Apple Warned iPhones Have A Serious Battery Problem

[badgolferman]

In a shocking new report, highly regarded UK consumer advocacy group Which?
(equivalent to Consumer Reports in the US) has discovered Apple is
overstating the battery life of its iPhones by a massive margin.

“Which? tested nine iPhone models and found that all of them fell short of
Apple’s battery time claims. In fact, Apple stated that its batteries
lasted between 18 per cent and 51 per cent longer than the Which? results,”
said Which? in a statement.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/05/05/apple-iphone-xs-max-xr-upgrade-battery-problem-cost-iphone-x-8-plus/amp/

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 6 May 2019 01:47:55 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> ´Which? tested nine iPhone models and found that all of them fell short of
> Appleÿs battery time claims.

Hi Badgolferman,

*Yet again, Apple was caught touting vastly imaginary performance.*

You may not be aware but I already reported on this new big lie from Apple:
o Every Apple iPhone model tested vastly overstated battery life claims
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Q-x-uIzovg4>

As I accurately reported a while ago, it's even worse for Apple than you
noted in that the typical response from the apologists will be that
'everyone lies' about battery specs, but, the facts from that report are
that only Apple tells such vastly huge lies about their battery
performance.

Consistent lies also.

The facts are that Apple is apparently basically yet again, caught telling
a huge fib of vast 1/5th to 1/2 proportions (50%), where, HTC, the only
other company caught in the lie, was only 1/20th of a lie at ten times less
of a lie than Apple is telling (i.e., only 5%).

Apparently, Apple is so addicted to touting imaginary performance
o That "vastly" huge performance lies are normal for them (consistently).

And that's not even my words, as rasonable adults say the same thing:
o Apple Is Vastly Exaggerating iPhone Battery Life Claims According To UK Advocacy Group
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-overselling-iphone-battery-life-uk-advocacy-group>
"The biggest discrepancy belonged to the iPhone XR"

Meanwhile, in contrast to the huge and consistent lies by Apple on
imaginary performance, _all_ the other brands tested, every single phone,
UNDERSTATED their battery life, some by huge margins.
"It seems clear that Which? is using a different method of testing than
the manufacturers, but the disparity does not always work against the
phone makers. For example, Which? found that Sony's devices lasted 21
percent longer than the manufacturer's own talk time battery life
claims"

Some call Apple's consistent performance lies "vast", while others termed
it "significant"; where yet again, as is often the case, Apple's admittedly
loyal consumer is the one who loses big time in the performance category.
o Apple significantly overstates iPhone battery life
<https://betanews.com/2019/05/03/apple-significantly-overstates-iphone-battery-life/>

It will be interesting to see how the Apple Apologists make excuses,
particularly given the fact that plenty of Android manufacturers did not
lie on their performance specs.
"Nokia, Samsung, and Sony did significantly better in Which?'s tests.
All three manufacturers were found to have underestimated
the talk time of their devices."

[Lewis]

Never heard of them, but the battery life on my XR is significantly
better than the battery life on my 7 Plus, and the 7 Plus had excellent
battery life.

Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.

--
>You are forgetting something: the Nazgul are immune to non-magical weapons.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[nospam]

In article <slrnqcvo8v....@Snow.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > In a shocking new report, highly regarded UK consumer advocacy group Which?
> > (equivalent to Consumer Reports in the US) has discovered Apple is
> > overstating the battery life of its iPhones by a massive margin.
>
> > ³Which? tested nine iPhone models and found that all of them fell short of
> > Apple¹s battery time claims. In fact, Apple stated that its batteries
> > lasted between 18 per cent and 51 per cent longer than the Which? results,²
> > said Which? in a statement.
>
> >
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/05/05/apple-iphone-xs-max-xr-u
> > pgrade-battery-problem-cost-iphone-x-8-plus/amp/
>
> Never heard of them, but the battery life on my XR is significantly
> better than the battery life on my 7 Plus, and the 7 Plus had excellent
> battery life.
>
> Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
> intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
> similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.

<https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-battery-life-lower-than-apple-cl
aims-report-2019-5>
The test results also seemingly contradict reviews of the iPhone XR
from reputable tech sites including CNET, AnandTech, and Tom's Guide,
all of which rated the iPhone XR as having excellent battery life.
All three websites ran benchmarked battery tests on the iPhone XR and
found that it outlasted Apple's more expensive iPhone XS and iPhone
XR models.

[Chris]

Which? is very old fashioned. It's mostly a consumer watchdog and does,
mostly qualitative, reviews of products. They rarely state their methods in
detail, so are of more use as relative benchmarks rather than absolute.
Despite the fact that they give products scores out of 100.

[badgolferman]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Apple has been quick to fight its corner but it
has done so in a strange manner. Speaking to Business Insider, Apple
said:

“We rigorously test our products and stand behind our battery life
claims. With tight integration between hardware and software, iPhone is
engineered to intelligently manage power usage to maximize battery
life. Our testing methodology reflects that intelligence. Which?
haven’t shared their methodology with us so we can’t compare their
results to ours. We share our methodology for testing which we publish
in detail here.”

But Which? does publish its methodology and it is very simple: “To
complete its testing Which? charges up brand new, independently
purchased phones to full battery and times how long they last when
making continuous calls.” Conversely, Apple’s description of its
methodology is vague:

“Testing conducted by Apple in August 2018 using preproduction iPhone
XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR units and software, on both GSM and
CDMA carrier networks. Talk Time tests were conducted over a Voice over
LTE (VoLTE) network. All settings were default except: Bluetooth was
paired with headphones; Wi-Fi was associated with a network; the Wi-Fi
feature Ask to Join Networks was turned off.”

Yes, there’s lots of technical detail here but are these real-world
networks representative of typical user experience or in a test lab?
Are they continuous calls or a series of calls? Given we have been here
before, I’ve asked Apple to provide more information.

[nospam]

In article <qap99t$mq9$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >>> In a shocking new report, highly regarded UK consumer advocacy group
> >>> Which?
> >>> (equivalent to Consumer Reports in the US) has discovered Apple is
> >>> overstating the battery life of its iPhones by a massive margin.
> >>

> >>> 3Which? tested nine iPhone models and found that all of them fell short of
> >>> Apple1s battery time claims. In fact, Apple stated that its batteries

> >>> lasted between 18 per cent and 51 per cent longer than the Which?

