NewsKrawler wrote:

> iPhone 14 - 3279 mAh (iPhone 13 - 3,227 mAh)
> iPhone 14 Max - 4325 mAh (N/A)
> iPhone 14 Pro - 3200 mAh (iPhone 13 Pro - 3,095 mAh)
> iPhone 14 Pro Max - 4323 mAh (iPhone 3 Pro Max - 4,352 mAh)

Jesus Christ... *Are those pitifully puny capacities correct?*
If those are true, then Apple is still using stone-age battery technology.

The fact is almost all modern phones come with at least a five amp hour
battery capacity nowadays, with _many_ modern designs being six and seven
amp hours (where, by way of example, even my _free_ Samsung Galaxy came
with a modern 5 amp hour battery, cable, and fast charger, for contrast).

I sure hope those laughably pitiful substandard batteries aren't the
reality for the unfortunately hapless (yet intensely loyal) Apple customer.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information,
where, if those numbers are correct, Apple is fucking its loyal customers.

On 2022-06-28 07:43, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> NewsKrawler wrote:
>
>> iPhone 14 - 3279 mAh (iPhone 13 - 3,227 mAh)
>> iPhone 14 Max - 4325 mAh (N/A)
>> iPhone 14 Pro - 3200 mAh (iPhone 13 Pro - 3,095 mAh)
>> iPhone 14 Pro Max - 4323 mAh (iPhone 3 Pro Max - 4,352 mAh)
>
> Jesus Christ... *Are those pitifully puny capacities correct?*
> If those are true, then Apple is still using stone-age battery technology.
>
> The fact is almost all modern phones come with at least a five amp hour
> battery capacity nowadays, with _many_ modern designs being six and seven
> amp hours (where, by way of example, even my _free_ Samsung Galaxy came
> with a modern 5 amp hour battery, cable, and fast charger, for contrast).
>
> I sure hope those laughably pitiful substandard batteries aren't the
> reality for the unfortunately hapless (yet intensely loyal) Apple customer.

Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?

In article <t9fai5$14n94$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-06-28 07:43, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> >> iPhone 14 - 3279 mAh (iPhone 13 - 3,227 mAh)
> >> iPhone 14 Max - 4325 mAh (N/A)
> >> iPhone 14 Pro - 3200 mAh (iPhone 13 Pro - 3,095 mAh)
> >> iPhone 14 Pro Max - 4323 mAh (iPhone 3 Pro Max - 4,352 mAh)
> >
> > Jesus Christ... *Are those pitifully puny capacities correct?*
> > If those are true, then Apple is still using stone-age battery technology.
> >
> > The fact is almost all modern phones come with at least a five amp hour
> > battery capacity nowadays, with _many_ modern designs being six and seven
> > amp hours (where, by way of example, even my _free_ Samsung Galaxy came
> > with a modern 5 amp hour battery, cable, and fast charger, for contrast).
> >
> > I sure hope those laughably pitiful substandard batteries aren't the
> > reality for the unfortunately hapless (yet intensely loyal) Apple customer.
>
> Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?

everyone knows that bigger numbers are always better, regardless of
what the numbers represent.

On 6/28/2022 12:47 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <t9fai5$14n94$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-28 07:43, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> iPhone 14 - 3279 mAh (iPhone 13 - 3,227 mAh)
>>>> iPhone 14 Max - 4325 mAh (N/A)
>>>> iPhone 14 Pro - 3200 mAh (iPhone 13 Pro - 3,095 mAh)
>>>> iPhone 14 Pro Max - 4323 mAh (iPhone 3 Pro Max - 4,352 mAh)
>>>
>>> Jesus Christ... *Are those pitifully puny capacities correct?*
>>> If those are true, then Apple is still using stone-age battery technology.
>>>
>>> The fact is almost all modern phones come with at least a five amp hour
>>> battery capacity nowadays, with _many_ modern designs being six and seven
>>> amp hours (where, by way of example, even my _free_ Samsung Galaxy came
>>> with a modern 5 amp hour battery, cable, and fast charger, for contrast).
>>>
>>> I sure hope those laughably pitiful substandard batteries aren't the
>>> reality for the unfortunately hapless (yet intensely loyal) Apple customer.
>>
>> Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?
>
> everyone knows that bigger numbers are always better, regardless of
> what the numbers represent.

And shiny is better than dull.

News wrote:

>>>> I sure hope those laughably pitiful substandard batteries aren't the
>>>> reality for the unfortunately hapless (yet intensely loyal) Apple customer.
>>>
>>> Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?
>>
>> everyone knows that bigger numbers are always better, regardless of
>> what the numbers represent.
>
> And shiny is better than dull.

