battery life test

[badgolferman]

Apple is known for using smaller battery capacities in its iPhones than
what we see in Android smartphones. But it can usually make up the
difference with tight hardware/software integration. In the latest battery
test, PhoneBuff found out how much power the iPhone 14 Pro Max had left
when Google’s Pixel 7 Pro died.

In the end, the iPhone 14 Pro Max had an impressive 21% battery remaining
when the Pixel 7 Pro died. Based on his testing, PhoneBuff says that
translates to 3.5 extra hours of messaging.

Usage time for the iPhone 14 Pro Max was 11 hours 44 minutes active with 16
hours standby for a total of 27 hours and 44 minutes.

Usage time for the Pixel 7 Pro was 9 hours and 41 minutes with 16 hours of
standby for a total of 25 hours and 41 minutes.



https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/iphone-14-pro-max-battery-test-pixel-7-pro/

[Andy Burnelli]

badgolferman wrote:

> Apple is known for using smaller battery capacities in its iPhones than
> what we see in Android smartphones. But it can usually make up the

> difference with tight hardware/software integration...

Hi badgolferman,

I'm rational, reasonable, logical, and well educated, where the uneducated
iKooks won't be responding to your note above as I rationally do below.

You're not expecting what I'm going to bring up, but the _huge_ problem, as
I see it, with the laughably puny batteries in iPhones is that those
doomed-to-fail designed-to-fail iPhones will die sooner because of it.

By dying sooner, I mean you'll need to REPLACE them sooner.
(I'm not discussing the fact that on day one, they may last longer).

I'm discussing that on day 600, they're ready for the trash bin.
*Remember - even Apple says their batteries degrade in use.*

Apple _designed_ the iPhone with those laughably puny batteries for a
reason, and no, you aren't the reason (their profits are the reason).

You have to remember that Apple designs iPhones punier batteries, in
general, than similar priced Androids because of smart MARKETING moves.

Why?

If you listen to the iKooks, they'll regurgitate Apple's claim of
"efficiency", and that works fine for the short term.

The very short term indeed.

But what about the long term.
Those laughably puny batteries in iPhones - how do they hold up?

Remember, Apple's regurgitated claim of battery efficiency doesn't hold
water when you keep in mind it was Apple themselves tho said batteries
degrade, and, get this... the smaller the batter - the sooner that
degradation reaches the threshold where it's toast.

But luckily for iPhone users, Apple has a ready-made solution.
But a new iPhone every couple of years.

Bingo.
Problem solved.

You'll never hear me say Apple marketing isn't brilliant.

Apple puts laughably puny batteries in iPhones so that they degrade faster
than they would have had they put a respectably modern sized battery in.

[Hank Rogers]

nospam will ejaculate when he reads your post.

[Bob Campbell]

Yes, this is well known. Early this year - or last year, whatever -
consumer reports did these tests also. iPhones consistently had the best
battery life. Android phones need larger batteries because Android and
Qualcomm.

There was much discussion about it here. The kiddie trolls dismissed it,
of course. 🙄

[Heron]

On 11/9/2022 8:23 PM, Bob Campbell wrote:
> Android phones need larger batteries because Android and
> Qualcomm.

There is an advantage to the typically much larger Android phone batteries
that Apple doesn't want you to have which is a longer lifespan before
inevitable chemistry degradation ages iPhone batteries below threshold.

[Bob Campbell]

Sure Arlen. Whatever you say. 🙄

[Jolly Roger]

Arlen (Heron) is lying, of course™.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Chris]

Do you have evidence to support that?

I keep my iphones for several years and have never needed to replace the
battery.

[Heron]

On 11/10/2022 7:57 AM, Chris wrote:
>> There is an advantage to the typically much larger Android phone batteries
>> that Apple doesn't want you to have which is a longer lifespan before
>> inevitable chemistry degradation ages iPhone batteries below threshold.
>
> Do you have evidence to support that?

It's normal chemistry that is taught in any lecture on redox potentials.

Everyone knows capacity matters tremendously in that a battery never gains
capacity over time - it always loses capacity as it chemically ages.

When the lower threshold is reached, that's it. Poof.
The phone will shut down.

