"AJL" <noemail@none.org> wrote in message
news:t801nd$1sto$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 6/10/2022 10:28 AM, nospam wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> Connectors seem to keep improving over the years and so if one were
>>> declared a standard by a government would the improvements stop?
>
>> a new connector would be illegal, thereby prohibiting any
>> improvements, at least until they reconvene and decide to update the
>> law, which can take years. keep in mind that usb-c is nearly 10
>> years old.
>
> How about no connectors? I could certainly live with such a phone. I
> haven't used any on mine (USB-C or earphone) in over a year now. Well, I
> did recently test to see if audio came through both ports (and it did)
> for a Usenet post but I won't count that...

I'm not in favour of that. It is a lot more work to set up a connection
between two computers (including phones or tablets) by Bluetooth etc than it
is to connect them by a simple cable. And for earphones etc it means they
need extra components such as rechargeable battery, Bluetooth circuitry,
amplifier, which increases size and complexity and cost.

The worst are Bluetooth earphones: you configure them so they will
auto-connect to several devices such as laptop, phone, tablet. And then you
want to use them with one device when the others are in range. This usually
needs BT to be disabled on all other devices to force the earphones to
connect to the device that you want.

Wireless charging is great, although it means carrying around a much larger
device than a cable that can be plugged into anyone's USB mains charger or
any computer.

There is a place for both wired and wireless...

On 6/11/2022 8:25 AM, sms wrote:

> it's odd that someone would use a wireless charging pad with a wire
> from the power adapter to the charging pad rather than connecting the
> wire directly to the phone, but if portless phones become a thing
> then it would make sense.

One of the selling points I saw was that it is easier to use. Just
snapping the charger to the back of the phone vs fiddling around trying
to hit the hole. Not a big deal for me and most folks but perhaps a help
to those with poor eyesight or other disabilities...

In article <t82c56$kt8$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, it's odd that someone would use a wireless charging pad with a
> wire from the power adapter to the charging pad rather than connecting
> the wire directly to the phone,

it's not odd at all. the wire to the pad does not get in the way of
anything. wireless charging is very convenient. many people use it,
including you (at least that's what you have claimed).

In article <t82fqg$1as$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > How about no connectors? I could certainly live with such a phone. I
> > haven't used any on mine (USB-C or earphone) in over a year now. Well, I
> > did recently test to see if audio came through both ports (and it did)
> > for a Usenet post but I won't count that...
>
> I'm not in favour of that. It is a lot more work to set up a connection
> between two computers (including phones or tablets) by Bluetooth etc than it
> is to connect them by a simple cable.

it's actually less work. once the devices have been paired (which is a
trivial process), they will auto-connect

> And for earphones etc it means they
> need extra components such as rechargeable battery, Bluetooth circuitry,
> amplifier, which increases size and complexity and cost.

not significantly. there are bluetooth headphones for under $5
(although they're probably not very good).

one major benefit is no wires to get tangled or caught in anything.

> The worst are Bluetooth earphones: you configure them so they will
> auto-connect to several devices such as laptop, phone, tablet. And then you
> want to use them with one device when the others are in range. This usually
> needs BT to be disabled on all other devices to force the earphones to
> connect to the device that you want.

modern bluetooth devices auto-connect to the device in active use
(i.e., sending data), even if there are other devices nearby.

> Wireless charging is great, although it means carrying around a much larger
> device than a cable that can be plugged into anyone's USB mains charger or
> any computer.

no need to carry anything, not even a cable, given that phones and
other devices last more than a day in typical use. charge them
overnight while sleeping, when at home (or at a hotel or whatever).

> There is a place for both wired and wireless...

true, but the world is moving to wireless.

On 6/11/2022 9:20 AM, NY wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote..

>> I think most folks would like a standard. The problem is which
>> one.
>>
>> Connectors seem to keep improving over the years and so if one were
>> declared a standard by a government would the improvements stop?

>> Most of my collection are chargers that were included in the box.
>> Perhaps if the charger were sold separately? I know some
>> manufacturers are doing it now so perhaps that will help...

> I don't know how robust and rugged USB-C is in relation to
> Micro-USB. I find that that Micro-USB cables last about 6 months
> before the contacts start to be intermittent. Sometimes it is the
> plug itself which fails, other times it is the cable right next to
> the plug.

Probably depends on the user. I seldom keep a tablet or laptop over a
few years before passing them on to a grandkid and I've never had a
cable, plug, or port problem (knocks on wood).

> A switch to right-angled plugs (of any type) would help for cables to
> phones and tablets, where there is the tendency to use the device,
> with the cable coming out of the bottom of the device, closest to
> your body when you are using the device, and this can strain the
> cable and plug.

All my tablets rotate so I just make the cable come out the top...

