Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> So, no: you still haven't figured it out.

Every iPhone you reported failed your own comparison criteria.

I'm done with this until you find an iPhone battery life comparison reported
by the testers between similar phones that does not fail your own criteria.

On 2021-07-08 11:25 a.m., Peter wrote:
> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> So, no: you still haven't figured it out.
>
> Every iPhone you reported failed your own comparison criteria.

Since you assumed the exists of a criterion (singular) that didn't
exist, that makes it a straw man.

>
> I'm done with this until you find an iPhone battery life comparison reported
> by the testers between similar phones that does not fail your own criteria.

"Criterion"... ...and it wasn't mine.

On 07/07/2021 17:30, paul wrote:
>> This is perfectly indicative of a comparison of iPhone to Android today.
>> (Before I finish my coffee, likely the Android will be fully charged @100%.)
>
> Yup. I haven't even _finished_ my morning thermos of coffee & I'm at 100%
> <https://i.postimg.cc/fTCK0PZk/update03.jpg>
>
> Even after running the smartphone nonstop all night on YouTube using
> NewPipe, and after updating to the latest security updates, all off the
> charger, the _correct_ fast charger _included_ in the box, has me at 100%.
>
> Those of you who don't own an iPhone have no idea of what something as
> simple as an operating system security update has on battery life, BTW.
>
> Compare this to the iPhone, which, even at about half price, costs me over
> four hundred dollars and it _still_ has to use that crappy old Apple slow
> charger (with new cables - which I forgot to mention in the first post).
>
> The total cost of the Android phone with the huge battery and with the
> correct fast charger in the box (and with the sdslot which made transition
> of old stored APKs trivial) and with an aux jack, etc., was about $30.
>
> Better. Faster. Cheaper. Android.
> Slower. Far more expensive. Far less functionality. iPhone.
>

Good information, Paul.

Thanks!

Fokke

Joerg Lorenz wrote on 08.07.2021 09:31
> The power consumption of the chip set and the battery management as well
> as the energy density of the battery tell us more by factors.

The question for adults is...
*Why is it that Apple always cheaps out on the most important components?*

Why can Samsung design even the least expensive phones using a great
battery, and Apple can't come up with a design that doesn't use cheap parts?

For such an incredibly expensive iPhone such as the iPhone 12, I don't
understand why key components, such as the battery, are so incredibly
cheaply made.

*iPhones use cheap batteries to increase profits* (they screw the customer)
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery>

What Apple did with the iPhone 12 series to increase their profits was to
cheap out on the battery, which was widely reported here and in the media.
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech>

And yet, *even the least expensive Android phones have huge batteries!*
"With a low-power processor, a 720p display, and a 5,000mAh battery, the A12
regularly made it through at least two days of use. At one point, I hit
seven hours of screen on time and still had nearly 50% battery life left. If
you're someone who routinely travels or camps, this might be a perfect
secondary device."
<https://www.androidpolice.com/2021/07/09/samsung-galaxy-a12-review/>

Why is it that Apple always cheaps out on the most important components?
--
Alan Baker, Alan Browne, Chris, Haemactylus, Joerg Lorenz, Jolly Roger,
Lewis, nospam, Rod Speed, Savageduck, Wade Garrett, Wolffan, Your Name,
et al. (They're all embarrassed & ashamed by facts which prove what Apple
is because they all believed only in what Apple _said_ it was.)

On 2021-07-09 8:01 a.m., paul wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote on 08.07.2021 09:31
>> The power consumption of the chip set and the battery management as well
>> as the energy density of the battery tell us more by factors.
>
> The question for adults is...
> *Why is it that Apple always cheaps out on the most important components?*
>
> Why can Samsung design even the least expensive phones using a great
> battery, and Apple can't come up with a design that doesn't use cheap parts?
>
> For such an incredibly expensive iPhone such as the iPhone 12, I don't
> understand why key components, such as the battery, are so incredibly
> cheaply made.
>
> *iPhones use cheap batteries to increase profits* (they screw the customer)
> <https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery>

I thought you only "spoke facts", Arlen:

'That's the prediction of well-known Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo.'

>
> What Apple did with the iPhone 12 series to increase their profits was to
> cheap out on the battery, which was widely reported here and in the media.
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech>

Another prediction, rather than fact:

'Looking to cut costs on next-generation hardware, Apple will adopt
cheaper and less complex battery technology for so-called "iPhone 12,"
"iPhone 12S" and "AirPods 3" devices, according to TF Securities analyst
Ming-Chi Kuo.'

>
> And yet, *even the least expensive Android phones have huge batteries!*
> "With a low-power processor, a 720p display, and a 5,000mAh battery, the A12
> regularly made it through at least two days of use. At one point, I hit
> seven hours of screen on time and still had nearly 50% battery life left. If
> you're someone who routinely travels or camps, this might be a perfect
> secondary device."
> <https://www.androidpolice.com/2021/07/09/samsung-galaxy-a12-review/>
>
> Why is it that Apple always cheaps out on the most important components?

Why is it you lie and present predictions as facts?