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

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 03:20:14 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

You don't like the word dismal?
 
Then pick any word you like for Apple lying to you about iPhone efficiency.
 
Deceitful... duplicitous... despicable... dishonest... disassembling...
deceptive... discrepant...

 
Dishonest. You, that is, for using those words dishonestly.

I'm always stating facts, and the fact is the iPhone earned a B.
Meanwhile, plenty of Android's earned an A.

Those are just facts.
Apple zealots may dislike those facts, but they're still facts.

When you tie those facts into Apple's advertising, that's where the
duplicity arises - where you know I dislike when marketing lies to us.

Everyone who knows anything about the iPhone is aware that Apple has been
touting an efficiency over and above that of everyone else, right?

And yet, that efficiency doesn't exist, right?

Certainly the iPhone not more efficient than the Android models that I had
listed, all of which earned an A, although I'm sure that iPhone is more
efficient than many twenty-dollar Androids are from the same OEMs.

What word would you use to describe Apple's oft-repeated marketing claim of
superior efficiency knowing that not a single iPhone could earn an A?
--
Note: The term twenty-dollar Androids is used because Apple religious
zealots love to compare a $1K iPhone to that of a cheap Android.

Also, only a fool believes Apple's excuses that the same testing company
that everyone else used gave results that Apple didn't agree with while no
other OEM felt the need to make such lame excuses about their efficiency,
especially since Apple was part of the years-long process of these
regulations, and none of it was a surprise to Apple - but note - the iPhone
17 is rumored in the news today to actually have a modern-sized battery.
Fancy that. Apple can improve when regulations prove their batteries suck.