Re: Leaked iPhone 17 Air battery capacity reveals new =?iso-8859-7?Q??= model’s biggest weakness

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.
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�VG) hinges on normalized battery capacity, specifically
how much runtime a device delivers per 1,000mAh of battery capacity.

Runtime/Capacity === 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.
 

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).

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.
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.

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.

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.

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        

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

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