dismal iphone ratings to samsung phones in the same price range.

You do it...

...Arlen
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Jun 23, 2025 at 3:34:34 PM EDT, "Ulysses Nostos" <ulysses@nostos.org> wrote:

On 23/06/2025 15:26, Alan wrote:

'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.'

The lousy b score was calculated in part by dividing battery endurance per cycle duration, in hours, by the battery capacity, in watt-hours.

Apple explained that their marketing tests that nobody else could reproduce showed internally that it was an a but nobody could reproduce that a so
it's a b due to apple internal measurements that they widely market as
truth were not even close to being objectively independently reproducible.

But it's not only the iphone battery that has a lousy rating.
Apple iPhones have a c reliability rating.
Again, despite what marketing would have you believe.

And a c repairability rating.
Again, they explained they were advertising higher than reality showed but since nobody could reproduce the internal iphone tests objectively outside
of apple, they had to claim the rating that others would have found for it.

battery = b
reliability = c
repairability = c

Compare those iphone ratings to samsung phones in the same price range.

And Arlens another alias to his stable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Wed, 28 May 2025 22:09:36 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote :

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.

Do you know why Apple puts the crappiest garbage battery in the iPhone? <https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

1. iPhone Battery = B rated (not A)
2. iPhone Reliability = C rated (not A nor even B)
3. iPhone Repairability = C rated (not A nor even B)

HINT: Only in Apple's secret bullshit internal tests does an iPhone battery ever fare better - but Apple knew NOBODY could reproduce their bullshit
claims, particularly their bullshit "efficiency" claims.

So it's Apple who gave those crappy ratings to their own iPhones.
And then Apple sowed excuse after excuse after excuse for why.

The reason why was Apple put crappy cheap garbage in the iPhone.
Even Apple can't get an independent lab to back up their claims.

Think about that.
Apple *paid* an independent lab to check their batteries.

And the lab reported that their batteries sucked.
And that's what Apple was forced to report.

The question is WHY did Apple put such crappy batteries in the iPhone?

Every article shows no iPhone below the iPhone 15 even comes close to the lifetime charge cycle minimum point - which proves they've sucked for
years. The fact is the iPhone 14 (and all others) fail miserably.

Don't say that's a lie just because you're ignorant of the spec.
a. Compare the iPhone 14's published lifecycle spec (yes, *that* spec).
b. Note it fails the minimum standards as presented by the EU.
c. As do all iPhones from the iPhone 14 on down.

Even the cheap garbage battery in the Phone 15 *barely* ekes out past the
bare minimum on battery life. Then compare that to most (even cheap)
Android phones which easily *double* the lifetime battery ratings, and you
see the proof that Apple puts the crappiest cheapest lowest-capacity
battery it can get away with in the iPhone.

Do you know why all iPhones have a cheap crappy garbage battery?
I do.

Note: The iPads fared even worse but their batteries are measured
differently, apparently, based on the Apple & EU reports on the topic.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-24 10:48, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 22:09:36 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote :

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.

Do you know why Apple puts the crappiest garbage battery in the iPhone?

And he still can't post a link!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-24 19:48, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 22:09:36 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote :

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.

Do you know why Apple puts the crappiest garbage battery in the iPhone? <https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

That is not the link you promised.


You said:

+++·························
From: Marion <marion@facts.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-11,comp.os.linux.advocacy,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: My week with Linux: I'm dumping Windows for Ubuntu to see how it goes
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 20:27:05 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1012iqo$101r$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

...

You brazenly denied what is extremely well known to be public since it
involves an EU ruling which about battery life that Apple had to ask the EU
to postpone so that Apple could make at least one iPhone that (barely) met minimum battery-life standards - and - after you denying this extremely
well known public information - you demanded that I back it up - which
takes two seconds to find (more to copy and paste) to make your life easy. ·························++-

We demanded you post a source for this. An EU rule about Apple batteries not meeting the EU criteria that everybody knows about. This rule was in the past, according to your claim. It takes two seconds to find this, you claimed. We failed to find this (I asked chatgpt for it). You have failed to post any reliable link in three days, not the two seconds you claimed.

Now you are shifting to a ruling in the future.

And please remember that I have a track record of never buying Apple hardware, thus I can hardly be an Apple Troll. I am ready to believe your claim, but you still have to post the single link to the single paper where the EU says that Apple Batteries now are not up to EU criteria.