> Selling adaptors separately is good: it means that correctly
> localised versions can be sold for each country, rather than
> providing an adaptor which has standard pins into which one of
> several country-specific mains plugs is slotted (eg UK versus
> "standard European" versus US which all have to be supplied).

4 words: God I hate adapters.

> We need to carry two cables in the car: one for my older phone which
> uses Micro-USB, and one for my wife's phone and iPad which both use
> USB-C. In practice we use one cable, with or without a Micro-USB to
> USB-C converter. All we need now is a way to prevent that adaptor
> getting mislaid...

Me too. Me Android, her iPhone. I just leave 2 cables in the cars.

> One of the problems that I can foresee with the switch to USB-C is
> the use of USB-C at the *computer* end as well as it the peripheral
> end (where peripheral is printer

My printer's wireless so no problem there.

> I presume a computer connected to a printer or phone needs one sort
> of double-ended USB-C cable

I have a couple of those. They came with a device charger that has a
USB-C port.

On 6/11/2022 9:27 AM, NY wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.org> wrote in message

>> How about no connectors? I could certainly live with such a phone.
>> I haven't used any on mine (USB-C or earphone) in over a year now.

> I'm not in favour of that. It is a lot more work to set up a
> connection between two computers (including phones or tablets) by
> Bluetooth etc than it is to connect them by a simple cable.

Agreed. But they build phones for MOST folks and I doubt most folks do
much geek stuff needing cables these days.

> And for earphones etc it means they need extra components such as
> rechargeable battery, Bluetooth circuitry, amplifier, which
> increases size and complexity and cost.

Agreed again. I am still a wired earphone person. When my Chrome tablet
came with no earphone hole I didn't think I'd miss it. But then when I
wanted to charge AND listen, what a PITA (with the adapters needed) that
turned out to be.

> Wireless charging is great, although it means carrying around a much
> larger device than a cable that can be plugged into anyone's USB
> mains charger or any computer.

I've never needed to carry around any charger (except in the suitcase on
trips). So it's a YMMV thing as always.

> There is a place for both wired and wireless...

Yup. But as always, the market will decide...

On 6/11/2022 12:27 PM, NY wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.org> wrote in message
> news:t801nd$1sto$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 6/10/2022 10:28 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Connectors seem to keep improving over the years and so if one were
>>>> declared a standard by a government would the improvements stop?
>>
>>> a new connector would be illegal, thereby prohibiting any
>>> improvements, at least until they reconvene and decide to update the
>>> law, which can take years. keep in mind that usb-c is nearly 10
>>> years old.
>>
>> How about no connectors? I could certainly live with such a phone. I
>> haven't used any on mine (USB-C or earphone) in over a year now. Well, I
>> did recently test to see if audio came through both ports (and it did)
>> for a Usenet post but I won't count that...
>
> I'm not in favour of that. It is a lot more work to set up a connection
> between two computers (including phones or tablets) by Bluetooth etc than it
> is to connect them by a simple cable. And for earphones etc it means they
> need extra components such as rechargeable battery, Bluetooth circuitry,
> amplifier, which increases size and complexity and cost.
>
> The worst are Bluetooth earphones: you configure them so they will
> auto-connect to several devices such as laptop, phone, tablet. And then you
> want to use them with one device when the others are in range. This usually
> needs BT to be disabled on all other devices to force the earphones to
> connect to the device that you want.
>
> Wireless charging is great, although it means carrying around a much larger
> device than a cable that can be plugged into anyone's USB mains charger or
> any computer.
>
> There is a place for both wired and wireless...

I've done largish file transfers between phone and computer by cable and
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. Cable is by far fastest and easiest. I'd only do the
wireless as an absolute last resort and would always choose Wi-Fi sharing
over Bluetooth which in my tests is agonizingly slow. Maybe there is some
occult trick which will make Bluetooth transfers usably fast but I don't
know what it is.

As for charging, I use wireless 99% of the time -- place the phone on the
bedside charger and it is ready to go in the morning. In the car I _will_
plug the phone in but that is about it. With the a reduced number of
charging connections on modern devices I find that carrying a GaAs 100W
charger and a USB-C and a Micro-USB cable on the road is sufficient for
laptop, phone, and other miscellaneous devices I might be traveling with
and the same cables will transfer data to/from the computer quite neatly
and quickly. All of this fits in a relatively small bag and is ready to go
at the drop of an airline ticket. (along with the universal "foreign" plug
adapter of course).

--
Noli sinere pessimi nequissimique te tristificare!

NY wrote:

> I don't know how robust and rugged USB-C is in relation to Micro-USB.

I started buying USB-C devices in 2015, haven't had to bin any leads yet, or any
devices due to worn connectors.

> A switch to right-angled plugs (of any type) would help for cables to phones and tablets

I have a couple of right-angle USB-C leads, one is mostly used for my home
laptop, where it allows the side-mounted power cable to trail out the back,
rathr than to the side, the other is on the car for phone charging within the
centre-console.