Haven't you ever read Apple's own statement on its own batteries aging?
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387

Even Apple won't claim to own a different set of chemistry rules.
https://www.hihonor.com/global/blog/do-you-know-why-your-phone-battery-is-aging/
https://rolls-royce-solutions.de/ufaqs/what-is-battery-degradation-aging-and-what-are-main-factors-which-cause-aging/
https://www.androidauthority.com/smartphone-battery-life-drain-causes-1071423/
https://www.dejibattery.com/News/four-manifestations-of-mobile-phone-battery-aging.html

>
> I keep my iphones for several years and have never needed to replace the
> battery.

Even Apple won't claim to own a different set of chemistry rules.
https://chempedia.info/info/aging_of_batteries/

The lower the battery capacity, the sooner it ages below minimum threshold.
You think Apple doesn't know that when they design those small batteries?

Apple takes another shot at trying to explain why old batteries slow down iPhones
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gear/a14513023/apple-discount-battery-controversy/

Apple puts the smallest batteries in the iPhone that they can get away with
knowing full well the smaller the battery capacity, the sooner it will age
below the threshold for minimum performance of that smartphone.

[Heron]

On 11/9/2022 10:39 PM, Bob Campbell wrote:
> Whatever you say.

I wonder if the trolls have ever taken a class in high school chemistry?
Apple knows high school chemistry.

iPhone batteries are much smaller than equivalent priced Android phones.
Do you really think that's by accident?

It's basic and rather simple high school chemistry.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/redox-potential

The smaller the initial capacity, the sooner it ages below minimum.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12197/apples-issues-updated-statement-on-battery-ageing
https://beebom.com/apple-iphone-battery-aging-performance-blog/
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210557

[Jolly Roger]

Arlen is trolling, as usual™. All batteries start degrading the moment
they leave the factory. Due to fluctuations in the mass production
manufacturing process and differences in usage including environmental
factors and usage patterns, some batteries age faster than others.
Apple's batteries are designed to retain up to 80% of their original
capacity at 500 charge cycles. Most people end up using their devices
for 3-5 years before they feel the need to replace their batteries, and
some continue using their devices for even longer before replacing the
battery.

For instance, I've got an iPhone 4 that was purchased in 2010. A couple
years later, I got a newer model iPhone and gave the iPhone 4 to a
relative to use, and they continued using it without replacing the
battery for a few years after that. When they upgraded to a newer model
phone, they gave the iPhone 4 back to me. That was in *2019*, which
means the battery was *nine* years old. When I got it back from them, I
replaced its battery with a battery from iFixIt and put in my car where
it would be used as a dash cam to record my driving trips. And I would
still be using it today if I didn't have a spare iPhone SE (1st
generation) that I decided to use for that purpose instead. That iPhone
4 is still good as new today sitting in a box as a spare in case I need
it for something else.

[badgolferman]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>For instance, I've got an iPhone 4 that was purchased in 2010. A
>couple years later, I got a newer model iPhone and gave the iPhone 4
>to a relative to use, and they continued using it without replacing
>the battery for a few years after that. When they upgraded to a newer

>model phone, they gave the iPhone 4 back to me. That was in 2019,
>which means the battery was nine years old. When I got it back from

>them, I replaced its battery with a battery from iFixIt and put in my
>car where it would be used as a dash cam to record my driving trips.
>And I would still be using it today if I didn't have a spare iPhone
>SE (1st generation) that I decided to use for that purpose instead.
>That iPhone 4 is still good as new today sitting in a box as a spare
>in case I need it for something else.

They don't make them like they used to...

I agree about the iPhone 4-6 being good on batteries, but everything
I've had since then (excepting SE) have had their battery life degrade
10-12% within 18 months. Maybe it's just that the battery life
indicator came along at some time and we could now keep track of it or
the apps have become more power hungry, but the 7, 8, 12 I've had don't
hold up like the older phones.

[sms]

On 11/9/2022 8:23 PM, Bob Campbell wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, this is well known. Early this year - or last year, whatever -
> consumer reports did these tests also. iPhones consistently had the best
> battery life. Android phones need larger batteries because Android and
> Qualcomm.

Except that the test being referenced was the iPhone 14 Pro Max versus
the Pixel 7 Pro. There's no Qualcomm components in the Pixel 7 Pro,
while the iPhone 14 Pro/Pro Max has a Qualcomm modem. So you can't
logically blame Qualcomm.

A better comparison is the iPhone 14 Pro Max versus the Samsung Galaxy
S22 Ultra since both use the Qualcomm modem. The iPhone 14 Pro Max does
much better, though part of this is because of the smaller,
lower-resolution display. See
<https://www.tomsguide.com/face-off/iphone-14-pro-max-vs-samsung-galaxy-s22-ultra>.