Post that single link, or admit you lied, and I will shut up.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Here's how 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., Samsung SM-A326B or Google GUR25 Pixel or Apple A3287 iPhone 16)
5. Despite marketing bullshit - these are actual truthful reports.

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"
The Fairphone (Gen.6) FP6 rating is "A"
The Google GUR25 Pixel rating is "A"
The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A"
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A"
The Nokia (HMD) TA-1600 rating is "A"
The Nothing cmf A001 rating is "A"
The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A"
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS rating is "A"
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A"
etc.

While some Android OEMs had all "A" ratings, others had a mix, but only
Apple had zero (yes, zero) phones that were even close to Android in efficiency.

Why is this highly advertised "efficiency" not showing up in Apple's own regulatory filings? Did Apple lie about efficiency. Would they do that?

The fundamental question is why do all iPhones suck at efficiency?
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=21867&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#21867>

Why is Apple's 44-page report filled with excuses, while the Android makers have no problem reporting efficiency results without 43 pages of excuses?

Why are iPhones so inefficient in legal factual regulatory filings?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-29 15:26, Marion wrote:

Here's how 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., Samsung SM-A326B or Google GUR25 Pixel or Apple A3287 iPhone 16) 5. Despite marketing bullshit - these are actual truthful reports.

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"
The Fairphone (Gen.6) FP6 rating is "A"
The Google GUR25 Pixel rating is "A"
The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A"
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A"
The Nokia (HMD) TA-1600 rating is "A"
The Nothing cmf A001 rating is "A"
The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A"
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS rating is "A"
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A"
etc.

While some Android OEMs had all "A" ratings, others had a mix, but only
Apple had zero (yes, zero) phones that were even close to Android in efficiency.

Why is this highly advertised "efficiency" not showing up in Apple's own regulatory filings? Did Apple lie about efficiency. Would they do that?

The fundamental question is why do all iPhones suck at efficiency?
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=21867&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#21867>

Why is Apple's 44-page report filled with excuses, while the Android makers have no problem reporting efficiency results without 43 pages of excuses?

Why are iPhones so inefficient in legal factual regulatory filings?

Easy:

Apple has far more to lose with bad publicity if they are alleged to
have given their phones higher ratings than they deserve.

In short, every tech news site will check Apple's results...

...and won't bother checking anyone else's.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2025-06-29 15:26, Marion wrote:

Here's how 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., Samsung SM-A326B or Google GUR25 Pixel or Apple A3287 iPhone 16)
5. Despite marketing bullshit - these are actual truthful reports.

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"
The Fairphone (Gen.6) FP6 rating is "A"
The Google GUR25 Pixel rating is "A"
The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A"
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A"
The Nokia (HMD) TA-1600 rating is "A"
The Nothing cmf A001 rating is "A"
The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A"
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS rating is "A"
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A"
etc.

While some Android OEMs had all "A" ratings, others had a mix, but only
Apple had zero (yes, zero) phones that were even close to Android in
efficiency.

Why is this highly advertised "efficiency" not showing up in Apple's own
regulatory filings? Did Apple lie about efficiency. Would they do that?

The fundamental question is why do all iPhones suck at efficiency?
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=21867&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#21867>

Why is Apple's 44-page report filled with excuses, while the Android makers >> have no problem reporting efficiency results without 43 pages of excuses?

Why are iPhones so inefficient in legal factual regulatory filings?

Easy:

Apple has far more to lose with bad publicity if they are alleged to
have given their phones higher ratings than they deserve.

In short, every tech news site will check Apple's results...

...and won't bother checking anyone else's.

LOL LOL LOL !!!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-06-30 09:23, badgolferman wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2025-06-29 15:26, Marion wrote:

Here's how 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., Samsung SM-A326B or Google GUR25 Pixel or Apple A3287 iPhone 16)
5. Despite marketing bullshit - these are actual truthful reports.

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"
The Fairphone (Gen.6) FP6 rating is "A"
The Google GUR25 Pixel rating is "A"
The Honor DNP-NX9 rating is "A"
The Motorola g86 5G (XT2527-2) rating is "A"
The Nokia (HMD) TA-1600 rating is "A"
The Nothing cmf A001 rating is "A"
The Oppo CPH2695 rating is "A"
The Samsung SM-S937B/DS rating is "A"
The Xiaomi 24129PN74G rating is "A"
etc.

