Re: Leaked iPhone 17 Air battery capacity reveals new model’s biggest weakness

On 19/07/2025 11:53, Marion wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 09:55:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :
>
>

Given battery capacity is the single most important component of
overall product life, expect it to show up as pure crap in EU benchmarks.

>
Incorrect. It has nothing to do with it.

>
Wrong. But I don't fault you. Almost nobody understands the rating yet.

Least of all you.

Capacity is the fundamental starting point of the Efficiency rating.
>
The efficiency is exactly = RUNTIME HOURS PER AMP/HOUR of CAPACITY.
>
Without the capacity, you can't calculate the efficiency. The EU's Energy
Efficiency Class (A–G) hinges on normalized battery capacity, specifically
how much runtime a device delivers per 1,000mAh of battery capacity.

Almost. See the actual regulation:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/1669

Annexe IV provides the proper calculation - not your made up edfinition -
which is:

EEI = 1000 x ENDdevice/(Unom x Crated)

Where; EEI is the energy efficiency index (A-G), ENDdevice is battery
endurance (hr), Unom is the nominal voltage (V), Crated is rated battery
capacity (mAh)

Both Unom and Crated are measured as part of the test and are not based on
marketing values - as you'll be happy to hear - hence why the EU values are
typically less than the manufacturer claims. See Annexe I for specific
definitions ((3) & (8)).

The EEI class is read off this table:

A   EEI > 2.70
B   2.30 < EEI ≤ 2.70
C   1.95 < EEI ≤ 2.30
D   1.66 < EEI ≤ 1.95
E   1.41 < EEI ≤ 1.66
F   1.20 < EEI ≤ 1.41
G   EEI ≤ 1.20

Unfortunately, Unom data is not shared so we cannot do the calculation
ourselves.

We can, using the table above, and knowing Crated, ENDdevice put bounds on
what the Unom is for any non-A-rated phone i.e. the Galaxy S25+ and iPhone
16 PM.

Unom S25+ is 4.15V - 4.85V
Unom 16PM is 3.79V - 4.44V

So, yes there is a time/capacity factor, but also a voltage factor which
differs between phones and affects the final result.

I'm no electrical expert, but if a phone uses less current performing the
same task (Unom) it is more efficient. Right?

Runtime/Capacity === Efficiency

Or more explicitly:

Runtime/Capacity * Power == (EU Energy) Efficiency

a. Devices are tested to see how long they can run on a full charge
b. That runtime is divided by the battery's mAh <== capacity!
c. This assesses how many hours per 1000 mAh the device delivers
>
The result determines where the device lands on the A-G scale.
However, as you noted, battery capacity isn't DIRECTLY the determinant.
>
For example, a phone with 3500 mAh capacity lasting 40 hours may be rated
as more efficient than one with 5000 mAh capacity lasting 45 hours.
>
Size matters. As does endurance. Efficiency === endurance/size
>
A smaller battery can earn a higher efficiency rating if the device
squeezes more usable time out of every milliamp-hour.

Correct.

The Galaxy Edge with a puny 3786 mAh battery has an A rating which is
higher than the Galaxy Ultra at 4855 mAh.
https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2284553

>
Your example is well chosen as it perfectly illustrates how battery
capacity alone doesn't determine the EU's Energy Efficiency Class (A-G).

Thanks for confirming what we have been saying about iPhones since forever.
Your claim that your A-class phone with 5000 mAh is automatically better
than an iphone is false.

The current Samsung A-36 is rated as "C":
https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2301641

Surely that's in "utter crap" territory according to you? That model is
related to your iphone beating A-32, so it must be crap as well.

The Galaxy S25 Edge has a rated battery capacity of 3786 mAh, yet it earned
an A rating under the EU's efficiency labeling system.
>
Samsung submitted the Galaxy S25 Edge to The Tech Chap Lab in the UK.

Unsubstantiated claim.

The S25 Edge efficiency per mAh matched that of the iPhone 16 Pro Max at
8.2 mAh/min, even though its total runtime was shorter due to the smaller
battery.

Again confirming what you've been told many, many times.

According to you, the Galaxy S25 Ultra, with a larger 4855 mAh battery,
received a lower rating (which I'll accept, a priori), where that rating
also depended on its actual runtime and power optimization.

Not according to me. This is fact (a real one):
https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2339789

>
The EU rating measures how efficiently a device uses its battery, not how
big the battery is. But how big it is factors into the efficiency math.
>
If the Edge delivers more hours of use per 1000 mAh than the Ultra, it's
considered more energy efficient - even if its total runtime is shorter.
>
We can likely opine that the Edge probably has better hardware/software
optimization, lower idle drain, or more efficient display & processor
tuning but we'd have to know more facts to make that conclusion definite.

Honestly, you're dismantling your own dogma beautifully. Keep going...

You have to wonder who buys this Apple crap.

>
The same people who want the Samsung Galaxy Edge. TBH I don't get it
either. A super thin phone will be more fragile and will need to be
permanently attached to a charger.

>
Well, some people like pink phones so I guess we can't account for personal
tastes. Back to the efficiency thing, these are the results from just one
lab in the UK, the "Tech Chap Lab", who tested these ten flagship devices.
>
  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiLNpIWNCQk>
  1. Xiaomi 15 Ultra         | 5000        | 47h30m   |  5.7    | A
  2. Galaxy S25 Edge         | 3786        | 32h20m   |  8.2    | A
  3. Pixel 9 Pro XL          | 5050        | 41h50m   |  5.0    | B
  4. iPhone 16 Pro Max       | 4422        | 36h10m   |  8.2    | B
  5. Xiaomi 15 Pro           | 4800        | 39h40m   |  4.9    | B
  6. Galaxy S25 Ultra        | 4855        | 38h10m   |  4.7    | B
  7. OnePlus 13              | 6000        | 49h00m   |  4.9    | B
  8. Honor Magic7 RSR        | 5100        | 42h30m   |  5.0    | B
  9. Vivo X200 Pro Mini      | 4700        | 37h40m   |  4.8    | B
10. Asus Zenfone 12 Ultra   | 5000        | 39h10m   |  4.7    | B

Where did you get this table from? It does not match the youtube link at
all. For a start there were only 9 models tested plus you're missing the
OPPO Find X8 Pro and there's no such thing as a Vivo X200 Pro mini. The
battery capacities are completely wrong and the endurance times in the YT
were around 10hrs. The scores in 3rd column don't make sense...

Did you get ChatGPT to make this up for you?

Note that Apple did NOT submit any phone to any independent lab!

Unsubstantiated claim.

(I thought they did but I was wrong if/when I had said that prior.)
>
I've since found out (by digging deeper) that while independent labs did
test the iPhones, Apple didn't pay them to run those tests.
>
And guess what? See the "B" above? Apple *knew* that would happen!
Only in Apple's (bogus) "internal" tests could an iPhone earn an A.

Unsubstantiated claim.

There is no proof outside of Apple's bullshit any iPhone earned an A.

Your claim has always been that Apple *failed* the EU tests. You have never
been able to show that. You are now reduced to arguing semantics and making
shit up. That table above is a joke!