[nospam]

In article <tkjbqt$j8bb$2...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> > Yes, this is well known. Early this year - or last year, whatever -
> > consumer reports did these tests also. iPhones consistently had the best
> > battery life. Android phones need larger batteries because Android and
> > Qualcomm.
>
> Except that the test being referenced was the iPhone 14 Pro Max versus
> the Pixel 7 Pro. There's no Qualcomm components in the Pixel 7 Pro,
> while the iPhone 14 Pro/Pro Max has a Qualcomm modem. So you can't
> logically blame Qualcomm.

the modem isn't the issue. it's the *processor*.

put simply: apple silicon is more power-efficient. also, ios is less
wasteful because it's native code, versus android, which uses a virtual
machine, with significant overhead.

> A better comparison is the iPhone 14 Pro Max versus the Samsung Galaxy
> S22 Ultra since both use the Qualcomm modem.

again, the modem is insignificant.

> The iPhone 14 Pro Max does
> much better, though part of this is because of the smaller,
> lower-resolution display.

the difference in display resolution is insignificant.

what *does* have an effect is the variable refresh display on the 14
pro max, which is substantially more power-efficient than the samsung
display, and that's in addition to the other advantages of ios devices.

[Andy Burnelli]

badgolferman wrote:

> They don't make them like they used to...

Hi badgolferman,

My conversations with you are unlike those with the child-like iKooks.
We cover details and innuendo and deep understanding of Apple history.

Always keep in mind my facts are credible and that the iKooks don't seem to
have ever read a newspaper in their entire lives, based on how ignorant
they are of topics which are extremely well known in the common references.

*Apple has been cheaping out on batteries for _years_ badgolferman*

The iKooks never read a newspaper in their life & they forget topics we've
covered in great detail on this very newsgroups - they're that ignorant.

We had entire threads with multiple cites showing Apple cheaped on out
batteries, both the boards and the components and the battery sizes.

The iKooks are oblivious to all facts pertaining to Apple, but since you're
an adult, I can dig up those references for you if you want more proof.

Remember badgolferman, what sets me most apart from the ignorant iKooks is
that I'm well educated and they have absolutely zero education
(not to mention the iKooks have an IQ of about 40 to 60 in general)...

That means I can comprehend facts that iKooks can't possibly understand.

*Apple put cheap batteries and boards into the iPhone 12 for profit*
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21394985/apple-iphone-12-battery-cost-5g-kuo
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech
https://www.maticstoday.com/2020/08/21/why-apple-is-using-cheap-battery-parts-in-iphone-12/
https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/21/kuo-iphone-12-5g-component-cost/
https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/20/kuo-iphone-12-battery-board/
https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/article/apple-opting-for-cheaper-battery-parts-to-cut-costs-on-5g-iphone-12-analyst-ming-chi-kuo/640657
https://techlog360.com/apple-will-use-cheaper-parts-in-the-iphone-12/

> I agree about the iPhone 4-6 being good on batteries, but everything
> I've had since then (excepting SE) have had their battery life degrade
> 10-12% within 18 months.

Apple has been cheaping out on batteries for _years_ badgolferman.

Just as Apple's strategy is to slowly decontent the iPhone so that the poor
customer is forced to figure out a way to get the functionality back, Apple
has been making the phone battery less and less equivalent to Androids.

There isn't a _single_ iPhone battery anywhere near the Android phones.

For example, my _free_ A32-5G, which is a bottom-of-the-barrel Samsung, has
a huge battery compared to the best of the best of the best of iPhones.

Nobody who knows anything about Apple wouldn't say Apple cheaped out on the
battery technology, badgolferman... from the components to the capacity.

> Maybe it's just that the battery life
> indicator came along at some time and we could now keep track of it or
> the apps have become more power hungry, but the 7, 8, 12 I've had don't
> hold up like the older phones.

We covered the fact Apple cheaped out on battery technology badgolferman.

These threads contain referenced _cites_ proving Apple cheaped out on them.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/dusIMmPTfrA/m/5pzAj14gAgAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/NDA_PaBCDf8/m/bDwjoEApCQAJ>
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/zmumvfSvCUk/m/OgBZYUORBwAJ>

Notice the iKooks are not only ignorant of everything Apple does, to the
point that I have to wonder if they've ever read a newspaper in their lives
but more to the point, we _covered_ in detail iOS cheaped out on batteries.