While some Android OEMs had all "A" ratings, others had a mix, but only
Apple had zero (yes, zero) phones that were even close to Android in
efficiency.

Why is this highly advertised "efficiency" not showing up in Apple's own >>> regulatory filings? Did Apple lie about efficiency. Would they do that?

The fundamental question is why do all iPhones suck at efficiency?
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=21867&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#21867>

Why is Apple's 44-page report filled with excuses, while the Android makers >>> have no problem reporting efficiency results without 43 pages of excuses? >>>
Why are iPhones so inefficient in legal factual regulatory filings?

Easy:

Apple has far more to lose with bad publicity if they are alleged to
have given their phones higher ratings than they deserve.

In short, every tech news site will check Apple's results...

...and won't bother checking anyone else's.

LOL LOL LOL !!!

Sure.

You let us know when the other companies get covered.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:23:17 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :

Apple has far more to lose with bad publicity if they are alleged to
have given their phones higher ratings than they deserve.

In short, every tech news site will check Apple's results...

...and won't bother checking anyone else's.

LOL LOL LOL !!!

Hi badgolferman,

I'm a scientist and an engineer so I can read the database as well as you.
The wholly uneducated Apple religious zealots can't.

The Apple zealots are spinning excuses for why iPhones fared poorly.
Personally I'm shocked. Shocked I say, that iPhones fared poorly.

Even in battery endurance per cycle, in the EPREL database Samsung models,
have a 10 hour advantage. That's a whopping ~16% higher average battery endurance per cycle for Samsung devices compared to Apple models.

Apple has the most brilliant marketing in the world, so they "spin". Specifically notice Apple didn't say "which" metric they underestimated.
They could have disagreed with the fonts used, for all that they said.

So by implication, Apple disparaged all the metrics they had agreed upon.

It's deceitful to agree on metrics, and then cast aspersions on them only because the iPhone didn't do well in the tests they had agreed upon.

But I have to admit, the brilliance works great on the uneducated zealots.

(Remember the "batterygate" spin that Apple phones had special laws of
physics that only occur when an iOS update goes from 10.1 to 10.2?)

Here, Apple used the same testing agencies approved by the EU that everyone else used, and here Apple was on the committees that were consulted when creating the rules and here Apple knew years ahead of time what those rules were.

And yet, when you read Apple's (admittedly brilliant) excuses, it appears
to those who don't understand those facts above that somehow Apple didn't
lie to us all these years in that Apple "feels" (emotionally perhaps?) the iPhone was actually more "efficient" (in internal tests) than what it is in real life in the hands of the independent testers Apple *paid* to do the
tests (and which everyone else used without needing Apple's excuses).

It's absurd the level of desperation the Apple religious zealots will go to
in order to defend everything Apple to the death, no matter what.
--
Note in today's news, for the first time in Apple's history, the iPhone 17
is rumored to have a modern-sized battery - which is important because the cheap battery Apple puts into all current iPhones is such that only the
iPhone 15 and up *barely* squeak past the UK's longevity requirements - no other iPhone does - and even so - while Androids easily *double* the UK longevity requirements, the iPhone barely squeaks by. This is, of course,
not an accident, as Apple knows full well the implications of their crappy batteries in terms of longevity of the iPhone in the customers's hands.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

It's absurd the level of desperation the Apple religious zealots will go to in order to defend everything Apple to the death, no matter what.

Well, I’m an iPhone user and have been since the 4 model. But I don’t understand the vehement denials of the iPhone’s shortcomings. Every manufacturer makes compromises in their products in order to maintain cost controls. Apple is no exception, and neither is Samsung or any other
premium phone maker. People act like Apple’s shit doesn’t ever stink, when it obviously smells just as bad or worse than others. It’s like a religion
to them.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-07-04 11:26, badgolferman wrote:

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

It's absurd the level of desperation the Apple religious zealots will go to >> in order to defend everything Apple to the death, no matter what.

Well, I’m an iPhone user and have been since the 4 model. But I don’t understand the vehement denials of the iPhone’s shortcomings. Every manufacturer makes compromises in their products in order to maintain cost controls. Apple is no exception, and neither is Samsung or any other
premium phone maker. People act like Apple’s shit doesn’t ever stink, when
it obviously smells just as bad or worse than others. It’s like a religion to them.