> >>> results,2

> >>> said Which? in a statement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/05/05/apple-iphone-xs-max-xr-
> >>> u
> >>> pgrade-battery-problem-cost-iphone-x-8-plus/amp/
> >>
> >> Never heard of them, but the battery life on my XR is significantly
> >> better than the battery life on my 7 Plus, and the 7 Plus had excellent
> >> battery life.
> >>
> >> Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
> >> intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
> >> similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.
> >
> > <https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-battery-life-lower-than-apple-cl
> > aims-report-2019-5>
> > The test results also seemingly contradict reviews of the iPhone XR
> > from reputable tech sites including CNET, AnandTech, and Tom's Guide,
> > all of which rated the iPhone XR as having excellent battery life.
> > All three websites ran benchmarked battery tests on the iPhone XR and
> > found that it outlasted Apple's more expensive iPhone XS and iPhone
> > XR models.
> >
>
> Which? is very old fashioned. It's mostly a consumer watchdog and does,
> mostly qualitative, reviews of products. They rarely state their methods in
> detail, so are of more use as relative benchmarks rather than absolute.
> Despite the fact that they give products scores out of 100.

from what i've seen of their camera reviews, it's trash.

[nospam]

In article <xn0ltlvz...@reader.albasani.net>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris wrote:
>
> >nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article <slrnqcvo8v....@Snow.local>, Lewis
> >> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> In a shocking new report, highly regarded UK consumer advocacy
> >>>>group Which? (equivalent to Consumer Reports in the US) has
> >>>>discovered Apple is overstating the battery life of its
> >>>>iPhones by a massive margin.
> >>>

> >>>> 3Which? tested nine iPhone models and found that all of them
> >>>>fell short of Apple1s battery time claims. In fact, Apple

> >>>>stated that its batteries lasted between 18 per cent and 51

> >>>>per cent longer than the Which? results,2 said Which? in a

> łWe rigorously test our products and stand behind our battery life

> claims. With tight integration between hardware and software, iPhone is
> engineered to intelligently manage power usage to maximize battery
> life. Our testing methodology reflects that intelligence. Which?

> havenąt shared their methodology with us so we canąt compare their

> results to ours. We share our methodology for testing which we publish
> in detail here.˛
>

> But Which? does publish its methodology and it is very simple: łTo

> complete its testing Which? charges up brand new, independently
> purchased phones to full battery and times how long they last when
> making continuous calls.

that's vague.

> ˛ Conversely, Appleąs description of its
> methodology is vague:
>
> łTesting conducted by Apple in August 2018 using preproduction iPhone

> XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR units and software, on both GSM and
> CDMA carrier networks. Talk Time tests were conducted over a Voice over
> LTE (VoLTE) network. All settings were default except: Bluetooth was
> paired with headphones; Wi-Fi was associated with a network; the Wi-Fi

> feature Ask to Join Networks was turned off.˛

that's very definitely *not* vague. quite specific, in fact.

which? also contradicts *multiple* other tests, not just apple's:

[sms]

It's interesting that there have been no other battery life tests, that
I could find, that measure only talk time. Not just for Apple, but for
Android phones as well. I suppose that's because it's such an unusual
usage case. The independent tests have all concentrated on web usage. I
suppose that measuring only talk time is not that useful, but it's still
interesting to compare actual results with manufacturer's claims.

[sms]

On 5/6/2019 12:24 AM, Lewis wrote:

<snip>

> Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
> intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
> similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.

Perhaps, but remember that they tested a bunch of different
manufacturers' phones, all in the same way. HTC was slightly worse that
the manufacturer claim, but all the others non-iPhones were
significantly better than the manufacturer's claim.

[nospam]

In article <qaphou$88e$2...@dont-email.me>, sms

remember that they don't say what their way of testing involves, and
their claimed results do *not* match multiple independent tests.

<https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-battery-life-lower-than-apple-cl

[Beedle]

On May 6, 2019, Lewis wrote
(in article <slrnqcvo8v....@Snow.local>):

> In message<qao3oa$1iu6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> badgolferman<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a shocking new report, highly regarded UK consumer advocacy group Which?
> > (equivalent to Consumer Reports in the US) has discovered Apple is
> > overstating the battery life of its iPhones by a massive margin.
>
> > “Which? tested nine iPhone models and found that all of them fell short of
> > Apple’s battery time claims. In fact, Apple stated that its batteries
> > lasted between 18 per cent and 51 per cent longer than the Which?
> > results,”
> > said Which? in a statement.
>
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/05/05/apple-iphone-xs-max-xr-u
> > pgrade-battery-problem-cost-iphone-x-8-plus/amp/
>
> Never heard of them, but the battery life on my XR is significantly
> better than the battery life on my 7 Plus, and the 7 Plus had excellent
> battery life.
>
> Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
> intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
> similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.

My battery life is on the XS is excellent. Easily the whole day. WTF there
seems to be almost nothing but nay sayers trying to tear down Apple in here.
It’s a constant thing.

--
Beedle

[Beedle]

On May 6, 2019, badgolferman wrote
(in article <xn0ltlvz...@reader.albasani.net>):

If anything I have found the battery tends to last a little better than
Apple’s claim. Apple is one of the rare companies that states battery life
accurately. It is the likes of others, like Dell, that make wild claims that
require you to dim the screen, do nothing but wait, etc. Apple tends to say
things like talk time, watching videos, using the web, etc.

--
Beedle

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.22808DDE00...@news.giganews.com>,

Beedle <bee...@dont-email.me> wrote:

> > > In a shocking new report, highly regarded UK consumer advocacy group
> > > Which?
> > > (equivalent to Consumer Reports in the US) has discovered Apple is
> > > overstating the battery life of its iPhones by a massive margin.
> >
> > > ³Which? tested nine iPhone models and found that all of them fell short of
> > > Apple¹s battery time claims. In fact, Apple stated that its batteries
> > > lasted between 18 per cent and 51 per cent longer than the Which?
> > > results,²
> > > said Which? in a statement.
> >
> > >
> > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/05/05/apple-iphone-xs-max-xr-
> > > upgrade-battery-problem-cost-iphone-x-8-plus/amp/
> >
> > Never heard of them, but the battery life on my XR is significantly
> > better than the battery life on my 7 Plus, and the 7 Plus had excellent
> > battery life.
> >
> > Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
> > intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
> > similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.
>
> My battery life is on the XS is excellent. Easily the whole day. WTF there
> seems to be almost nothing but nay sayers trying to tear down Apple in here.
> It¹s a constant thing.

iphone battery life lasts 1-2 days in normal use and has for *years*,
among the longest runtime of all smartphones.

it could be longer, but nobody wants a giant battery:
<https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/4/30/18522236/energizer-hu
ge-battery-phone-p18k-pro-indiegogo-price-fail>

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 6 May 2019 12:49:23 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> We share our methodology for testing which we publish

> in detail here.Ą

Hi badgolferman,

As you're well aware, the Apple Apologists can't comprehend facts.
o Hence, Apologists _never_ get to the point of adult rational conclusions.