The iKooks are so ignorant, they can't even remember what we covered here!

[News]

De-contenting, like airlines.
Adding fees to regain removed attributes, like airlines.
Who learned from whom?

[Heron]

On 11/10/2022 5:19 PM, sms wrote:
> A better comparison is the iPhone 14 Pro Max versus the Samsung Galaxy
> S22 Ultra

Are you aware that a lower capacity batter is stressed more, all things
being equal, than a battery which is appreciably larger in capacity?

Are you aware that the lower the battery capacity, the sooner it ages below
minimum threshold?

Other than lower weight and higher profits, are you aware of any advantage
of a lower capacity battery?

[Andy Burnelli]

News wrote:

> De-contenting, like airlines.
> Adding fees to regain removed attributes, like airlines.
> Who learned from whom?

This is true that Apple isn't the only large company whose strategy is to
decontent the product and then sell back what they removed to consumers.

I'd tend to agree with you that the airlines are even worse than is Apple
even as Apple markeing always has their ready-made solution for you to get
the content back - just as the airlines do - e.g., pay for your lunch &
baggage & seat choice & even pay for the ability to get on the plane first.

Hence I agree that Apple isn't the only one decontenting to sell it back.
What other industries habitually decontent just so they can sell it back?

[Heron]

On 11/10/2022 11:35 AM, nospam wrote:>
> put simply: apple silicon is more power-efficient.

Put simply, the iPhone is designed to fall below threshold sooner.

>> A better comparison is the iPhone 14 Pro Max versus the Samsung Galaxy
>> S22 Ultra since both use the Qualcomm modem.
>
> again, the modem is insignificant.

Again, other than smaller size & bigger profits, there's /nothing/ good
that comes out of having a battery which is much smaller than all others.

>
>> The iPhone 14 Pro Max does
>> much better, though part of this is because of the smaller,
>> lower-resolution display.
>
> the difference in display resolution is insignificant.

The difference in battery capacity as it ages is hugely significant.

>
> what *does* have an effect is the variable refresh display on the 14
> pro max, which is substantially more power-efficient than the samsung
> display, and that's in addition to the other advantages of ios devices.

What *does* have a huge effect on battery life is initial capacity.

[Chris]

All you've provided is speculation and school-boy science.

The fact that Apple batteries don't discharge as quickly means they're used
and recharged less. It's equally easy to speculate that fewer charge cycles
means less chemical degradation and batteries last longer.

So I ask again, do you have evidence to support your assertion that Apple
batteries don't last as long as Samsung/Google/etc?

[Alan]

On 2022-11-10 10:31, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> They don't make them like they used to...
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> My conversations with you are unlike those with the child-like iKooks.
> We cover details and innuendo and deep understanding of Apple history.
>
> Always keep in mind my facts are credible and that the iKooks don't seem to
> have ever read a newspaper in their entire lives, based on how ignorant
> they are of topics which are extremely well known in the common references.
>
>  *Apple has been cheaping out on batteries for _years_ badgolferman*

This is more Arlen bullshit.

>
> The iKooks never read a newspaper in their life & they forget topics we've
> covered in great detail on this very newsgroups - they're that ignorant.
>
> We had entire threads with multiple cites showing Apple cheaped on out
> batteries, both the boards and the components and the battery sizes.
>
> The iKooks are oblivious to all facts pertaining to Apple, but since you're
> an adult, I can dig up those references for you if you want more proof.
>
> Remember badgolferman, what sets me most apart from the ignorant iKooks is
> that I'm well educated and they have absolutely zero education (not to
> mention the iKooks have an IQ of about 40 to 60 in general)...
> That means I can comprehend facts that iKooks can't possibly understand.
>
> *Apple put cheap batteries and boards into the iPhone 12 for profit*
> https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21394985/apple-iphone-12-battery-cost-5g-kuo
> https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/21/apple-to-offset-cost-of-5g-iphone-components-with-cheaper-battery-tech
> https://www.maticstoday.com/2020/08/21/why-apple-is-using-cheap-battery-parts-in-iphone-12/
> https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/21/kuo-iphone-12-5g-component-cost/
> https://www.pcmag.com/news/report-iphone-12-to-use-smaller-cheaper-battery
> https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/20/kuo-iphone-12-battery-board/
> https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/article/apple-opting-for-cheaper-battery-parts-to-cut-costs-on-5g-iphone-12-analyst-ming-chi-kuo/640657
> https://techlog360.com/apple-will-use-cheaper-parts-in-the-iphone-12/
>
>> I agree about the iPhone 4-6 being good on batteries, but everything
>> I've had since then (excepting SE) have had their battery life degrade
>> 10-12% within 18 months.
>
> Apple has been cheaping out on batteries for _years_ badgolferman.

