Re: Data-led analysis of battery performance

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:41:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

Hence, it's my opinion you should organize your data by battery capacity.
Not by model. Not by Marketing bullshit. But by initial battery capacity.

 
I'm glad you say that's your opinion.

Hi Chris,

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

I've realized most of you haven't ever taken a logic class in college where
there's a concept of deductive reasoning which takes into account facts and
logical deductions based on those facts, which are often called opinions.

Hence, moving forward, I will strive to be very clear to you what I state
that is a fact versus what I state that is my assessment of many facts.

An example of a fact is no iPhone has anywhere near the battery capacity of
my free (~$180 MSRP) Android phone. That's just a fact. It's not arguable.

Yet, the iTrolls argue endlessly if I stated that simple fact, Chris.
You know this to be true. And yet, the fact is a fact even after all that.

What I often deduce, from that fact & from many (many!) other related
facts), is that my phone has a "better battery" than any iPhone ever made.

But wait... there's more that I deduce from many (many!) similar facts.

I deduce that Apple put el cheapo batteries into the iPhone, for example,
where I'm aware of Kuo's own assessment that Apple cheaps out on them.

I predicted the iPhone would fare badly in the EU efficiency tests too,
where, again, I'm aware battery size factors into the Efficiency rating.

And yet, a "B" is an "opinion" of "fared badly", where I predicate that
assessment on many (many!) facts, including Apple has been touting
efficiency for over a decade (which the iTrolls want me to confirm, but
that's absurd since it means they're too stupid to learn what everyone on
the planet other than the iTrolls is already extremely well aware of).

The iTrolls want me to prove that the sun comes up on the morning, Chris.

Worse, the iTrolls never took astronomy where I have taken it and therefore
whey I say the fact that the sun came up this morning and then the
prediction that it will come up tomorrow morning too, I based that not only
on the one fact but on many (many!) facts about celestial motions - which
none of the Apple religious zealots know anything about so they argue
endlessly about the single fact of the sun coming up not being a fact to
them but only an opinion to them.

Simply because they can't do any deductive reasoning on their own.
So they attack not only the facts, but all the assessments of those facts.

Where "opinions" will always differ between reasonably different people,
and rest assured, an Apple zealot is nothing like a normal person Chris.

So while Apple zealots dispute not only opinions, but every fact about
Appel that they don't like - the fact is still a fact nonetheless.

And the fact is iPhone batteries are puny compared to my cheap (free)
Android, and the assessment is that iPhone batteries are, by and large,
smaller than most Android phones - where the predictive assessment is that
it's unfair to compare an iPhone to an Android with a much larger battery. 

Hence, my "opinion" that it's a better analysis of battery-related
performance to compare iPhones to Androids of similar sized batteries.

When you organize by battery capacity, that will be interesting data.
Useful too.

 
That's a one-dimensional view.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

See above. The Apple zealots don't understand that my assessments are based
not on a single fact; they are based on many (many!) facts, Chris.

Bear in mind I have a higher degree in EE, when I assess that the battery
capacity is hugely influential, it's not based simply on the one fact.

For example, what do you know about internal resistance of a battery?
Or what do you know about redox potentials, Chris?

My main point on assessments is that they're based on many (many!) facts,
which none of the Apple trolls have the education to even comprehend.

So they brazenly deny that the sun comes up in the morning (as Rudy did
actually) because they're desperate to add FUD about my assessments.

Hence, it's NOT a one-dimensional view, IMHO, that the battery capacity is
the single most important criteria for three benchmark tests, Chris:
a. The EU benchmarks on "efficiency" (measured as an alphabetical score)
b. The life of the battery during a single day (measured in hours)
c. The lifetime of the battery (which is measured in charge cycles)

If you look at my figures you can see that
although, on average, a bigger battery means longer life there is quite a
lot if variability between models.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

For two reasons, I haven't "seen" your figures, the first of which is that
I opened your links up the moment I saw them after you posted where my
privacy-based web browser couldn't access anything so I gave up instantly.

The second reason is I read what you wrote and I already saw the flaws in
your reasoning in terms of how I would have thought an assessment should
be.

I don't trust marketing bullshit. Do I even need to mention that to you?
So I don't trust almost all the marketing bullshit that is out there.

If they truly compared iPhones on FUNCTIONALITY against Android, the iPhone
would always lose big time, for example. But that makes for bad press (and
even less for Apple advertising revenue).

It's not the Apple hardware, per se, that shows the iPhone lacks
functionality (although iPhones generally lack the hardware of Android,
which I can prove in battery capacity, ram capacity, display technology,
external ports, internal slots, etc.)....

No, it's not only that iPhone hardware sucks (for the most part), but that
the iOS operating system sucks in terms of allowing functionality, where
you don't want to get me started on how many things iOS can't do versus how
many things Android can't do because it's not a fair fight.

Apple always loses (bit time) on functionality; and yet that would make for
bad press so the news articles (which are really shills) don't say it.

So I don't trust most benchmarks which are often shills for the most part.

BTW, that's an "opinion" based on decades of facts.

For example, in the Tom's hardware
benchmark at 5500 mAh there's over 100 minutes' difference between best and
worst.

Normalization of the dataset is a standard part of engineering & science.

I haven't read the Tom's Hardware article (mainly because I don't trust
shills, but I can't say if it's a shill or not yet - so it's an opinion).

I'll look at that because my "opinion" which is based on facts (many
facts!), is that the only "fair" battery-life comparison of two completely
different systems in terms of which is more efficient, is to compare phones
of equal battery capacity.

BTW, if we were comparing "something else", there may be different
normalization such as when Apple trolls try to compare a cheap Android to
an expensive iPhone where not only do the Apple trolls ignore that the
iPhone will always lose out on functionality, but that they say the iPhone
is better because they ONLY compare them to cheap Androids - or - they only
compare them to the Androids which are sold only to people with too much
money (where the lack of basic functionality isn't a problem for them).

In short, I won't reply again to this thread until I've given you the
common decent courtesy of reading not only what you wrote (which I read),
but what your based your writing upon (namely the input data you cited).

Good work, Chris.
I commend you for your good work.

I'm waiting for others to respond to your good work to see what they think
also, but I haven't looked at your input or output data other than what you
wrote in the Usenet article - so I won't respond back until I do look at
it.