Re: The new iPhone SE is bottom of the barrel on every spec - except price!

On 2025-02-27 23:37, Marion wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :
 

What's interesting isn't so much the classic garbage-bin battery in the new
iPhone SE, nor the slow-as-molasses screen refresh but the expected price.

 As pitiful as the iPhone 16 batteries are in capacity, the iPhone 16 e fits
in the same anemic range as the rest of the iPhone 16 lineup.
*Comparing the iPhone 16e battery with the rest of the lineup*
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/02/27/iphone-16e-battery-comparison/>
 iPhone 16: 3561 mAh
iPhone 16 Plus: 4674 mAh
iPhone 16 Pro: 3582 mAh
iPhone 16 Pro Max: 4685 mAh
 Versus:
iPhone 16e: 3961 mAh
 

Absolute battery size is irrelevant.
Run time on a charge is what matters to the user, and run time on a charge is what determines how many charge cycles in (say) a year the battery will experience.

Can you believe that the Apple herd animals wait all night outside the
Apple stores to buy this pallid garbage at an inflated expensive price.
 Given the EU won't allow Apple to sell any phone Apple can't certify lasts
500 charge cycles without dropping below 80%, it's no wonder Apple can no
longer sell any iPhone older than the iPhone 15 in the EU later this year.
 By way of contrast, my free ($200 MSRP) Galaxy A32-5G has a 5Ah battery.

Which is irrelevant if it uses more power in the ratio of
1.37 to 1 with an iPhone 16
1.07 to 1 with an iPhone 16 Plus
1.40 to 1 with an iPhone 16 Pro
1.07 to 1 with an iPhone 16 Pro Max
And do you know you can look up which phones run the longest on a charge:
<https://www.gsmarena.com/phones_best_battery_life_buyers_guide-review-2028.php>
Guess which two phones they rank highest?
:-)