This is just Arlen bullshit.

>
> Just as Apple's strategy is to slowly decontent the iPhone so that the poor
> customer is forced to figure out a way to get the functionality back, Apple
> has been making the phone battery less and less equivalent to Androids.
>
> There isn't a _single_ iPhone battery anywhere near the Android phones.
>
> For example, my _free_ A32-5G, which is a bottom-of-the-barrel Samsung, has
> a huge battery compared to the best of the best of the best of iPhones.

The actual capacity of the battery is irrelevant.

What matters is how long the battery actually allows the phone to run.

And in that area, iPhones are more than competitive.

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>

4 out of the top 15 smartphones tested were iPhones.

Arlen knows this, so he insists that it's the actual size of the battery
that matters.

This is much like he used to love to talk about how "inferior" iPhone
cameras were, but never acknowledged that his chosen source was testing
iPhones long after they had come out and so they looked bad against
significantly newer cameras.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-10, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> All you've provided is speculation and school-boy science.
>
> The fact that Apple batteries don't discharge as quickly means they're used
> and recharged less. It's equally easy to speculate that fewer charge cycles
> means less chemical degradation and batteries last longer.
>
> So I ask again, do you have evidence to support your assertion that Apple
> batteries don't last as long as Samsung/Google/etc?

NARRATOR: He doesn't.

[Heron]

On 11/10/2022 10:44 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> NARRATOR: He doesn't.

Understanding iPhone Battery Capacity
https://swappie.com/us/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-iphone-batteries/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/battery-capacity
Battery Capacity

https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-tell-if-you-need-a-new-iphone-battery
How to Tell if You Need a New iPhone Battery

https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/battery-characteristics/battery-capacity
Age and history of battery

https://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm
Battery Performance Characteristics

https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/how-to-check-iphone-battery-health
How to check your iPhone battery health

https://www.androidauthority.com/maximize-battery-life-882395/
How to maximize battery life


Battery life depending on capacity isn't only about smartphones by the way.

https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/how-long-should-an-electric-cars-battery-last
How long should an electric car's battery last?

But all you really need is this recent quote from Apple herself.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387
Phone Battery and Performance

"Oct 24, 2022 - Your battery's maximum capacity'' A battery will have lower
capacity as the battery chemically ages which may result in fewer hours of
usage"

The battery capacity is the MOST IMPORTANT attribute of battery life!

When Should you Replace your iPhone's Battery?
https://macreports.com/when-should-you-replace-your-iphones-battery/

"The Maximum Capacity is the biggest indicator as to when you need to
change your battery."

[Heron]

On 11/10/2022 7:09 PM, Chris wrote:
> So I ask again, do you have evidence to support your assertion that Apple
> batteries don't last as long as Samsung/Google/etc?

Are you seriously asking whether higher capacity batteries age to minimum
thresholds better than do the lower capacity batteries put in all iPhones?

[Heron]

On 11/10/2022 7:09 PM, Chris wrote:

> All you've provided is speculation and school-boy science.

WTF?

Redox potential is "school-boy" science?

Where did you go to school?

>
> The fact that Apple batteries don't discharge as quickly means they're used
> and recharged less. It's equally easy to speculate that fewer charge cycles
> means less chemical degradation and batteries last longer.

Name one actual benefit of a smaller battery other than profits for Apple?

>
> So I ask again, do you have evidence to support your assertion that Apple
> batteries don't last as long as Samsung/Google/etc?

Redox potentials.

Go back to school because everyone knows that a smaller battery will age
below threshold sooner than a larger battery would have aged below that.

Apple certainly knows this even if you don't.

[Chris]

On 11/11/2022 09:09, Heron wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 7:09 PM, Chris wrote:
>> All you've provided is speculation and school-boy science.
>
> WTF?
>
> Redox potential is "school-boy" science?
>
> Where did you go to school?