And, as you know, I'm all about facts first, and then adult rational logic
thereafter.

Adults generally have no problem agreeing on the facts, where adults can
reasonably disagree on the logic that is deduced from those facts.

The first fact is whether Apple actually did what they said they did.
o Only then can we begin to formulate adult rational conclusions.

Did Apple actually publish their methodology where they cited it?
o HINT: I looked and read what they published.

Did anyone else even _look_ to see what Apple "said" was their tests?
o HINT: Apple lied, IMHO.

If any rational adult disagrees with this logic, all I ask is that they
comprehend the "methodology" that Apple "says" they used for testing
batteries.

Since Apple pointed to a web page that had multiple dates, all I ask is
that you comprehend the _latest_ tests (i.e., those done on the XR) for
"Talk Time".

HINT: It's not much.

The point is that, IMHO, Apple lied in their statement, which was merely an
excuse, which only the Apologists take as the complete answer - where the
fact Apple lied (IMHO) isn't lost on rational adults - but - if you're a
rational adult - you'll simply check what I say - and formulate a rational
opinion of your own.

NOTE: Apologists don't even comprehend fact, let alone form rational adult
conclusions so I'm not asking the Apologists anything, since the apologists
have long ago proven to own the mind of a mere child, IMHO.

As an adult...
Look at what Apple "said" is their "methodology" for testing the XR:
"Talk Time Tests

Testing conducted by Apple in August 2018 using preproduction
iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR units and software,
on both GSM and CDMA carrier networks. Talk Time tests were
conducted over a Voice over LTE (VoLTE) network. All settings
were default except: Bluetooth was paired with headphones;
Wi-Fi was associated with a network; the Wi-Fi feature Ask
to Join Networks was turned off."

<https://www.apple.com/iphone/battery.html>

Hmmmmmm... that's it for their methodology?

NOTE: I only speak facts, where I expect rational adults to comprehend the
facts, and where, once they comprehend those facts, they can then
reasonably argue for a different rational interpretation of those facts.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 06 May 2019 08:53:08 -0400, nospam wrote:

> that's very definitely *not* vague. quite specific, in fact.

Why do I find it not surprising that an Apple Apologist would find Apple's
extremely non-scientific "published methodlogy", "not vague"?

It's as vague as clouds wafting in the wind, nospam.

I never expected Apple Apologists NOT to ascribe meaning to Apple's
pseudomeaningful bullshit, and you never let me down, nospam.

You prove, every time, to be a _perfect_ example
o Of an Apple Apologist

A. You can't comprehend facts, and,
B. Hence, you never seem to ever be able to form rational conclusions.

The rational conclusion, from any sentient adult, nospam...
o Is that Apple's so-called "published methodology" is as vague as they
could possibly make it and still have stupid people believe it isn't vague.

Apple isn't stupid.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 6 May 2019 07:51:12 -0700, sms wrote:

> It's interesting that there have been no other battery life tests, that
> I could find, that measure only talk time.

Hi Steve,

You're not an Apple Apologist, so I can speak to you as an adult.
o Also, note I've written peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past
where a tenet in science is to publish enough of a step-by-step methodology
so that others can almost exactly reproduce the same results (inevitable
variability taken into account as needed).

Hence, I first want to say that I appreciate that you went looking for
facts before making a rational assessment of those facts.

I wish to agree with you that I too find it a bit disturbing that there
aren't enough scientifically performed tests results available to us where
we can _compare_ their results accurately, where I agree that it's rational
to conclude that _neither_ of the two companies reported, in detail, their
testing methodology.

They only provided vague descriptions of their testing methodology, IMHO.

For example, only an apologist would find Apple's reference not vague, but
any rational adult would _also_ find Which?'s lack of reported methodology
also vague.

Hence, any rational adult might reasonable assess that we don't have much
to go on by way of trustworthy scientific methodology.

Since Apple has a long sordid well-known history of telling brazen public
lies (much like nospam does), I don't trust a word they say, where I verify
EVERYTHING they claim (since Apple's credibility has proven to be shit),
and where it's a given that the apologists seem to trust _everything_ Apple
says, a priori, which is just ridiculous, IMHO.

I would suspect you're somewhere in between, where I'd like to see what
doesn't seem to exist, which is a reliable well-documented step-by-step
reproducible methodology published on the net for us to compare results
with.

[nospam]

In article <qapnjp$lel$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> o Also, note I've written peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past

post links.

[nospam]

In article <qapmsn$k0c$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Apple isn't stupid.

you, on the other hand...

[Chris]

Neither is as detailed as they could be, but the Which? one is extremely
vague. It doesn't mention any settings like Apple does. How strong is the
signal, what are the screen settings, how many times did they test each
phone, etc?

[Chris]

That's great for you, but anecdotes are not very useful measures to make
decisions with.

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:060520191152082666%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Those that choose to use a powerbank case clearly do.

> <https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/4/30/18522236/energizer-hu
> ge-battery-phone-p18k-pro-indiegogo-price-fail>

[RJH]

+1. I've had minor run-ins with them over the methods they use. For
example, their audio tests aren't even blind. The comments sections are
quite revealing - they often test things incorrectly.

That said, they're not a bad ballpark go-to, and they do some good
consumer lobbying. And I get free access through work ;-)

--
Cheers, Rob

[RJH]

Should be interesting ;-)

--
Cheers, Rob

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 06 May 2019 13:04:23 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Apple isn't stupid.
>
> you, on the other hand...

*Almost every post from you, nospam, proves you own the mind of a child.*
o That's not even an ad hominem attack - it's a well-verified fact.

I don't even need to prove that fact since you prove it for me.
o All I need to do is point to the childish quips that you write.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 6 May 2019 17:35:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> That's great for you, but anecdotes are not very useful measures to make
> decisions with.

Exactly.

What we need, we don't seem to have, which is what Steve sought
o We need tests that are explained in enough detail to verify by
independent 3rd parties that we can _compare_ rationally, like adults.

Otherwise, you have the apologists taking Apple's word for everything,
where it's completely lost on the apologists that Apple ruined their
credibility long ago after having been caught secret throttling and brazen
lying to Congress, that nothing Apple says ever again can be believed
without independent verification.

And, that Which? article shows that, after independent verification:
o Apple overstated battery life by a huge amount
o HTC overstated it by a puny amount by way of comparison
o And the others _understated_ their claims of battery life

HTC's response was far more believable than Apple's response, by the way,
where HTC faults minor variations (which is reasonable), whereas Apple
sticks to their apparently grossly inflated imaginary battery life.

Time (and facts) will tell...

Q: Does Apple (yet again) tout hugely inflated imaginary "up to"
functionality that nobody on this planet can reproduce like Apple did with
the grossly inflated iOS 12.x "up to" performance claims?
A: Time (and facts) will tell...