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:110620221236031728%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <t82fqg$1as$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > How about no connectors? I could certainly live with such a phone. I
>> > haven't used any on mine (USB-C or earphone) in over a year now. Well,
>> > I
>> > did recently test to see if audio came through both ports (and it did)
>> > for a Usenet post but I won't count that...
>>
>> I'm not in favour of that. It is a lot more work to set up a connection
>> between two computers (including phones or tablets) by Bluetooth etc than
>> it
>> is to connect them by a simple cable.
>
> it's actually less work. once the devices have been paired (which is a
> trivial process), they will auto-connect

My experience with Bluetooth earphones is that that work about 3/4 of the
time, but the rest of the time I have to reboot the phone and/or put the
earphones back on the charger and then remove them (which effectively resets
them), and then maybe fiddle with turning the two separate devices on and
off. They can work flawlessly for many occasions on different days, then
they go into "awkward mode" and have to be spoon-fed to get them to work
again.

>> And for earphones etc it means they
>> need extra components such as rechargeable battery, Bluetooth circuitry,
>> amplifier, which increases size and complexity and cost.
>
> not significantly. there are bluetooth headphones for under $5
> (although they're probably not very good).
>
> one major benefit is no wires to get tangled or caught in anything.
>
>> The worst are Bluetooth earphones: you configure them so they will
>> auto-connect to several devices such as laptop, phone, tablet. And then
>> you
>> want to use them with one device when the others are in range. This
>> usually
>> needs BT to be disabled on all other devices to force the earphones to
>> connect to the device that you want.
>
> modern bluetooth devices auto-connect to the device in active use
> (i.e., sending data), even if there are other devices nearby.

Is that a function of the earphones or the music-playing devices to which
they are paired? My earphones are a fairly cheap Chinese make. There is no
way on the earphone to select which paired device to connect to if more than
one paired device is in range and turned on - it is hit-and-miss even if
only one device is actually playing sound and therefore sending data. My
older Sony SBH52 receiver, with wired connection from that to the earphones,
was a bit better, and at least had a menu by which you could choose which
player (laptop or phone) to connect to if it randomly connected to the wrong
one.

The other thing with a lot of Bluetooth devices is short range. My earphones
will just about stay within range if I go from one room to the next
(admittedly with rooms that have internal brick rather than plasterboard
walls). My wireless headphones for my big PC are old technology: analogue
input, analogue FM broadcast. And I can walk round most of the house and
stay in range.

"John McGaw" <Nobody@Nowh.ere> wrote in message
news:6_6pK.8077$sW.7108@fx37.iad...

> As for charging, I use wireless 99% of the time -- place the phone on the
> bedside charger and it is ready to go in the morning. In the car I _will_
> plug the phone in but that is about it. With the a reduced number of
> charging connections on modern devices I find that carrying a GaAs 100W
> charger and a USB-C and a Micro-USB cable on the road is sufficient for
> laptop, phone, and other miscellaneous devices I might be traveling with
> and the same cables will transfer data to/from the computer quite neatly
> and quickly. All of this fits in a relatively small bag and is ready to go
> at the drop of an airline ticket. (along with the universal "foreign" plug
> adapter of course).

How fast is wireless charging compared with charging through USB? I'm used
to the "fast" USB charger that came with my Samsung phone, which I think
uses 9 V rather 5 V if the device and charger negotiate this. That reduces
charging time a lot - useful when the phone is running down toward the
evening and I need to boost it quickly so it will last (without being
tethered to the charger apart from over a meal time etc).

Battery life of phones is still very poor: I'm lucky if I get more than
about 10 hours out of a charge, and that depends how much I have the screen
turned on. I've got into the habit of killing any app that I'm not using, as
opposed to just putting it into the background when I'm using another app.

All the extra computing power of a modern smart-phone comes at a price. My
old Nokia "dumb-phone" (it was a phone and could receive text messages, but
that was all it could do) could comfortably last a week on one charge. Wifi,
Bluetooth, GPS - all those adaptors turned on 24/7 tend to use up power. If
I turn off BT or GPS, I can guarantee that I forget to turn them back on
when I've driving, and I hear my phone ring but can't answer it because the
hands-free uses Bluetooth, or the satnav software on the phone can't work
out where it is without the GPS turned on. The number of times I've had to
stop, switch off the engine (to comply with the strict don't
touch-your-phone-while-driving laws here in the UK), turn on BT and call the
person back - only to find it was nothing important.

On 6/12/2022 11:14 AM, NY wrote:
> How fast is wireless charging compared with charging through USB?

To be honest, it is relatively slow but charging this way using the Android
adaptive battery function is less likely to reduce battery life in the long
run. I go to bed with maybe 45-55% battery charge and when the alarm rings
in the morning the battery is at 100% for another day. Maybe I use my phone
more lightly than most but I could, in a pinch, get two days from a full
charge on my Pixel 6 Pro especially since, when it gets down to 15% it is
set to start reducing unnecessary battery usage. I have reached that state
exactly once since I received the phone and mine was among the first to
leave Google's warehouse.

