Re: Why is the iPhone so inefficient compared to Android?

On 7/1/25 18:35, Alan wrote:

On 2025-07-01 14:42, Marion wrote:

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.

 You said it...
 ...but you've not supported it, let alone proven it.

I've not seen a product chart list, have you?

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.

 A B is NOT a fail.

Arlen's trying to claim it is because its not the highest possible grade.  Too bad he didn't know what you noted later, about how Apple tested as an "A" but decided to report as a "B".
Plus battery performance are separate tests in the EU series, so trying to claim bad battery isn't relevant to this "efficiency" grade section.
To use an automotive analogy, efficiency is equivalent to how many MPG a car gets ... which has nothing to do with its gas tank size (battery).

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?

 How many years, exactly?

And from which test revision?

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

 Do you seriously claim VW (an automotive OEM) wasn't taken into account regarding diesel emissions standards?

As well as not knowing about them "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.

 A "B" isn't "crappy".

The "B" is for efficiency, not anything regarding batteries.  The batteries are tested & evaluated independently, for:
* Battery endurance per cycle;
* Battery endurance in cycles;

  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.

 Nope. That's simply false.

Regardless, batteries aren't included in the OP's efficiency grade.

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.

 You're stating it.
 You're not proving it.

And its a troll because they were the OP (while not proving diddly).

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.)

 I've already shown in a head to head where you basically insisted Apple was worse that it was (in ACTUAL fact) better.
 

>

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.

 Nope. Apple has stated that the data indicated that they COULD have been award an "A" and chose not to.

For the OP's claim of efficiency.  Batteries have independent tests.

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.

 'For example, Energy Efficiency Index scores for iPhone models on the EU market in June 2025 all qualified for the highest “A” grade, 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. '
 'This paper presents our choices transparently to enable European stakeholders — from our customers to enforcement authorities — to replicate our results while understanding our rationale. We encourage other consumer electronics manufacturers to also present their selected test parameters. We look forward to working to address these issues and develop harmonized standards.'
 Hmmmmm... sounds like Apple WASN'T on any committee creating these standards, huh?

Something like that would also be in the official records too; where's the substantiation of this 'Apple was a full fledged committee member' unambiguously in writing by the EU?  Citation required, but absent.
-hh