HINT: Apple's credibility, like that of nospam, is shit.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 6 May 2019 19:30:15 +0100, RJH wrote:

>>> o Also, note I've written peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past
>>
>> post links.
>>
>
> Should be interesting ;-)

Hehhehheh... a bunch of ill-educated children taunting the lion I see ...

This is a good one, where if I did post proof here, I would be giving away
my privacy. However ...

If someone reputable, like Steve, would volunteer to keep my identity
private, I would gladly send a well-respected seminal scientific paper to
his government email, which is recorded such that he could vouch both for
keeping my privacy, and for accepting my proof.

Steve, if you're up to that, just post the method that I can send you my
first published paper (which is enough to "name just one"), which will be
from a very well respected scientific journal, rest assured.

BTW, it's clear to me that nospam has absolutely zero formal education, so,
at the same time, I want nospam (and maybe even RJH in the fifth-grade
peanut gallery) to send you their latest "diploma", whether that's a GED
or, maybe, they even graduated high school perhaps - which they would need
to prove for anyone who is an adult to believe it.

It's only fair, Steve, that he comply as I will, should you accept my
offer.

Let me know. (If desired, I can call you at your government office.)

[nospam]

In article <qaq05u$6km$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> And, that Which? article shows that, after independent verification:

there is no independent verification of anything that magazine did.

> o Apple overstated battery life by a huge amount

they did not.

*multiple* other independent tests are consistent with apple's numbers
and completely refute which?'s bogus claims.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-05-05 21:47, badgolferman wrote:
> In a shocking new report, highly regarded UK consumer advocacy group Which?
> (equivalent to Consumer Reports in the US) has discovered Apple is
> overstating the battery life of its iPhones by a massive margin.
>
> “Which? tested nine iPhone models and found that all of them fell short of
> Apple’s battery time claims. In fact, Apple stated that its batteries
> lasted between 18 per cent and 51 per cent longer than the Which? results,”
> said Which? in a statement.

You can't compare unless you know the Apple test plan and the Which?
test plan. For that matter, nor can Which?.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[Beedle]

On May 6, 2019, Chris wrote
(in article <qapr9e$604$1...@dont-email.me>):

I can say this. I’ve been buying iPhones since the first. The first few
were not so good and I’m just calling balls and strikes. By the 4/4s Apple
had it down cold. I have seen Dell claim 23 hours of battery life for a
laptop that won’t even get half that. When Apple says 10 hours you get 10
and a half. When Apple claims you hey a particular talk time, or a particular
length of watching videos, in general it is accurate. It used to be the
YouTubers reviewing the devices used to test that Apple was being accurate.
They don’t anymore because Apple has been about 95% accurate or better.

I have seen this myself, time after time. This happens to be a subject I
already raised when everyone was talking about 5G. So I’m not making it up
for this discussion. I have their latest MacBook Pro. I have a MacBook. I
have the iPad Pro and the XS phone. They all do well. Way more accurate with
the battery claims than any other vendor I have ever used. In my experience
it is the rest of the industry that lies through their teeth about battery
life. Apple delivers.

--
Beedle

[Lewis]

I loved my 3S, but the 4S was such a huge step up.

> I have seen Dell claim 23 hours of battery life for a laptop that
> won’t even get half that.

I have a client who has a recent dell laptop (three years old now?). He
uses it only for web browsing and word processing. It gets, at best, 6
hours of battery life.

My wife's 5 year old Mac Book routinely gets 12 hours.

And, of course, there are plenty of people that still do battery tests,
and those tests show that Apple's estimates are very accurate and other
companies are lying through their teeth.

The flagship Samsung uses 20% battery for an hour of video at 50%
brightness. While this is better than previous Samsung, it's far behind
the iPhone (despite the Samsung having a larger battery).

The Galaxy 10 gets about 7 (S10) to 8 (S10+) hours of battery in 3rd
party tests. Pathetic.

My wife has an iPhone XS and is generally out of the house 10 hours each
day without charging. He phone doesn't run out of battery. And mostly
she is in areas with terrible cell signal (which necessitated our buying
her a Apple battery pack to get through the day on her iPhone 7).

--
"Yessir, Captain Tight Pants."

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 6 May 2019 17:46:47 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> You can't compare unless you know the Apple test plan and the Which?
> test plan. For that matter, nor can Which?.

Hi Alan Browne,

I agree with your rational logical deduction stated above.
o Logic is funny that way.

Adults easily agree on rational logic deduced from actual facts.
o Adults are funny that way.

What we have are two almost completely independent data points.
o Both of which are, in essence, vaguely described.

Hence, what we need is simple:
o Third-party battery-life tests, whose results are published
o And whose methodology is published, which passes scientific scrutiny

We don't have that.
o I agree.

[Beedle]

On May 7, 2019, Lewis wrote
(in article <slrnqd2q9d....@Snow.local>):

I have the iPad Pro and mini, and I tend to use both at the same time almost
all day long. They both last without any trouble. And that’s with me
recharging the pencil on the iPad at least twice. The phone lasts all day.
The watch uses about half the battery by nightfall.

--
Beedle

[sms]

On 5/6/2019 2:46 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

<snip>

> You can't compare unless you know the Apple test plan and the Which?
> test plan.  For that matter, nor can Which?.

Well you can compare the talk time of all the different phones,
regardless of manufacturer's claims, as long as you do so in a
consistent manner.

The issue that "Which?" was pointing out was how closely the
manufacturer's claims aligned with real-world use. As anyone who has
done battery life testing for a manufacturer knows, you're not testing
for real-world use when you're determining "up to" numbers--you're
employing every possible power-reduction technique to make the numbers
as good as they can be.

GSM Arena has a good list of tests at
<https://www.gsmarena.com/battery-test.php3>

For example, the Xs Max is closest to the Galaxy S9+ in terms of features.

S9+
---
3,500mAh battery
Talk Time: 25:23 ("up to 35 hours") Claim 38% greater than test
Web Browsing: 11:15 ("up to 15 hours") Claim 33% greater than test
Video Playback: 16:45 ("up to 20 hours") Claim 19% greater than test

iPhone Xs Max
-------------
3,174mAh battery
Talk Time: 16:08 ("up to 25 hours") Claim 55% greater than test
Web Browsing: 11:08 ("up to 13 hours") Claim 17% greater than test
Video Playback: 13:43 ("up to 15 hours") Claim 28% greater than test

So both Samsung and Apple have specs that are very different than what
independent tests show.

