Re: Why is overall Apple mobile device battery endurance per cycle 16% less compared to Samsung?

On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:26:30 +0000, Tyrone wrote :

Oh look. Arlen is cherry picking the results. AGAIN. Those numbers include
tablets. Filter on phones only, and you get a much different story.

Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.
Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?

For these facts, see the thread "iPhone 17 Pro Max Battery Capacity Leaked".
Which Arlen started and then abandoned because the facts got in the way of his
absurd-claim-of-the-day.

Huh? I haven't even *seen* what you're speaking of.
I'll respond to whatever was said when I get to that thread.
 

Samsung has 13 phones, 539.91 total hours = 41:32 average.  Apple has 7
phones, 290 total hours = 41:26 average.  Basically identical. 6 minutes
difference.

Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.
Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.

Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?
I'm a scientist and engineer.

I only state the facts.
I don't care HOW the facts turn out; they're just facts.

The fact is Apple smartphones did *better* than your math shows above.

BUT, Apple is doing this on SMALLER BATTERIES than Samsung. Which means
iPhones are lighter, more portable and MORE EFFICIENT.

That's official called "motivated reasoning", and it's just dead wrong.
Bro Science is what I call it.

The smaller batteries are cheap batteries Apple puts in the iPhone.
They have the largest effect on overall iPhone battery life, Tyrone.

That's just physics.

However, to Apple's credit, the iPhone 17 is rumored to be the first iPhone
with a not cheap battery in Apple's entire history of making smartphones.

That's progress.
I hope the dismal scores in the EPREL on efficiency made Apple do that.

Why ARE Android phones such power sucking junk? 
Are they running Intel space heaters and using fans to keep cool?

The fact is that almost every Android OEM achieved at least one A in
efficiency, while Apple's entire product line couldn't achieve an A.
 

If the iPhone 16 Pro Max had a 6000 mAh battery, it would run for more than 22
hours.  3 to 4 hours longer than any Android phone with a 6000 mAh battery.

Heh heh heh... I'm way ahead of you Tyrone. Always keep that in mind.
Notice the SUBJECT line does NOT say "phones", now does it.

Why do you think I said "mobile device battery endurance" Tyrone?
You think I'm stupid like you uneducated Apple trolls are, Tyrone?

I never once said it was only "phones", Tyrone. Because I'm not stupid.
You're stupid. I'm not. Big difference there, Tyrone.

I knew full well I'd be writing this post so I wrote it ahead of time.
I've already done the math - see my prior sig - I said I did it already.

First off, since I'm not a religious zealot like you Apple trolls are, I
did the math for Google which, surprise, came out even worse than Apple!

Secondly, I already did the "Apple-style" (truncation) math.
It makes no difference whatsoever despite you Apple trolls saying it does.

The fact you Apple trolls say Apple "underestimated" the math shows how
incredibly stupid you uneducated Apple trolls really are, Tyrone.

IT doesn't matter how you truncate it (or average it).
Wanna' know how I know that, Tyrone?

Because I do the math BEFORE I post.
You uneducated Apple trolls merely make excuses for Apple.

IF there's anyone who needs to make excuses though, it's Pixel owners!

Go to https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669
 Enter "Google" in the "Brand or trademark" field.
  Battery endurance per cycle
   GUR25 49h 12min
   GEC77 50h 44min
   G6GPR 40h 06min
   GZC4K 49h 30min
   GTF7P 52h 19min

Google Battery Endurance Summary
  Original decimal average:
  Total = 241.85 hours, Average over 5 models = 48.37 hours

  Rounded to nearest whole hour (Apple-style):
  Values: 49, 51, 40, 50, 52 ? Total = 242 ? Average = 48.4 hours

  Truncated to whole hour (Apple-style):
  Values: 49, 50, 40, 49, 52 ? Total = 240 ? Average = 48.0 hours

Brand Comparison (All using Apple-style truncated values):
 Samsung Average endurance 73.07 hours (from 28 models)
 Apple Average endurance 63.1 hours (from 19 models) 
 Google Average endurance 48.0 hours (from 5 models)

Breakdown by tablets versus smartphones in the EPREL database:
 Apple 16 smartphones, 3 tablets
 Samsung 22 smartphones, 6 tablets
 Google 5 smartphones, 0 tablets

Quick summary of the math.
 Apple smartphones:
 Values = 62, 72, 67, 72, 67, 62, 41, 67, 67, 37, 48, 48, 37, 34, 45, 40
 Total = 1,070h, Average = 66.9 hours

 Apple Tablets:
 Values = 73, 73, 77
 Total = 223h, Average = 74.3 hours

 Samsung Smartphones:
 Models with typical identifiers (e.g. SM-A, SM-G, SM-S):
 Values = 40, 38, 37, 45, 41, 43, 44, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 41, 44,
          38, 43, 44, 37, 41, 42, 41, 41
 Total = 906h, Average = 41.2 hours
 
 Samsung Tablets:
 Models starting with SM-X:
 Values = 98, 55, 142, 142, 96, 99
 Total = 632h, Average = 105.3 hours

 Google Smartphones only (no tablets):
 Values = 49, 50, 40, 49, 52
 Total = 240h, Average = 48.0 hours

I would conclude from that data alone, that for smartphones, Apple shows a
clear lead over both Samsung and Google but only when tablets are removed
from the averages.

Note the subject line says "mobile devices" because I knew that.

Conversely, in tablets, Samsung dominates with especially high endurance
numbers.

So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?
 It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet
 numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.

Summary of averages by brand & type:
 Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
 Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)
--
There's a reason I said in the OP... But wait...there's more...