Electrolysis is part of the GCSE curriculum in the UK: 14-16 yo.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zcsyw6f/revision/1

Redox is done at 6th form: 17-18 yo.
https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/science/as-and-a-level/chemistry-7404-7405/subject-content/physical-chemistry#Oxidation_reduction_and_redox_equations

>>
>> The fact that Apple batteries don't discharge as quickly means they're
>> used
>> and recharged less. It's equally easy to speculate that fewer charge
>> cycles
>> means less chemical degradation and batteries last longer.
>
> Name one actual benefit of a smaller battery other than profits for Apple?
>
>>
>> So I ask again, do you have evidence to support your assertion that Apple
>> batteries don't last as long as Samsung/Google/etc?
>
> Redox potentials.

Lol.

> Go back to school because everyone knows that a smaller battery will age
> below threshold sooner than a larger battery would have aged below that.
>
> Apple certainly knows this even if you don't.

"Everyone knows" is the bastion of people who don't know.

[Chris]

On 11/11/2022 09:09, Heron wrote:

No. Try reading my question again.

[Chris]

On 11/11/2022 09:08, Heron wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 10:44 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> NARRATOR: He doesn't.
>

[snip gish gallup]

>
> But all you really need is this recent quote from Apple herself.
>
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387
> Phone Battery and Performance
>
> "Oct 24, 2022 - Your battery's maximum capacity'' A battery will have lower
> capacity as the battery chemically ages which may result in fewer hours of
> usage"

Full quote:
"Maximum battery capacity measures the device battery capacity relative
to when it was new. A battery will have lower capacity as the battery
chemically ages which may result in fewer hours of usage between
charges. Depending upon the length of time between when the iPhone was
made and when it is activated, your battery capacity may show as
slightly less than 100%."

> The battery capacity is the MOST IMPORTANT attribute of battery life!

Nope. It is the rate of chemical ageing that matters most.

> When Should you Replace your iPhone's Battery?
> https://macreports.com/when-should-you-replace-your-iphones-battery/
>
> "The Maximum Capacity is the biggest indicator as to when you need to
> change your battery."

Which is a relative measure in percentage, not absolute in mAh.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 5:58 AM, Chris wrote:
>> "The Maximum Capacity is the biggest indicator as to when you need to
>> change your battery."
>
> Which is a relative measure in percentage, not absolute in mAh.

Think about what you just said regarding the percentage & run the math.

If a battery is 6AH & then it loses 20% to aging, what's the AH capacity?
If a battery is 4AH & then it loses 20% to aging, what's the AH capacity?

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 5:46 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> So I ask again, do you have evidence to support your assertion that Apple
>>> batteries don't last as long as Samsung/Google/etc?
>>
>> Are you seriously asking whether higher capacity batteries age to minimum
>> thresholds better than do the lower capacity batteries put in all iPhones?
>
> No. Try reading my question again.

Even Apple doesn't claim to own different chemistry than science allows.

A smaller capacity battery ages below threshold sooner than a larger one.

That's just chemistry at work.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 5:44 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Apple certainly knows this even if you don't.
>
> "Everyone knows" is the bastion of people who don't know.

If your point is that there is some kind of "advantage" to Apple putting in
smaller batteries than everyone else does, then just name what that is.

Knowing that the iPhone isn't any smaller than similar Androids which have
far larger battery capacity, what are you claiming is the benefit of Apple
putting in a far smaller battery (other than profits for Apple itself)?

What's the benefit of a smaller battery (other than to Apple)?

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-11, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 10:44 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> NARRATOR: He doesn't.
>

> [a bunch of links that don't show that Apple's batteries need to be
> replaced sooner than other batteries]

You're a sad troll, Arlen. You can't even back up your own words with
objectively verified evidence. Just pathetic.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-11, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Everyone knows" is the bastion of people who don't know.

It really is, and dimwit Arlen repeats it here *constantly*.

[nospam]

In article <tkls5g$sa3$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Heron

<McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> What's the benefit of a smaller battery (other than to Apple)?

apple silicon and ios itself is more power-efficient than android, thus
it doesn't need as large of a battery for the same runtime (the only
thing that matters, not mah, wh or any other 'spec').

consider two vehicles, one which gets double the fuel economy of the
other. it would need a fuel tank half the capacity for the same range.

this is not complicated, except for you, who only serves to troll.

[Chris]

A functional battery is one which maintains the most of the from-new
capacity.

A 6AH battery that degrades 40% in two years is worse than a 4AH one
that only degrades 20% regardless what the absolute remaining capacity is.