I have no doubt that both companies were able to perform battery life
tests that supported their "up to" numbers. I remember doing "up to"
battery tests on tablets that I helped design. Screen brightness was
turned down, and we employed every battery saving feature available,
even though it was probable that actual users were not going to go to
those extremes because they just didn't have the need for maximum
possible battery life.

There is no "serious battery problem." Normal users don't really care
about using every possible battery-saving technique to go from
real-world times to "up to" times. Especially now, with wireless
charging, which makes it more practical to keep the battery charged
during the day.

[nospam]

In article <qasanm$31j$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > You can't compare unless you know the Apple test plan and the Which?
> > test plan.  For that matter, nor can Which?.
>
> Well you can compare the talk time of all the different phones,
> regardless of manufacturer's claims, as long as you do so in a
> consistent manner.

except that the testers generally do *not* explain the specifics of
their tests, making an objective comparison impossible.

> The issue that "Which?" was pointing out was how closely the
> manufacturer's claims aligned with real-world use. As anyone who has
> done battery life testing for a manufacturer knows, you're not testing
> for real-world use when you're determining "up to" numbers--you're
> employing every possible power-reduction technique to make the numbers
> as good as they can be.

apple doesn't play those games, which is why their battery run times
mirror reality, if not understated.

apple also gives details how they tested, so anyone can reproduce the
same tests.

[sms]

On 5/5/2019 6:47 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> In a shocking new report, highly regarded UK consumer advocacy group Which?
> (equivalent to Consumer Reports in the US) has discovered Apple is
> overstating the battery life of its iPhones by a massive margin.

LOL, no they're not. The "up to" numbers that phone manufacturers use,
including Apple and Samsung, are not what a user would typically see.

The "up to" numbers are what the manufacturer was able to obtain by
employing test criteria that maximized battery life in a way that few
users would ever bother to do.

Let's look at two flagship phones, the S9+ from Samsung and the Xs Max
from Apple, and use the test results from GSM Arena
<https://www.gsmarena.com/battery-test.php3>

S9+
---
3,500mAh battery
Talk Time: 25:23 ("up to 35 hours") Claim 38% greater than test
Web Browsing: 11:15 ("up to 15 hours") Claim 33% greater than test
Video Playback: 16:45 ("up to 20 hours") Claim 19% greater than test

iPhone Xs Max
-------------
3,174mAh battery
Talk Time: 16:08 ("up to 25 hours") Claim 55% greater than test
Web Browsing: 11:08 ("up to 13 hours") Claim 17% greater than test
Video Playback: 13:43 ("up to 15 hours") Claim 28% greater than test

So both Samsung and Apple have "up to" specs that are very different
than what independent tests show. That does not indicate a battery
problem. It indicates tests that were performed differently. One test
was performed in a way to maximize battery life, and one test was
performed in a way that a user might typically use their device.

It's very unfair to pick on just Apple when other companies do the exact
same thing. It might be nice if each company specified how they
performed their tests (screen brightness, radio status, headphones or
phone speaker, volume, processor throttling, continuous or intermittent
use, etc.).

[Chris]

Again that's all personal experience, which is great for you, but doesn't
necessarily reflect other people's experience.

For example my SE got at most a day and a half of life reliably when new.
Now three years on, it lasts about a day as long as I don't use too much.

> I have seen this myself, time after time. This happens to be a subject I
> already raised when everyone was talking about 5G. So I’m not making it up
> for this discussion. I have their latest MacBook Pro. I have a MacBook. I
> have the iPad Pro and the XS phone. They all do well. Way more accurate with
> the battery claims than any other vendor I have ever used. In my experience
> it is the rest of the industry that lies through their teeth about battery
> life. Apple delivers.

Agree mostly with their laptops. I've had a 15" Pro, two Airs and currently
a touchbar Pro. Very impressed with the Airs, but am a little disappointed
by the touchbar Pro's battery life. Don't quite have the confidence to go
the whole day without a charger. Whereas with Air I rarely carried the
charger with me.

[Beedle]

On May 7, 2019, Chris wrote
(in article <qasgpm$8li$1...@dont-email.me>):

You’re three years in and still doing well I’d say. And you can always
carry a small charger if you think you’ll need it in the bag. I bought a
bigger one and haven’t had the need to pack it yet. Mine is still new
though.

> > I have seen this myself, time after time. This happens to be a subject I
> > already raised when everyone was talking about 5G. So I’m not making it up
> > for this discussion. I have their latest MacBook Pro. I have a MacBook. I
> > have the iPad Pro and the XS phone. They all do well. Way more accurate with
> > the battery claims than any other vendor I have ever used. In my experience
> > it is the rest of the industry that lies through their teeth about battery
> > life. Apple delivers.
>
> Agree mostly with their laptops. I've had a 15" Pro, two Airs and currently
> a touchbar Pro. Very impressed with the Airs, but am a little disappointed
> by the touchbar Pro's battery life. Don't quite have the confidence to go
> the whole day without a charger. Whereas with Air I rarely carried the
> charger with me.

The MacBook I have is getting a little old though, and that one really does
well. It’s an m3 processor so it likely does better than your air does. The
15” is very new. I totally forgot to plug it in one day and went most of
the day before realizing it wasn’t plugged into the wall. Nothing about the
battery worried me.

I agree it’s just my personal experience. However, that experience is well
over a decade now. Nothing I have used comes close to Apple. The MacBook I
have has an on chip h265 decoder. So even playing video for ours has little
drain on it. That’s my point about Apple. They really do engineer their
hardware nicely.

--
Beedle

[nospam]

In article <qasgjo$7kd$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The "up to" numbers that phone manufacturers use,
> including Apple and Samsung, are not what a user would typically see.

for apple, they definitely are.

> The "up to" numbers are what the manufacturer was able to obtain by
> employing test criteria that maximized battery life in a way that few
> users would ever bother to do.

for apple, that's false. apple uses typical settings to closely mirror
what end users might experience in real world use. apple does *not*
inflate the numbers the way other companies do.

the 'up to' phrase is because it's an *estimate* and some pinhead will
sue because it's one minute less.

> It's very unfair to pick on just Apple when other companies do the exact
> same thing.

yet that's what you do.

> It might be nice if each company specified how they
> performed their tests (screen brightness, radio status, headphones or
> phone speaker, volume, processor throttling, continuous or intermittent
> use, etc.).

apple does do that.

<https://www.apple.com/iphone/battery.html>

Testing conducted by Apple in August 2018 using preproduction
iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR units and software, on
both GSM and CDMA carrier networks. Talk Time tests were conducted
over a Voice over LTE (VoLTE) network. All settings were default
except: Bluetooth was paired with headphones; Wi-Fi was associated
with a network; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks was turned off.

...