Nobodies lies like Apple lies.
And nobody at Apple knows how to do hardware design either.

Jesus Christ.
Those battery capacities are stone age laughably pitifully anemic.

Apple's power design is, in a word, so *atrocious* that Apple has to lie
about it - where these pitifully small laughably puny batteries are only
going to exacerbate the atrociously archaic Apple power delivery problem.

The fact *Apple was caught lying about battery run time*, and then
*Apple was caught lying about throttling*, and then
*Apple was caught lying about the release notes*, says a lot.

No wonder the article concluded that people should wait until Apple comes
up with a better iPhone design in a year or two than the shitty iPhone 14.

nospam wrote:

> everyone knows that bigger numbers are always better, regardless of
> what the numbers represent.

It's no longer shocking how these low-IQ iKooks don't have any concept of
the fact Apple had to _lie about battery run times_ just because their
battery capacities are so laughably puny as to be stone-age anemic.

*Those are pitifully cheap laughably anemic design specs if they're true!*

Jesus Christ.
*No wonder Apple is force to lie about battery run times.*

Apple had to _secretly_ throttle phones because of inept design, and then
Apple had to _secretly_ backdate release notes because of that inept
design.

And now Apple exascerbates the problem by putting in laughably puny
pitifully cheap batteries...

Such an atrocious design for a thousand dollar phone??????
--
I hope you get at least a fast charger with that thousand-dollar phone.

On 2022-06-28 12:54, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> everyone knows that bigger numbers are always better, regardless of
>> what the numbers represent.
>
> It's no longer shocking how these low-IQ iKooks don't have any concept of
> the fact Apple had to _lie about battery run times_ just because their
> battery capacities are so laughably puny as to be stone-age anemic.

Apple hasn't lied about their run times and iPhones do very well when
independently tested.

In article <t9fm15$19o9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Those battery capacities are stone age laughably pitifully anemic.

exactly correct.

at a minimum, phones should have an 18,000 mah battery:

<https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/02/26/20/10324720-6748375-image-a-46_
1551212974956.jpg>

accept nothing less.

> On 6/28/2022 12:47 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <t9fai5$14n94$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-06-28 07:43, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>>> iPhone 14 - 3279 mAh (iPhone 13 - 3,227 mAh)
>>>>> iPhone 14 Max - 4325 mAh (N/A)
>>>>> iPhone 14 Pro - 3200 mAh (iPhone 13 Pro - 3,095 mAh)
>>>>> iPhone 14 Pro Max - 4323 mAh (iPhone 3 Pro Max - 4,352 mAh)
>>>>
>>>> Jesus Christ... *Are those pitifully puny capacities correct?*
>>>> If those are true, then Apple is still using stone-age battery technology.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is almost all modern phones come with at least a five amp hour
>>>> battery capacity nowadays, with _many_ modern designs being six and seven
>>>> amp hours (where, by way of example, even my _free_ Samsung Galaxy came
>>>> with a modern 5 amp hour battery, cable, and fast charger, for contrast).
>>>>
>>>> I sure hope those laughably pitiful substandard batteries aren't the
>>>> reality for the unfortunately hapless (yet intensely loyal) Apple customer.
>>>
>>> Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?
>>
>> everyone knows that bigger numbers are always better, regardless of
>> what the numbers represent.

So, in a natural disaster, having 800 people dying is "better" than 200
people dying?!

On 2022-06-28 16:34:13 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2022-06-28 07:43, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> NewsKrawler wrote:
>>>
>>> iPhone 14 - 3279 mAh (iPhone 13 - 3,227 mAh)
>>> iPhone 14 Max - 4325 mAh (N/A)
>>> iPhone 14 Pro - 3200 mAh (iPhone 13 Pro - 3,095 mAh)
>>> iPhone 14 Pro Max - 4323 mAh (iPhone 3 Pro Max - 4,352 mAh)
>>
>> Jesus Christ... *Are those pitifully puny capacities correct?*
>> If those are true, then Apple is still using stone-age battery technology.
>>
>> The fact is almost all modern phones come with at least a five amp hour
>> battery capacity nowadays, with _many_ modern designs being six and seven
>> amp hours (where, by way of example, even my _free_ Samsung Galaxy came
>> with a modern 5 amp hour battery, cable, and fast charger, for contrast).
>>
>> I sure hope those laughably pitiful substandard batteries aren't the
>> reality for the unfortunately hapless (yet intensely loyal) Apple customer.
>
> Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?