--
Noli sinere pessimi nequissimique te tristificare!

On 2022-06-13 03:23:46 +0000, John McGaw said:

>> How fast is wireless charging compared with charging through USB?
>
> To be honest, it is relatively slow but charging this way using the Android
> adaptive battery function is less likely to reduce battery life in the long
> run. I go to bed with maybe 45-55% battery charge and when the alarm rings
> in the morning the battery is at 100% for another day.

My phone has an 85% setting which says right on it that it saves battery
life.

On 6/11/2022 9:20 AM, NY wrote:

> I don't know how robust and rugged USB-C is in relation to Micro-USB. I
> find that that Micro-USB cables last about 6 months before the contacts
> start to be intermittent. Sometimes it is the plug itself which fails,
> other times it is the cable right next to the plug.

Yes, Micro-USB is a pain. USB-C is much better than Micro-USB, and
better than Lightning as well.

USB-C Has Multiple Advantages over Lightning

1. The USB-C device-side connector is a double-sided printed circuit
board, inside a steel shell, with 12 contacts on each side, all of which
can be used at the same time. The USB-C “male” connector, on the cable,
has 24 spring-metal pins (12 on each side) inside a steel shell.

2. The Lightning device-side connector has 8 spring metal contacts while
the Lightning cable has a printed circuit board with 8 contacts per side
(one side is used at a time). The device side has spring-steel retention
wings on each side that hold the Lightning cable male end into the
iPhone or iPad. The likely parts of the connector pair to wear out are
the spring metal pins and the retention wings as metal fatigue
eventually weakens the metal. It’s at least a $100 repair to replace the
Lightning port. With USB-C, if there’s a problem it’s usually on the
cable side so you just get a new cable. With Lightning you’re facing an
expensive repair or replacement.

3. USB-C supports much higher charging wattage because there are
multiple power and ground lines.

4. USB-C supports much faster data transfer because it uses multiple
differential pairs for data

5. USB-C cables have no electronics built-into the cable while Lightning
“MFi” cables have circuitry inside the connector, and Apple charges
royalties for the use of MFi. As a result, USB-C cables are much less
costly. A USB-C to Lightning cable, that is MFi compliant and that
actually supports fast charging is at least $12. A USB-C to USB-C cable
that supports fast charging is as little as $1.

6. Lightning connectors are more likely to break off on the cable end,
see Fix a stuck broken-off Apple Lightning cable connector tip! –
SeriouslyTrivial.com at
<https://www.seriouslytrivial.com/2016/01/23/fix-a-stuck-broken-off-apple-lightning-cable-connector-tip/>.

>
> A switch to right-angled plugs (of any type) would help for cables to
> phones and tablets, where there is the tendency to use the device, with
> the cable coming out of the bottom of the device, closest to your body
> when you are using the device, and this can strain the cable and plug.
>
> If USB-C is more robust, then there is a case for saying "will it ever
> improve significantly?".
>
> Selling adaptors separately is good: it means that correctly localised
> versions can be sold for each country, rather than providing an adaptor
> which has standard pins into which one of several country-specific mains
> plugs is slotted (eg UK versus "standard European" versus US which all
> have to be supplied).
>
> I suppose every manufacturer is scared of a cheap
> not-standards-compliant adaptor causing their device to malfunction and
> therefore giving the device (as opposed to the PSU) a bad name.
>
> We need to carry two cables in the car: one for my older phone which
> uses Micro-USB, and one for my wife's phone and iPad which both use
> USB-C. In practice we use one cable, with or without a Micro-USB to
> USB-C converter. All we need now is a way to prevent that adaptor
> getting mislaid...
>
> One of the problems that I can foresee with the switch to USB-C is the
> use of USB-C at the *computer* end as well as it the peripheral end
> (where peripheral is printer, phone, tablet etc). It's a question of
> master and slave. I presume a computer connected to a printer or phone
> needs one sort of double-ended USB-C cable whereas two phones connected
> to each other needs another sort which is wired for USB-on-the-go.
> Unless modern devices can auto-sense and remove the need for
> differently-wired cables - in the same way that there is no longer a
> need for distinguishing between straight-wired and crossover cables for
> Ethernet (thank goodness!).
>
>
> The main requirements for a modern connector are:
>
> - robust: resilient to many plug/unplug cycles and inadvertent sideways
> straining of plug in socket
>
> - latching (ideally) so the plug can't pull out if the cable gets
> tugged: if only all plugs were as good as BNC connectors! (*)
>
> - symmetrical so there isn't a right and a wrong way round to insert the
> plug (USB-C passes this test; normal (**) USB-A, B, Mini and Micro do
> not, just as RS-232 and parallel cables failed it)
>
>
>
> (*) SCART (European audio+video cables between VCR and TV) were
> notorious: the very thick heavy cable tended to pull one end of the plug
> out of the socket enough for the pins at that end to make intermittent
> contact or none at all. A *bad* design :-(
>
> (**) Excluding the special reversible versions of USB-A and Micro-USB
> which are a godsend ;-)

In article <t858l8$npj$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> 5. USB-C cables have no electronics built-into the cable while Lightning
> ³MFi² cables have circuitry inside the connector, and Apple charges
> royalties for the use of MFi. As a result, USB-C cables are much less
> costly.

the difference in cost is negligible.