Testing conducted by Apple in August 2018 using preproduction
iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR units and software, on both

GSM and CDMA carrier networks. Internet over LTE tests were conducted
over an LTE network using a dedicated web server. Internet over Wi-Fi
had similar or better results. iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and
iPhone XR browsed snapshot versions of 20 popular web pages and
received mail once an hour. All settings were default except: The
Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks, Auto-Brightness, and True Tone
were turned off.
...

Testing conducted by Apple in August 2018 using preproduction
iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR units and software, on

both GSM and CDMA carrier networks. Video content consisted of a
repeated 2-hour 23-minute movie purchased from the iTunes Store. All

settings were default except: Bluetooth was paired with headphones;
Wi-Fi was associated with a network; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join

Networks, Auto-Brightness, and True Tone were turned off.

[nospam]

In article <qasgpm$8li$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>> Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
> >>>> intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
> >>>> similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.
> >>>
> >>> My battery life is on the XS is excellent. Easily the whole day. WTF there
> >>> seems to be almost nothing but nay sayers trying to tear down Apple in

> >>> here. It零 a constant thing.

> >>
> >> That's great for you, but anecdotes are not very useful measures to make
> >> decisions with.
> >

> > I can say this. I靶e been buying iPhones since the first. The first few
> > were not so good and I雋 just calling balls and strikes. By the 4/4s Apple

> > had it down cold. I have seen Dell claim 23 hours of battery life for a

> > laptop that won靖 even get half that. When Apple says 10 hours you get 10

> > and a half. When Apple claims you hey a particular talk time, or a
> > particular
> > length of watching videos, in general it is accurate. It used to be the
> > YouTubers reviewing the devices used to test that Apple was being accurate.

> > They don靖 anymore because Apple has been about 95% accurate or better.

>
> Again that's all personal experience, which is great for you, but doesn't
> necessarily reflect other people's experience.

actually, it does, because it's typical of most people's experience.

> For example my SE got at most a day and a half of life reliably when new.

which is actually better than what apple said it would:

<https://support.apple.com/kb/sp738?locale=en_US>

> Now three years on, it lasts about a day as long as I don't use too much.

still good.

[Chris]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <qasgpm$8li$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
>>>>>> intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
>>>>>> similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.
>>>>>
>>>>> My battery life is on the XS is excellent. Easily the whole day. WTF there
>>>>> seems to be almost nothing but nay sayers trying to tear down Apple in

>>>>> here. It¹s a constant thing.

>>>>
>>>> That's great for you, but anecdotes are not very useful measures to make
>>>> decisions with.
>>>

>>> I can say this. I¹ve been buying iPhones since the first. The first few
>>> were not so good and I¹m just calling balls and strikes. By the 4/4s Apple

>>> had it down cold. I have seen Dell claim 23 hours of battery life for a

>>> laptop that won¹t even get half that. When Apple says 10 hours you get 10

>>> and a half. When Apple claims you hey a particular talk time, or a
>>> particular
>>> length of watching videos, in general it is accurate. It used to be the
>>> YouTubers reviewing the devices used to test that Apple was being accurate.

>>> They don¹t anymore because Apple has been about 95% accurate or better.

>>
>> Again that's all personal experience, which is great for you, but doesn't
>> necessarily reflect other people's experience.
>
> actually, it does, because it's typical of most people's experience.

Based on what?

>> For example my SE got at most a day and a half of life reliably when new.
>
> which is actually better than what apple said it would:
>
> <https://support.apple.com/kb/sp738?locale=en_US>

I didn't say otherwise.

>> Now three years on, it lasts about a day as long as I don't use too much.
>
> still good.

Again, I didn't say otherwise.

[nospam]

In article <qasks7$1r3$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> >>>>>> Of course, consumer reports fucked up their battery tests by
> >>>>>> intentionally disabling battery saving features, so I expect some
> >>>>>> similar clickbait bullshit lie is involved here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My battery life is on the XS is excellent. Easily the whole day. WTF there
> >>>>> seems to be almost nothing but nay sayers trying to tear down Apple in

> >>>>> here. It1s a constant thing.

> >>>>
> >>>> That's great for you, but anecdotes are not very useful measures to make
> >>>> decisions with.
> >>>

> >>> I can say this. I1ve been buying iPhones since the first. The first few
> >>> were not so good and I1m just calling balls and strikes. By the 4/4s Apple

> >>> had it down cold. I have seen Dell claim 23 hours of battery life for a

> >>> laptop that won1t even get half that. When Apple says 10 hours you get 10

> >>> and a half. When Apple claims you hey a particular talk time, or a particular
> >>> length of watching videos, in general it is accurate. It used to be the
> >>> YouTubers reviewing the devices used to test that Apple was being accurate.

> >>> They don1t anymore because Apple has been about 95% accurate or better.

> >>
> >> Again that's all personal experience, which is great for you, but doesn't
> >> necessarily reflect other people's experience.
> >
> > actually, it does, because it's typical of most people's experience.
>
> Based on what?

based on people's real world experiences. other than defective
batteries, apple's stated numbers reflect actual usage.

> >> For example my SE got at most a day and a half of life reliably when new.
> >
> > which is actually better than what apple said it would:
> >
> > <https://support.apple.com/kb/sp738?locale=en_US>
>
> I didn't say otherwise.
>
> >> Now three years on, it lasts about a day as long as I don't use too much.
> >
> > still good.
>
> Again, I didn't say otherwise.

yet another data point confirming that apple's numbers are not
overstated.

[Lewis]

It matches up with 3rd party tests quite well. And it is not A personal
experience, it is the experience of millions of people.

> For example my SE got at most a day and a half of life reliably when new.

And? We're not talking about the SE which has a considerably smaller
battery and has an old battery. Guess what, batteries age. ALL
batteries age. This is irrelevant.


--
'It's time to-' 'Prod buttock, sir?' said Carrot, hurriedly. 'Close,'
said Vimes, taking a deep drag and blowing out a smoke ring, 'but no
cigar.' --Feet of Clay

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 07 May 2019 14:20:34 -0400, nospam wrote:

> apple does do that.
>
> <https://www.apple.com/iphone/battery.html>
> Testing conducted by Apple in August 2018 using preproduction
> iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, and iPhone XR units and software, on
> both GSM and CDMA carrier networks. Talk Time tests were conducted
> over a Voice over LTE (VoLTE) network. All settings were default
> except: Bluetooth was paired with headphones; Wi-Fi was associated
> with a network; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks was turned off.

Only you, nospam, and the apologists, would think _that_ description enough
to reproduce Apple's test in a scientific manner.

It's clear, to me, _every_ statement from you, nospam, shows a lack of
comprehension of basic adult comprehensive skills.