[Chris]

On 11/11/2022 16:10, Heron wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 5:44 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> Apple certainly knows this even if you don't.
>>
>> "Everyone knows" is the bastion of people who don't know.
>
> If your point is that there is some kind of "advantage" to Apple putting in
> smaller batteries than everyone else does, then just name what that is.

The advantage of Apple is that it is kinder on batteries. As the OP
quite clearly shows - along with other comparable studies - iphones last
longer with smaller batteries than androids with larger ones.

> Knowing that the iPhone isn't any smaller than similar Androids which have
> far larger battery capacity, what are you claiming is the benefit of Apple
> putting in a far smaller battery (other than profits for Apple itself)?
>
> What's the benefit of a smaller battery (other than to Apple)?

Size is overly reductive. Longevity is key which you are clearly not
able to evidence that iphones are worse than androids at.

[sms]

There's a couple of advantages of the iPhone versus Android when it
comes to batteries.

First, Apple continues production of older models for several years
after the release so even if you're buying an older model, to save
money, you're likely to get a recent production model where the battery
has not been sitting around for a year or two.

Until recently, Apple's philosophy has been to use older models as their
mid-range models and not produce separate flagship, mid-range devices
(but to produce the SE as an entry-level device). With the iPhone 14,
this philosophy has changed, with the iPhone 14 and 14 Plus models being
mid-range models and the iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max being flagship models.

With Android phones, almost none are manufactured for more than two
years after initial release.

My iPhones:
11 (First available: 20 September 2019)
Production date: 19 Jun 2022
Purchase date: 11 October 2022
Battery health: 100%

Xr (First available: 26 October 2018)
Production date: 19 July 2021
Purchase date: 7 August 2021
Battery health: 96%

6s Plus (First available: 9 September 2015)
Production date: 6 Nov 2018
Purchase date: 19 Jan 2019
Battery health: 96%

A little disappointing that the 16 month old Xr has the same 4% loss as
the four year old 6s Plus, but I used the Xr as my primary phone whereas
the 6s Plus was not used much, it was bought for me by my employer for
political reasons. I should check my wife's SE2020 which she uses
constantly for many hours per day.

Second, new production batteries are available for many years after the
iPhone was produced. With Android, a phone that's several years old
probably has only replacement batteries that are also several years old.

For all three of my iPhones, it's still a long way until the 80% level
where battery replacement is recommended. I only got the 11 so I'd have
two phones that are eSIM capable so when we travel to countries where
physical SIM cards with a phone number are complicated to buy (like in
China) we have the option of purchasing a data-only eSIM.

I added this to the document <https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features>
as 41i on page 12.

[nospam]

In article <tkm25i$te4l$5...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> I only got the 11 so I'd have
> two phones that are eSIM capable so when we travel to countries where
> physical SIM cards with a phone number are complicated to buy (like in
> China) we have the option of purchasing a data-only eSIM.

thereby contradicting your bogus claim that physical sims are required
for travelers, thereby making the iphone 14 undesirable.

> I added this to the document

of course you did, hoping that nobody would notice yet another easily
debunked claim, one which you debunked on your own.

[sms]

On 11/11/2022 8:31 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> A 6AH battery that degrades 40% in two years is worse than a 4AH one
> that only degrades 20% regardless what the absolute remaining capacity is.

Exactly. On most Android devices you don't have any idea as to the
battery health other than empirical testing (unless the phone
manufacturer has added that capability, as Samsung has done).

On the iPhone, the phone is able to predict the battery health so you
have a good idea as to when it's necessary to replace the battery (or
upgrade the phone).

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-11, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/11/2022 5:44 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> Apple certainly knows this even if you don't.
>>
>> "Everyone knows" is the bastion of people who don't know.
>
> If your point is that there is some kind of "advantage" to Apple
> putting in smaller batteries than everyone else does, then just name
> what that is.

Apple's hardware and software designs use energy more efficiently,
allowing competitive run times on smaller batteries. You *desperately*
want to spin that as a "negative", and you're driven by your blind
hatred to lie to do it. You're a pathetic, lonely, old, man-child, Arlen.

[Hank Rogers]

You forgot to whine about face ID.

