Re: The long-awaited EU battery-lifetime standards kick in on June 20, 2025

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:45:35 -0400, -hh wrote :

Absolutely. I agree. Nothing wrong, per se, with a "B" score.

 
Which means that your claim (still quoted above) that Apple has
"dismally failed in efficiency." is a flat-out lie.

You can take it as a lie but I said very clearly the iPhone earned a B.
I said all the Android OEMs earned an A rating. And a G was really bad.

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

 
Incorrect:  they've merely not achieved the highest possible score on
this particular benchmark test that happens to be used in the EU.

I knew iPhones would fare dismally simply because of the crappy batteries.

If iPhones are so wonderfully efficient, why can't Apple get an A?
The answer is obvious - but that's the question we have to ask.

 
Not at all, because anyone with a well grounded background in T&E knows
that all tests have constraints & limitations, and there's also a lot of
assumptions which go into weightings for a summary score.
 
For example, the EU tests & applies weighting factors for:
 
* Scale of energy efficiency classes;
* Energy efficiency class;
* Battery endurance per cycle;
* Repeated free fall reliability;
* Battery endurance in cycles;
* Repairability;
* Ingress Protection rating.
 

While all tests have limitations, Apple *knew* about this test *years* in
advance. Do you seriously claim the EU kept the test methods secret?

Do you seriously claim the EU didn't take into account OEM input?
For years?

Do you seriously claim Apple wasn't on the defining committee for the
tests? Are you seriously claiming the testing agency was biased?

What exactly are you disputing in terms of the EU tests Apple formulated?
These tests are well vetted as they were agreed to by all the OEM makers.

The sad fact is the iPhone has a crappy battery.
Everyone knows that.

The EU tests simply proved it.

 From an engineering design perspective, there's going to be trades
which need to be made between these subsets to achieve the highest
overall summary score .. and within other non-listed constraints too,
such as the product's price point.  It may very well be preferable to
accept a slightly lower raw energy efficiency to put more budget into a
better battery endurance...or vice-versa:  the classical approach is to
seek to optimize the final summary score.

No. That's all an excuse for the iPhone crappy battery.

There is one reason and one reason alone why iPhones fared poorly.
The iPhone battery is garbage.

No. It's not a troll. It's a factual observation.

 
Calling a "B" score as "dismally failed in efficiency" is the troll.

You're the troll because I'm stating outright that Apple earned a B.
And I'm stating all the Android OEMs earned an A. That's just a fact.

Get used to facts.
Apple touts a brazen lie of efficiency so they can use smaller batteries.

And yet, they can't.
Apple doesn't own physics.

The reason iPhones suck at battery life is simply the batteries are crap.
(Life here means lifetime. In years.)

All you're doing is making lame excuses for why iPhones aren't efficient.
 
Despite the millions of dollars of Apple propaganda to the contrary, the
starkly obvious fact remains that iPhones are less efficient than Androids.

 
Incorrect: less than *some* Androids, as per *some* tests.  But the
opposite is true to:  that's the nature of complex systems.

Well, as I said, I never disagree with a logically sensible statement.
No mater what the record is of the person making that statement.

Some Android OEMs who earned an A also earned less than an A in some of
their models, and, in particular, their models with crappy batteries.

Yet not a single iPhone model was able to earn an A.
And that's the point.

The iPhone batteries are crap.
And this test shows it.

Note that I knew this was going to happen because Apple doesn't own
physics. The iPhone batteries are garbage. An A rating isn't possible.

In the meantime, let's not forget how there's been many companies who
have deliberately gamed various benchmark tests, which illustrates that
such tests can have limited relevance & value to end consumers.

 
Oh. I'm no babe in the woods. Neither are you. In fact, you're talking
about Apple aren't you. Apple has gamed the system for decades.

 
Nope.  The $25B fine I mentioned was paid by Volkswagen.

Well, VW gamed the system, that's for sure. And they deserved that fine.
Apple also got a 1B penalty (or more depending on legal costs) for gaming
the system. I'm not saying either one is pristine.

Look. We're not babes in the woods. Nobody who is intelligent believes a
word Apple says. Even the courts recently lambasted Apple for criminal lies
in court under oath.
<https://perkinscoie.com/insights/update/apple-faces-severe-penalties-epic-v-apple-case-violating-injunction-and-perjury>

It used to be Apple only told the truth in court.
Now we know Apple doesn't tell the truth, even in court.

These are just facts everyone knows (but the Apple trolls).

 

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

 
No, I'm noting that standardized tests can be rigged by corporations,
with VW's "Dieselgate" being a very prominent & recent example.

The fact here is that Apple *agreed* to the testing standards.
Apple was a member of the committee who created the testing standards.
Apple knew years ahead of time what the testing standards would be.
And Apple used the same 3rd-party testing teams as everyone else di.

Yet Apple performed worse than all the named Android OEMs.
That's just a fact.

It's Apple who chose to put a crappy battery in the iPhone.
There's no way that crappy battery could ever earn an A rating.

All Apple could do was whine that they put in crappy batteries.
It's all they've got.

Accept the facts; then work on the reasons.
1. Every major OEM agreed to the benchmark tests years ago, Apple included.
2. Every OEM had a vote on what those tests would be, including Apple.
3. Every OEM chose an independent testing agency to run the tests for them.

 
Irrelevant.  I'm sure that if we were to review the diesel testing
standards, we'd find that VW also agreed to them/etc/etc.  Yet that
didn't positively prevent them from later gaming those benchmark tests.

You are showing desperation by claiming, in effect, that Apple was gamed by
the 3rd-party testing company which every other OEM used for these reports.

That's just absurd.
It shows your desperation.

Why don't you just admit Apple put crappy batteries in the iPhone?
Until Apple puts in decent batteries, their scores will always be crap.