> A USB-C to Lightning cable, that is MFi compliant and that
> actually supports fast charging is at least $12. A USB-C to USB-C cable
> that supports fast charging is as little as $1.

shop around a bit more, and that $1 cable is *not* usb-if certified.

> 6. Lightning connectors are more likely to break off on the cable end,

that's intentional and required, because it avoids costly repairs to
the device, versus replacing a cheap cable.

there are numerous threads on this newsgroup about damaged usb-c ports.

On 6/12/2022 12:51 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2022-06-13 03:23:46 +0000, John McGaw said:
>
>>> How fast is wireless charging compared with charging through USB?
>>
>> To be honest, it is relatively slow but charging this way using the
>> Android adaptive battery function is less likely to reduce battery life
>> in the long run. I go to bed with maybe 45-55% battery charge and when
>> the alarm rings in the morning the battery is at 100% for another day.
>
> My phone has an 85% setting which says right on it that it saves battery
> life.

I've never noticed that on my phone although it might be there buried
somewhere I haven't thought to look but under the settings > battery
section all it has is "battery usage", "battery saver", "adaptive
preferences", "battery share" and "battery percentage". I figure that the
adaptive charging procedure is gentle enough that there should be no worry
about damage from frequent charging to 100% that some people worry about.

--
Noli sinere pessimi nequissimique te tristificare!

On 6/12/2022 3:59 PM, John McGaw wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 12:51 PM, Your Name wrote:

>> My phone has an 85% setting which says right on it that it saves battery
>> life.

> I've never noticed that on my phone although it might be there buried
> somewhere I haven't thought to look but under the settings > battery
> section all it has is "battery usage", "battery saver", "adaptive
> preferences", "battery share" and "battery percentage".

On my Galaxy S10+ it's Settings>Battery and Device care>Battery>More
Battery Settings>Protect Battery Switch to on for 85% max charge. It's
buried just like you said. Took me awhile to find it for this post. But
I don't use it.

> I figure that
> the adaptive charging procedure is gentle enough that there should be no
> worry about damage from frequent charging to 100% that some people worry
> about.

I've slow charged mine overnight every night to 100% since the
beginning. The phone is in its 3rd year with no NOTICEABLE battery
degradation. So far I've never had to replace a battery before I got rid
of any device and have always charged to 100%. But as always YMMV...

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 3:59 PM, John McGaw wrote:
> > On 6/12/2022 12:51 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
> >> My phone has an 85% setting which says right on it that it saves battery
> >> life.
>
> > I've never noticed that on my phone although it might be there buried
> > somewhere I haven't thought to look but under the settings > battery
> > section all it has is "battery usage", "battery saver", "adaptive
> > preferences", "battery share" and "battery percentage".
>
> On my Galaxy S10+ it's Settings>Battery and Device care>Battery>More
> Battery Settings>Protect Battery Switch to on for 85% max charge. It's
> buried just like you said. Took me awhile to find it for this post. But
> I don't use it.

Thanks for that! On our Samsung Galaxy A51 phones it apparently is an
new feature in Android 12 / One UI 4.1 (Android 11 / One UI 3 didn't
have it.)

[...]

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "John McGaw" <Nobody@Nowh.ere> wrote in message
> news:6_6pK.8077$sW.7108@fx37.iad...
[...]

> How fast is wireless charging compared with charging through USB? I'm used
> to the "fast" USB charger that came with my Samsung phone, which I think
> uses 9 V rather 5 V if the device and charger negotiate this. That reduces
> charging time a lot - useful when the phone is running down toward the
> evening and I need to boost it quickly so it will last (without being
> tethered to the charger apart from over a meal time etc).
>
> Battery life of phones is still very poor: I'm lucky if I get more than
> about 10 hours out of a charge, and that depends how much I have the screen
> turned on. I've got into the habit of killing any app that I'm not using, as
> opposed to just putting it into the background when I'm using another app.
>
> All the extra computing power of a modern smart-phone comes at a price. My
> old Nokia "dumb-phone" (it was a phone and could receive text messages, but
> that was all it could do) could comfortably last a week on one charge. Wifi,
> Bluetooth, GPS - all those adaptors turned on 24/7 tend to use up power. If
> I turn off BT or GPS, I can guarantee that I forget to turn them back on
> when I've driving, and I hear my phone ring but can't answer it because the
> hands-free uses Bluetooth, or the satnav software on the phone can't work
> out where it is without the GPS turned on. The number of times I've had to
> stop, switch off the engine (to comply with the strict don't
> touch-your-phone-while-driving laws here in the UK), turn on BT and call the
> person back - only to find it was nothing important.

