Liste des Groupes | Revenir à sm advocacy |
-hh wrote on Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:55:12 -0500 :Breaking some of this down...
Worse... it's a fact that those very few Apple iPhones whichAnd these EU regulators had independent & objective criteria for
meet the EU's minimum battery life requirements *barely* meet
them (which again shows Apple's propensity for the absolute
minimum required by law for customers).
setting this standard, which was done double-blind to how products
performed ...
...right?
The EU specified battery lifetime rules which applied equally toProbably true... ...but unsupported.
Android and to Apple phones
- where all known Android phonesThis is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact...
surpassed those minimum lifetime rules
failed initiallyThis is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact...
- but Apple literally changed their test standard -This is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact...
and then it passed.
Fancy that.Show an example.
Note we discussed this ad infinitum on this very newsgroup, so I'm
not telling you anything which isn't already in this newsgroup's
archives.
Only *after* Apple tweaked the testing procedure did the iPhone 15This is actually two unsupported assertions, and not a fact...
pass. Nonetheless, it passed. But barely.
Meanwhile, almost all Androids (if not all Samsung/Google phones,This is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact...
which are the vast majority) passed with flying colors - some
exceeding TWICE the lifetime (while Apple iPhones, even the latest,
barely meet the standard).
The reason is trivially simple to comprehend. Apple puts crappyThis is an unsupported assertion, and not a fact...
batteries (in terms of capacity) in iPhones.
That's just a fact. The only people disputing that fact are theYou need to learn the difference between "assertion" and "fact".
ignorant Apple trolls.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.