Re: Data-led analysis of battery performance

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:

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.

 

<yawn>

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

Which you can do with my analyses. I dare you to look.

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.

None of which you can substantiate.

<further yawn>

 

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.

Of course you gave up. You dogma wouldn't let you look at heresy.

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.

And yet you don't share them... I call your bluff.

<even more yawn >

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.

And yet you only talk about absolute battery capacity of very different
hardware. When quoting science you can't pick and choose. You're flip
flopping like a fish out of water.

<snip>

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).

I look forward to it. Unlike you I'm prepared to receive peer review.