Which Samsung phone and which Android / One UI versions?

As to your comments:

Bluetooth should consume very little power.

Your Samsung phone probably has 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' with 'Turn on
Wi-Fi automatically', which will turn off Wi-Fi when you're not in
places where you use it frequently. On my A51 (Android 11 / One UI 3),
it's under Settings -> Connections -> Wi-Fi -> <three vertical dots > ->
Advanced -> 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically'.

As to GPS: The navigation app - i.e. (Google) Maps et al - should turn
GPS on and off, so GPS should be off when you're not using a navigation
app. You should not have to fiddle with the GPS (radio). If you have to,
something is wrong.

N.B. In the old days the user would switch GPS on and off. But for
(quite) some time, the *Location* setting (icon of an upside-down
droplet) can be *on*, while the *GPS* radio is *off*.

FYI, on my Samsung Galaxy A51 I have the Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Location
icons in the 'Quick panel' set to on. If I'm only using the phone - i.e.
the display - very lightly/shortly, a half hour slow charge per day is
enough to keep it topped up. So my battery usage is mostly dependent on
phone/display use, not Bluetooth or/and Wi-Fi. (When I'm using
navigation - i.e. GPS - in the car, I have the phone on the charger
(except perhaps for short trips)).

Hope this helps.

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:t87sd6.170.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
> Which Samsung phone and which Android / One UI versions?

Samsung Galaxy S7 (SM-G930F) with Android 8.0.0

> As to your comments:
>
> Bluetooth should consume very little power.
>
> Your Samsung phone probably has 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' with 'Turn on
> Wi-Fi automatically', which will turn off Wi-Fi when you're not in
> places where you use it frequently. On my A51 (Android 11 / One UI 3),
> it's under Settings -> Connections -> Wi-Fi -> <three vertical dots > ->
> Advanced -> 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically'.
>
> As to GPS: The navigation app - i.e. (Google) Maps et al - should turn
> GPS on and off, so GPS should be off when you're not using a navigation
> app. You should not have to fiddle with the GPS (radio). If you have to,
> something is wrong.
>
> N.B. In the old days the user would switch GPS on and off. But for
> (quite) some time, the *Location* setting (icon of an upside-down
> droplet) can be *on*, while the *GPS* radio is *off*.
>
> FYI, on my Samsung Galaxy A51 I have the Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Location
> icons in the 'Quick panel' set to on. If I'm only using the phone - i.e.
> the display - very lightly/shortly, a half hour slow charge per day is
> enough to keep it topped up. So my battery usage is mostly dependent on
> phone/display use, not Bluetooth or/and Wi-Fi. (When I'm using
> navigation - i.e. GPS - in the car, I have the phone on the charger
> (except perhaps for short trips)).
>
> Hope this helps.

On the pull-down menu (swipe downwards from top of screen) it has icons for
Wifi, Location, Bluetooth and Mobile Internet (amongst others).

I was wrong about an explicit GPS icon: that must have been my older Galaxy
S2.

I have Google Maps Location Sharing turned on, as has my wife, so we can see
very roughly where each of us is if one of goes out. We used it a lot when
she was driving to/from the office, in those strange pre-Covid days before
WFH became the norm ;-) I wonder how often Location Sharing polls the GPS
for a location update.

I discovered that Wi-Fi -> <three vertical dots > -> Advanced -> 'Turn on
Wi-Fi automatically' option and the other menu options. Until today I
thought the three-dots was associated with the option "Wi-Fi Direct" which
is immediately alongside it, so I never investigated it.

I usually find the battery lasts from about 8 AM until around 8 PM if I
don't run any apps - eg I don't do much/any web browsing or
sending/receiving emails. In normal use I have to give it a top-up slow
charge (normal USB charger rather than the Samsung fast charger) if I want
to use the phone much after 8 PM. I tend to use the slow charger if I've got
all night to charge the phone, and only use the fast charger if I need to
charge the phone as fast as possible.

Leaving apps such as the camera running in the background uses up battery
very quickly - usually first diagnosed by the phone heating up my leg in my
trouser pocket ;-)

Another battery drainer is a GPS logging app such as Viewranger, Outdoor
Active or Anquet, but I'm wise to that so if I'm recording a track while out
on a bike ride I always connect to a big external USB battery or to my
e-bike's propulsion battery via the bike's USB socket. Polling GPS every few
seconds uses a lot of battery ;-)

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:t87sd6.170.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
> > Which Samsung phone and which Android / One UI versions?
>
> Samsung Galaxy S7 (SM-G930F) with Android 8.0.0

Hmmm! How old is this phone? If it - and it's battery - is 'old', that
probably explains most of your battery problems.

