Re: Why is overall Apple mobile device battery endurance per cycle 16% less compared to Samsung?

On Jul 4, 2025 at 1:43:12 PM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:26:30 +0000, Tyrone wrote :
 

Oh look. Arlen is cherry picking the results. AGAIN. Those numbers include
tablets. Filter on phones only, and you get a much different story.

 
Heh heh heh... you did it wrong Tyrone. See below. I did it yesterday.
Don't you wonder why I said "mobile devices" in the Subject & not phones?

No, nothing to "wonder about", because you were trying to change the subject
AGAIN.

Huh? You did the math wrong Tyrone. I already did the math yesterday.
Apple clearly beat Samsung (and Google) on smartphone endurance cycle.
 
Are you surprised I corrected you and said that Tyrone?
I'm a scientist and engineer.

LOL, good one.  You are so full of shit. Scientists don't say things like "It
is common knowledge" and then spout some totally bullshit claim with NO
EVIDENCE. You do that crap every day.

Not to mention that you have to be an adult to be a "scientist".  Children
just pretend to be scientists.
 

So that reputation Apple has for battery efficiency?
 It's legit in the smartphone arena only. Samsung's strong tablet
 numbers do skew their brand average, but they also shine in that category.

So, you FINALLY admit that iPhones ARE efficient?  And no one was EVER talking
about tablets.  Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject.

Summary of averages by brand & type:
 Smartphones Apple 66.9h Samsung 41.2h Google 48.0h
 Tablets Apple 74.3h Samsung 105.3h Google (none)

No one was EVER talking about tablets.  Again, you are desperately trying to
change the subject.

And AGAIN, iPhones use smaller batteries, because iPhones are more efficient.
 NOT "crappy cheap batteries because Apple is a shitty company" as you ALWAYS
claim.

When ARE you going to grow up?