You literally believe anything (and everything) that Apple sells you
o Without even a single neuron in your brain connecting the dots

I think you lack sufficient education to tell fact from fiction, nospam.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 07 May 2019 12:47:03 -0400, nospam wrote:

> apple doesn't play those games, which is why their battery run times
> mirror reality, if not understated.

Everything you write, nospam, proves Apologists own entirely imaginary belief systems.
o I think you just don't have the education to tell fact from fiction.

Only an apologist would be unaware of Apple's gargantuan fibs in the performance arena, nospam.

HINT: Not a single source on this entire planet could even get _close_ to Apple's ridiculously unsupported "up to" claims on iOS 12.x performance, for just one well-known example.
o What's the actual tested performance improvement in iOS 12?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cRiIKVHlLTE/AM62rmF8BQAJ>

*As a result of gargantuan fibs, nospam, Apple's credibility is shit.*

Beside the fact that Apple essentially lied about iOS 12.x performance,
the fact is that Apple added _throttling_ to the iPhone 8 & iPhone X
with iOS 12.1 (i.e., which clearly _reduced_ performance!).
o By installing iOS 12.1, iPhone 8 & iPhone X CPUs are suddenly being throttled!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/KMkR1lTs-S4/K8H9gceeAAAJ>

> apple also gives details how they tested, so anyone can reproduce the
> same tests.

Only you, nospam, and, of course, Apple legal & marketing teams, would characterize
those two patently vague sentences from Apple as 'details'.

Everything you write, nospam, proves Apologists own entirely
imaginary belief systems.

I think you just don't have the education to tell fact from fiction.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 07 May 2019 15:34:38 -0400, nospam wrote:

> yet another data point confirming that apple's numbers are not
> overstated.

Everything you write, nospam, proves you Apologists own entirely

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 7 May 2019 09:11:32 -0700, sms wrote:

> As anyone who has
> done battery life testing for a manufacturer knows, you're not testing
> for real-world use when you're determining "up to" numbers--you're
> employing every possible power-reduction technique to make the numbers
> as good as they can be.

Hi Steve,
I agree with your logic, as adults have no problem agreeing with rational
deductions based on known facts.

Anyone who believes in Apple's gargantuan fibs, clearly owns an imaginary
belief system based on absolutely zero facts outside Apple's huge fibs.

Given we all know Apple spews gargantuan performance fibs, the only
question I would ask you to ponder, is whether you've seen Apple advertise
"up to" numbers so off the charts that _nobody_ on this planet has
reporting anything even within an order of magnitude of Apple's claims.

HINT: Remember the grossly inflated iOS 12.x 'up to' claims by Apple?
o Not a single reliable source could even get close to Apple's claims.

What's the actual tested performance improvement in iOS 12?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cRiIKVHlLTE/AM62rmF8BQAJ>

*Nobody on this planet could reproduce even close to Apple's claims!*

And that's _before_ we knew that Apple _added_ increased throttling in iOS
12.1, for Christs' sake, which even _further_ lowered the imaginary claimed
performance!

o By installing iOS 12.1, iPhone 8 & iPhone X CPUs are suddenly being throttled!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/KMkR1lTs-S4/K8H9gceeAAAJ>

The fact is that while all manufacturers tell fibs when it comes to their
"up to" claims, Apple is the topic of this newsgroup, where Apple is well
known to tell gargantuan fibs.

As a result of their gargantuan fibs, Apple's credibility is complete shit.
o That leaves third parties get us closer to the truth.

Anyone who believes in Apple's gargantuan fibs, clearly owns an imaginary
belief system based on absolutely zero facts outside Apple's huge fibs.

The only truth, is what comes from independent testing agencies.

[Chris]

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I was simply pointing out that my
experience is different to Beedle's.

[Chris]

On 06/05/2019 20:07, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2019 19:30:15 +0100, RJH wrote:
>
>>>> o Also, note I've written peer-reviewed scientific papers in the past
>>>
>>> post links.
>>>
>>
>> Should be interesting ;-)
>
> Hehhehheh... a bunch of ill-educated children taunting the lion I see ...
>
> This is a good one, where if I did post proof here, I would be giving away
> my privacy. However ...
>
> If someone reputable, like Steve, would volunteer to keep my identity
> private, I would gladly send a well-respected seminal scientific paper to
> his government email, which is recorded such that he could vouch both for
> keeping my privacy, and for accepting my proof.

The convenience of "privacy" for a troll.

> Steve, if you're up to that, just post the method that I can send you my
> first published paper (which is enough to "name just one"), which will be
> from a very well respected scientific journal, rest assured.

Name the journal.

> BTW, it's clear to me that nospam has absolutely zero formal education, so,
> at the same time, I want nospam (and maybe even RJH in the fifth-grade
> peanut gallery) to send you their latest "diploma", whether that's a GED
> or, maybe, they even graduated high school perhaps - which they would need
> to prove for anyone who is an adult to believe it.
>
> It's only fair, Steve, that he comply as I will, should you accept my
> offer.

Why does someone else have to go out of their way to support your wild
claims? How about you just post the Methods section of one of "your"
papers? Obviously, seeing as none of knows who you are you could
literally post anything, claim it to be yours and we'd be none the
wiser. However, it would indicate what you considered a good methodology.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 06:43:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I was simply pointing out that my
> experience is different to Beedle's.

While ill-educated ignorant apologists like nospam may actually _believe_
in their imaginary belief system, which they bolster with cherry-picked
anecdotal evidence...

*Anecdotal evidence is not science*, despite ignorant ill-educated people
believing otherwise.

o How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/>

o The Role of Anecdotes in Science-Based Medicine
<https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-role-of-anecdotes-in-science-based-medicine/>

o How to recognize tactics using anecdotes, testimonials and urban legends.
<https://scienceornot.net/2012/03/14/anecdotes-testimonials-and-urban-legends/>

I'm always wondering why Apologists like nospam are very often dead wrong.
o It could be simply that nospam is simply incredibly stupid, or,
o It could be nospam is simply pulling our leg for his own amusement.

However...

Perhaps one of the key reasons that nospam's credibility is worse than a
coin toss is that he actually _believes_ in anecdotal evidence as fact.

Lord knows, the apologists like nospam love to cherry pick anecdotal
evidence to bolster their imaginary belief system.

I'm always trying to figure out why Apologists are almost always wrong.
o Perhaps it's because they, like you Chris, don't comprehend even the
slightest bit about the concept of the scientific method.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 11:42:54 +0100, Chris wrote:

> Name the journal.

Hi Chris,
*You, Chris, are like a child taunting the lion behind the glass wall.*

What I find on this newsgroup are a bunch of well known worthless Apple
Apologists, of which you've made the list long ago, who don't appear to own
the brain of an adult, and who often prove their ill education by the
actual negative value in what you Apologists post.