Don't get me wrong, I hate it that smartphones, tablets, etc.. have
become devices which don't last more than three years or so, due to the
battery or/and Android version running out. You can't do anything about
the latter and taking care of the battery takes a lot of effort and
discipline. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

> > As to your comments:
> >
> > Bluetooth should consume very little power.
> >
> > Your Samsung phone probably has 'Intelligent Wi-Fi' with 'Turn on
> > Wi-Fi automatically', which will turn off Wi-Fi when you're not in
> > places where you use it frequently. On my A51 (Android 11 / One UI 3),
> > it's under Settings -> Connections -> Wi-Fi -> <three vertical dots > ->
> > Advanced -> 'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically'.
> >
> > As to GPS: The navigation app - i.e. (Google) Maps et al - should turn
> > GPS on and off, so GPS should be off when you're not using a navigation
> > app. You should not have to fiddle with the GPS (radio). If you have to,
> > something is wrong.
> >
> > N.B. In the old days the user would switch GPS on and off. But for
> > (quite) some time, the *Location* setting (icon of an upside-down
> > droplet) can be *on*, while the *GPS* radio is *off*.
> >
> > FYI, on my Samsung Galaxy A51 I have the Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Location
> > icons in the 'Quick panel' set to on. If I'm only using the phone - i.e.
> > the display - very lightly/shortly, a half hour slow charge per day is
> > enough to keep it topped up. So my battery usage is mostly dependent on
> > phone/display use, not Bluetooth or/and Wi-Fi. (When I'm using
> > navigation - i.e. GPS - in the car, I have the phone on the charger
> > (except perhaps for short trips)).
> >
> > Hope this helps.
>
> On the pull-down menu (swipe downwards from top of screen) it has icons for
> Wifi, Location, Bluetooth and Mobile Internet (amongst others).
>
> I was wrong about an explicit GPS icon: that must have been my older Galaxy
> S2.

OK.

> I have Google Maps Location Sharing turned on, as has my wife, so we can see
> very roughly where each of us is if one of goes out. We used it a lot when
> she was driving to/from the office, in those strange pre-Covid days before
> WFH became the norm ;-) I wonder how often Location Sharing polls the GPS
> for a location update.

I think it will poll quite frequently, otherwise it can't be very
accurate/useful. But I don't use Google Maps Location Sharing, so I
don't know for sure. Perhaps others can shed a light on this.

> I discovered that Wi-Fi -> <three vertical dots > -> Advanced -> 'Turn on
> Wi-Fi automatically' option and the other menu options. Until today I
> thought the three-dots was associated with the option "Wi-Fi Direct" which
> is immediately alongside it, so I never investigated it.

Let's see if this helps using less battery power (after it has
'learned' what your frequent Wi-Fi access points are).

> I usually find the battery lasts from about 8 AM until around 8 PM if I
> don't run any apps - eg I don't do much/any web browsing or
> sending/receiving emails. In normal use I have to give it a top-up slow
> charge (normal USB charger rather than the Samsung fast charger) if I want
> to use the phone much after 8 PM. I tend to use the slow charger if I've got
> all night to charge the phone, and only use the fast charger if I need to
> charge the phone as fast as possible.
>
> Leaving apps such as the camera running in the background uses up battery
> very quickly - usually first diagnosed by the phone heating up my leg in my
> trouser pocket ;-)

Does your Android / One UI version have settings for putting unused
app to sleep/deep-sleep? If so, that might help with battery usage.

> Another battery drainer is a GPS logging app such as Viewranger, Outdoor
> Active or Anquet, but I'm wise to that so if I'm recording a track while out
> on a bike ride I always connect to a big external USB battery or to my
> e-bike's propulsion battery via the bike's USB socket. Polling GPS every few
> seconds uses a lot of battery ;-)

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> I hate it that smartphones, tablets, etc.. have
> become devices which don't last more than three
> years or so, due to the battery or/and Android version
> running out.

I'm currently posting with one of my Fire tablets. Though
Amazon keeps its Fire OS up to date it is actually an older
version of Android. It seems to run all my sideloaded
apps just fine. And a bonus is that it runs older no
longer supported apps like this Groundhog newsreader
that my phone won't...

On 6/13/2022 11:07 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
snip...
>> On my Galaxy S10+ it's Settings>Battery and Device care>Battery>More
>> Battery Settings>Protect Battery Switch to on for 85% max charge. It's
>> buried just like you said. Took me awhile to find it for this post. But
>> I don't use it.
>
> Thanks for that! On our Samsung Galaxy A51 phones it apparently is an
> new feature in Android 12 / One UI 4.1 (Android 11 / One UI 3 didn't
> have it.)
>
> [...]