What shortcomings have been denied in this conversation?

What we've denied is the obvious bullshit that Apple's devices are
failures because Apple chose to downrate their scores to a "B" on a 7
letter scale.

We deny the batteries that run iPhones for as long or longer than
competing smartphones are "cheap" or "crappy".

Etc.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 18:26:50 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :

It's absurd the level of desperation the Apple religious zealots will go to >> in order to defend everything Apple to the death, no matter what.

Well, I'm an iPhone user and have been since the 4 model. But I don't understand the vehement denials of the iPhone's shortcomings. Every manufacturer makes compromises in their products in order to maintain cost controls. Apple is no exception, and neither is Samsung or any other
premium phone maker. People act like Apple's shit doesn't ever stink, when
it obviously smells just as bad or worse than others. It's like a religion
to them.

You've been around long enough on a variety of newsgroups to know that the Apple newsgroups are NOT the same as any other newsgroup is.

If, for example, Google or Samsung do something that nobody likes, then
nobody on the Android newsgroup spins excuses for why they did it since
nobody likes Google and nobody really cares to defend Samsung to the death.

Likewise with Windows, where there's no love lost on Microsoft.
It's only on the Apple newsgroups that this dynamic occurs.

Why?
I think I know why.

You're an adult but the religious zealots outnumber you dozens to one.
These uneducated religious zealots are NOT normal people.

They're ignorant to the core, but worse, they're unable to learn.
Combine their stupidity with their religious zealotry & that's what you
get.

Every Apple troll is a MAGA zealot.
Every Apple troll is imbued with the mantra: Make Apple Great Again

Like any MAGA zealot, the level they go to defend Apple to the death,
no matter what, is so absurd you have to wonder what their IQ is.

I don't put Alan's IQ at any better than about 40.
Chris is higher, but still below normal.
Jolly Roger is nearer to Alan than to Chris.
etc.

You can tell they're stupid by the way they deny what nobody would.
And in doing so, they think that's a perfectly sound rebuttal.

Who is that stupid?
Answer: Apple troll are.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

Every Apple troll is a MAGA zealot.
Every Apple troll is imbued with the mantra: Make Apple Great Again

LOL! I’ll bet that moniker really gets their goat!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-07-05 04:25, badgolferman wrote:

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

Every Apple troll is a MAGA zealot.
Every Apple troll is imbued with the mantra: Make Apple Great Again

LOL! I’ll bet that moniker really gets their goat!

Yeah...

...you'd lose that bet.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-05 04:25, badgolferman wrote:

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

Every Apple troll is a MAGA zealot.
Every Apple troll is imbued with the mantra: Make Apple Great Again

LOL! I’ll bet that moniker really gets their goat!

Yeah...

...you'd lose that bet.

Maybe I am wrong and you don’t mind being MAGA…

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-07-05 11:44, badgolferman wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-05 04:25, badgolferman wrote:

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

Every Apple troll is a MAGA zealot.
Every Apple troll is imbued with the mantra: Make Apple Great Again

LOL! I’ll bet that moniker really gets their goat!

Yeah...

...you'd lose that bet.

Maybe I am wrong and you don’t mind being MAGA…

You're wrong because I'm not a "MAGA zealot" in any sense of the phrase
that's being used here.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2025-07-04 16:12, Alan wrote:

On 2025-07-04 11:26, badgolferman wrote:

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

It's absurd the level of desperation the Apple religious zealots will
go to
in order to defend everything Apple to the death, no matter what.

Well, I’m an iPhone user and have been since the 4 model. But I don’t
understand the vehement denials of the iPhone’s shortcomings. Every
manufacturer makes compromises in their products in order to maintain
cost
controls. Apple is no exception, and neither is Samsung or any other
premium phone maker. People act like Apple’s shit doesn’t ever stink, >> when
it obviously smells just as bad or worse than others. It’s like a
religion
to them.

What shortcomings have been denied in this conversation?

What we've denied is the obvious bullshit that Apple's devices are
failures because Apple chose to downrate their scores to a "B" on a 7
letter scale.

We deny the batteries that run iPhones for as long or longer than
competing smartphones are "cheap" or "crappy".

Etc.

<crickets.wav>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2