You're a worthless coward, Chris.

You are all cowards, like kids taunting a lion who is behind the tall glass
border, where I name you cowards since you're all of the same mold:
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

Worse than you all being cowards, you spend _zero_ energy thinking, and
100% of your energy _taunting_, which you prove in almost every post, which
is why it's pretty clear that almost none of you, if any one of you even,
has any formal education whatsoever.

*You, Chris, are like a child taunting the lion behind the glass wall.*

I gave my response already, where I trust that Steve will accept my proof
at his government office if others feel that is necessary for me to prove
that I'm far better educared than any of the cowardly childish Apologists
appear to be based on what they write.

If you childish worthless cowards want to _change_ that agreement, take it
up with Steve please, but also remember that nospam has to prove proof
that he actually has even a high school diploma, as part of that agreement.

Otherwise, the implication is pretty obvious that almost all, if not all of
you Apple Apologists, are ill educated, which you essentially prove in
almost every post.

> Why does someone else have to go out of their way to support your wild
> claims? How about you just post the Methods section of one of "your"
> papers? Obviously, seeing as none of knows who you are you could
> literally post anything, claim it to be yours and we'd be none the
> wiser. However, it would indicate what you considered a good methodology.

Jesus Christ, Crhis,
You're an absolute idiot.

If you have no clue about scientific methods, then you're exactly like the
rest of the unfathomably ignorant Apple Apologists.

For example, I could describe the scientific method for you, but, just as
no amount of fact will be accepted by the likes of Alan Baker or nospam, en
entire treatise on the scientific method would be lost on you Chris, simply
because your accusations reek of ignorance of even the most basic of facts.

If you don't know what the scientific method is, then that _proves_ you've
never graduated from even high school for Christs' sake, Chris, let alone
college, since almost every high school and certainly almost every college,
makes a "lab science" mandatory as a requirement to graduate.

Since you, Chris, don't even comprehend something as basic as the
scientific method, then it's clear you likely don't even have a high school
GED, much like it's clear of that for the rest of the Apologists.
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

*You apologists are like children taunting the lion behind the glass wall.*

[Chris]

Arlen G. Holder <arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 May 2019 11:42:54 +0100, Chris wrote:
>
>> Name the journal.
>
> Hi Chris,
> *You, Chris, are like a child taunting the lion behind the glass wall.*

You're the one who made the claim. No one forced you to make it. Why be so
defensive?

>
>> Why does someone else have to go out of their way to support your wild
>> claims? How about you just post the Methods section of one of "your"
>> papers? Obviously, seeing as none of knows who you are you could
>> literally post anything, claim it to be yours and we'd be none the
>> wiser. However, it would indicate what you considered a good methodology.
>
> Jesus Christ, Crhis,
> You're an absolute idiot.
>
> If you have no clue about scientific methods, then you're exactly like the
> rest of the unfathomably ignorant Apple Apologists.

I seem to do alright. I've co-authored 35 peer reviewed papers.

> For example, I could describe the scientific method for you, but, just as
> no amount of fact will be accepted by the likes of Alan Baker or nospam, en
> entire treatise on the scientific method would be lost on you Chris, simply
> because your accusations reek of ignorance of even the most basic of facts.

I'm just asking you to back up what said with facts. Apparently that's all
you deal with so it should be easy.

> If you don't know what the scientific method is, then that _proves_ you've

It's my job to know what it is and is what I'm paid to do. Maybe stop with
the lecture/rant.

If you want to take back that claim, that's also fine.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 21:31:56 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> You're the one who made the claim. No one forced you to make it.
> Why be so defensive?

Hi Chris,

You're a worthless Apple Apologist, who, like all the child Apologists,
appear to be, have been unable to even attain a high school diploma, Chris.

> I seem to do alright. I've co-authored 35 peer reviewed papers.

AFAICT, you've never even _once_ in your life, added any value to _any_
conversation on Usenet, Chris.

Your credibility is shit, Chris.

> I'm just asking you to back up what said with facts. Apparently that's all
> you deal with so it should be easy.

The fact that you didn't comprehend the stated logical response, Chris,
proves you Apologists can't comprehend even the _simplest_ of facts, Chris.

> It's my job to know what it is and is what I'm paid to do. Maybe stop with
> the lecture/rant.

Chris ... some day you'll add value to Usenet.
o Clearly not today.

> If you want to take back that claim, that's also fine.

Chris,
The fact you didn't comprehend what I wrote is clear enough proof that you
own a brain that can't comprehend even the _simplest_ of obvious facts.

I don't even need to prove that you didn't comprehend the facts.
o Your own words prove that for me.

All I have to do is point to your own words, Chris
o Which prove that you can't comprehend even the simplest of facts.

You're just like the rest of the ill-educated Apple Apologists, Chris.

[Chris]

Arlen G. Holder <arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 May 2019 21:31:56 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> You're the one who made the claim. No one forced you to make it.
>> Why be so defensive?
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> You're a worthless Apple Apologist, who, like all the child Apologists,

You know I actually was interested in what science you were involved in,
that's why I asked. But somehow you've misconstrued it as an attack. Calm
it right down.

> appear to be, have been unable to even attain a high school diploma, Chris.

You're right I haven't, but then I didn't go to school in the US ;)

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 07:35:02 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> You know I actually was interested in what science you were involved in,
> that's why I asked. But somehow you've misconstrued it as an attack. Calm
> it right down.

Hi Chris,

To figure out your value, simply ask yourself this most basic of questions:
o How much on-topic added value have you added to this thread?

Answer = ?

HINT: Your value is actually negative, in that each of your posts, and my
responses to your posts, adds _negative_ value to the topic of this thread.

Basic conclusion?
o You're worse than worthless Chris; if you disappeared, the value on this
newsgroup would actually rise.

And that's a fact, Chris, which is easily proven in this thread alone.
o You aren't capable of adding any adult value to any thread, Chris.

[Beedle]

On May 9, 2019, Chris wrote
(in article <qb0l76$h12$1...@dont-email.me>):

Perhaps he has you confused with me. :)

--
Beedle

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 09 May 2019 06:54:57 -0700, Beedle wrote:

> Perhaps he has you confused with me. :)

It's sad, actually, that a human brain of the Apple Apologists is no more
credible than a coin toss, but I've seen it in the Apple Apologists for
years, so, while it's terrifying to realize such childish brains actually
exist, it happens to be a well-established fact (just look at anything
these apologists write, as a classic example of the mind of a mere child):

o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

I don't even have to prove that what I say is a fact.
o What these apologists post proves it for me.

I merely point out that their brain comes up with childish statements no
more credible than a simple coin toss.

It's terrifying these people actually exist.