No such thing on my "pure Android" Pixel 6 Pro which leads me to believe
that the option is something that Samsung added for their devices. Some
companies are known for adding/removing/modifying Android features as they
see fit.

--
Noli sinere pessimi nequissimique te tristificare!

John McGaw <Nobody@nowh.ere> wrote:
> On 6/13/2022 11:07 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> snip...
> >> On my Galaxy S10+ it's Settings>Battery and Device care>Battery>More
> >> Battery Settings>Protect Battery Switch to on for 85% max charge. It's
> >> buried just like you said. Took me awhile to find it for this post. But
> >> I don't use it.
> >
> > Thanks for that! On our Samsung Galaxy A51 phones it apparently is an
> > new feature in Android 12 / One UI 4.1 (Android 11 / One UI 3 didn't
> > have it.)
> >
> > [...]
>
> No such thing on my "pure Android" Pixel 6 Pro which leads me to believe
> that the option is something that Samsung added for their devices. Some
> companies are known for adding/removing/modifying Android features as they
> see fit.

Yes, that's why I added the "One UI 4.1" part. One UI is the Samsung
UI on top of/instead of "pure Android"'s UI. That's the pain of
'Android', there's no such thing and no two versions are alike, not even
the same-numbered version of the same manufacturer.

That means that unless questions/problems/solutions/<whatever> only
relate to installable apps, all bets are off. We'll have to get over it,
but we don't have to like it, do we!? :-(

AJL <noemail@none.org> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I hate it that smartphones, tablets, etc.. have
> > become devices which don't last more than three
> > years or so, due to the battery or/and Android version
> > running out.
>
> I'm currently posting with one of my Fire tablets. Though
> Amazon keeps its Fire OS up to date it is actually an older
> version of Android. It seems to run all my sideloaded
> apps just fine. And a bonus is that it runs older no
> longer supported apps like this Groundhog newsreader
> that my phone won't...

My previous phone lasted a little less than four years, but that took
a lot of handholding and in the end it was unbearingly slow.

In that time, Android went from 5 to 10, but my phone didn't get any
Android updates. For my new phone (still in update support), Android
went from 10 to 12, two major versions in two years.

While there aren't that many apps which require recent Android
versions, there are some and some of those have no alternatives. That's
the reason that not only I needed a new phone, but SWMBO as well.

All in all, with smartphones/tablets, things go way too fast for my
liking, for no good reason. My computer (laptop) is a little over seven
years old, still working fine and still in support for another three
years. No way one can accomplish that with (Android) smartphones/tablets!

On 6/14/2022 2:46 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.org> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>>> I hate it that smartphones, tablets, etc.. have become devices
>>> which don't last more than three years or so, due to the battery
>>> or/and Android version running out.

>> I'm currently posting with one of my Fire tablets. Though Amazon
>> keeps its Fire OS up to date it is actually an older version of
>> Android. It seems to run all my sideloaded apps just fine. And a
>> bonus is that it runs older no longer supported apps like this
>> Groundhog newsreader that my phone won't...

> My previous phone lasted a little less than four years, but that
> took a lot of handholding and in the end it was unbearingly slow.

Wonder why. All my toys pretty much stayed the same (start slow-end
slow, start fast-end fast) while I had them. Admittedly I don't keep
them as long as you, usually under 2 years before passing them on.

> In that time, Android went from 5 to 10, but my phone didn't get any
> Android updates.

My Galaxy S10+ says OS updates for 3 years and security updates for 4
years. With a launch date of March 2019 I may have seen my last OS update.

> For my new phone (still in update support), Android went from 10 to
> 12, two major versions in two years.

My S10+ started at Android 9. IIRC my Groundhog newsreader quit at 10.
It lost its navigation bar menu. However I can still use it for reading
when out and about. Perhaps that's better. Gives me a little time to
conjure up a clever answer when I get home...

> While there aren't that many apps which require recent Android
> versions, there are some and some of those have no alternatives.

Amazon keeps my Fire tablets Fire OS up to date and they are currently
the equivalent of Android 9. I've installed the Play Store on them so
have the pick of it and the Amazon AppStore. So far nothing's refused to
run but have a few million more apps to test so will report back...

> That's the reason that not only I needed a new phone, but SWMBO as
> well.

The wife gets a new iPhone ever couple of years PLUS her iWatch... 8-O

> All in all, with smartphones/tablets, things go way too fast for my
> liking, for no good reason.

Planned obsolescence?

> My computer (laptop) is a little over seven years old, still working
> fine and still in support for another three years.

Yup. Windows does good with updates. My most recent $98US Chromebook has
5 years left. But I'm betting before 2 years goes by a grandkid will own
it so not my problem...

> No way one can accomplish that with (Android) smartphones/tablets!

Agreed.