The iPhone 14 is rumouredlt going to have an "always on" display, so
those "puny capacties" must be a far more efficient battery tech and/or
CPU chip tech.

In article <t9fp6i$k7p$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>
> The iPhone 14 is rumouredlt going to have an "always on" display, so
> those "puny capacties" must be a far more efficient battery tech and/or
> CPU chip tech.

the apple watch series 5 and later has an always-on display, with no
noticeable adverse effect on its runtime.

it can always be turned off.

nospam wrote:

>> Those battery capacities are stone age laughably pitifully anemic.
>
> exactly correct.

Jesus Christ, nospam.
Those battery capacities, if true, are pitifully archaic.

Apple is cheaping out like you can't believe on the iPhone 14
(if those laughably puny archaic stone-age cheap batteries are correct).

Whether you like the facts or not, nospam, Apple has been caught many times
in lies about their power design, which includes the fact nobody has ever
been able to reproduce the lies Apple produces about battery life.

Worse, in the case of the secret throttling, for which Apple paid over a
billion dollars in combined civil & criminal court case levies, it was
shown that Apple lied about their _stated purpsoe_ of that secret
throttling.

The American DA's from a few dozen states also got Apple on their lies
about the release notes...

It's no longer shocking the pattern isn't obvious to you low IQ iKooks.

a. Apple builds substandard power delivery designs
b. Which Apple does to shorten the life of the iPhone
c. Although some are simply the result of inept design teams
.... ... and then ... ...
d. Apple _lies_ like a Russian diplomat about it.

Just watch.

Those laughably archaic batteries are going to have to take a _lot_ of
Apple's lies in battery life claims to even come up to the level of what my
_free_ Samsung Galaxy has by way of battery life & fast charge out of the
box.
--
Nobody lies like Apple lies, & there are plenty of court cases proving it.

Your Name wrote:

> So, in a natural disaster, having 800 people dying is "better" than 200
> people dying?!

No wonder the article concluded nobody intelligent would want that iPhone.

The problem here is those pitifully laughably puny battery capacities, if
true, are a classic way for Apple to cheap out on their customer (again).

You should be embarrassed to own a smartphone with such pitiful batteries.

Your Name wrote:

>> Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?
>
> The iPhone 14 is rumouredlt going to have an "always on" display, so
> those "puny capacties" must be a far more efficient battery tech and/or
> CPU chip tech.

Bear in mind in independent comprehensive testing, _nobody_ reliable has
_ever_ reproduced _anywhere near_ Apple's advertised battery life claims.

nospam wrote:

> it can always be turned off.

Jesus Christ nospam, I sure _hope_ those pitifully anemic battery capacity
charts for the upcoming iPhones are wrong.

Because if they're anywhere near correct, Apple just shoved a fist up its
loyal customers' ass (again) and twisted it this time.

Those specs are of laughably archaic technology, nospam (if they're true).

In article <t9g11o$1cku$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> Those battery capacities are stone age laughably pitifully anemic.
> >
> > exactly correct.
>
> Jesus Christ, nospam.
> Those battery capacities, if true, are pitifully archaic.

you snipped to alter context, as always.

at a minimum, phones should have an 18,000 mah battery:

<https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/02/26/20/10324720-6748375-image-a-46_
1551212974956.jpg>

accept nothing less.

On 2022-06-28 16:10, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>>> Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?
>>
>> The iPhone 14 is rumouredlt going to have an "always on" display, so
>> those "puny capacties" must be a far more efficient battery tech
>> and/or CPU chip tech.
>
> Bear in mind in independent comprehensive testing, _nobody_ reliable has
> _ever_ reproduced _anywhere near_ Apple's advertised battery life claims.

So... ...the same as the claims of every other maker of smartphones, then?

:-)

On 2022-06-29 00:30:02 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2022-06-28 16:10, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Isn't what's actually important how long the PHONE lasts?
>>>
>>> The iPhone 14 is rumouredly going to have an "always on" display, so
>>> those "puny capacties" must be a far more efficient battery tech and/or
>>> CPU chip tech.
>>
>> Bear in mind in independent comprehensive testing, _nobody_ reliable has
>> _ever_ reproduced _anywhere near_ Apple's advertised battery life claims.
>
> So... ...the same as the claims of every other maker of smartphones, then?
>
> :-)

Yep. It the same for the claims all portable / battery powered devices,
as well as claims for things like vehicle fuel consumption or internet
connection speeds. Such figures given are only ever an indication and
usually done in tests with ideal conditions rather than real world
conditions.