[Jolly Roger]

You mean sms's laughable claim that Face ID doesn't work in the dark,
which he gleefully added to his Super-Duper Book of Silly Lies? I don't
think anyone is whining about that - just laughing at how ridiculous the
claim is and using it as an obvious example of how full of shit sms and
everyone else in your little Apple troll gang are. You're all fucking
losers with no lives who hang out in the Apple news groups trolling all
day every day. : D

[Andy Burnelli]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> You forgot to whine about face ID.
>
> You mean sms's laughable claim that Face ID doesn't work in the dark,
> which he gleefully added to his Super-Duper Book of Silly Lies? I don't
> think anyone is whining about that - just laughing at how ridiculous the
> claim is and using it as an obvious example of how full of shit sms and
> everyone else in your little Apple troll gang are. You're all fucking
> losers with no lives who hang out in the Apple news groups trolling all
> day every day. : D

Jolly Roger can be forgiven for his hatred of facts... his entire life
people have been calling him stupid - but Apple doesn't call him stupid.

Apple loves Jolly Roger.
And Jolly Roger loves Apple.

While the iKooks have only seven responses to facts (one of which is
deflection), we could add an eighth response to facts they hate.

The iKooks whine about Face ID whenever there's any Apple fact they hate.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 4:31 PM, Chris wrote:
> A 6AH battery that degrades 40% in two years is worse than a 4AH one
> that only degrades 20% regardless what the absolute remaining capacity is.

WTF?
You cherry picked ridiculous assumptions that defy battery chemistry.

Your assumptions aren't based on battery chemistry.
They're based solely on wishful thinking.

You're just playing with the numbers, tweaking them arbitrarily to your
advantage, instead of understanding battery chemistry.

A smaller capacity battery will ALWAYS degrade sooner than a larger one.
That's why Apple puts the smallest batteries they can into the iPhone.

They die sooner.
For two reasons.

It's science.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 11:52 AM, sms wrote:
>> A 6AH battery that degrades 40% in two years is worse than a 4AH one
>> that only degrades 20% regardless what the absolute remaining capacity is.
>
> There's a couple of advantages of the iPhone versus Android when it
> comes to batteries.

Two factors will ALWAYS cause a smaller battery to degrade to the minimum
threshold sooner than a larger battery (all other factors being equal).

The first is that two batteries of the same chemistry will degrade at the
same rate given they're the same chemistry, which means, all other things
being equal, the smaller batter will fall to minimum threshold sooner.

But more important than that even degradation is that a smaller battery is
likely stressed more than a larger battery (all things being equal save for
the battery) and hence the smaller capacity battery degrades even faster.

Those are sensible assumptions that affect all batteries of the same type.
It's science.

That's why Apple uses the smallest batteries they can get away with.

[Heron]

You've got to be kidding that you accept the cherry picked arbitrary
figures quoted by the person you are responding to.

Two factors will ALWAYS degrade a smaller battery to minimum thresholds
sooner than a larger battery - all other things being equal.

The first is that both batteries are assumed to be of the same chemistry so
they both naturally age at the same rate - which means the smaller battery
will always degrade below threshold sooner than the larger capacity one.

The second is that it's likely the larger battery is stressed less than
that of the smaller battery such that the degradation of the smaller
battery is accelerated, and again, it falls below threshold sooner.

Apple knows this.
It's called science.

The statements above are irrefutable.
Read up on battery chemistry before you respond.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 10:28 AM, nospam wrote:
>> What's the benefit of a smaller battery (other than to Apple)?
>
> apple silicon and ios itself is more power-efficient than android, thus
> it doesn't need as large of a battery for the same runtime (the only
> thing that matters, not mah, wh or any other 'spec').
>
> consider two vehicles, one which gets double the fuel economy of the
> other. it would need a fuel tank half the capacity for the same range.
>
> this is not complicated, except for you, who only serves to troll.

Every statement from you is an absurd unsubstantiated ridiculous fabrication.

A smaller battery will ALWAYS degrade sooner than a larger one assuming
all other factors are equal (which they are for equivalent devices).

Other than to Apple's profit, there is no advantage to a smaller battery.
If there was, you'd be able to name it.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 10:46 AM, Chris wrote:
> The advantage of Apple is that it is kinder on batteries. As the OP
> quite clearly shows - along with other comparable studies - iphones last
> longer with smaller batteries than androids with larger ones.

After a dozen posts you still don't understand there are different "last
longer" measurements, where I'm talking about years, not hours.

>
>> Knowing that the iPhone isn't any smaller than similar Androids which have
>> far larger battery capacity, what are you claiming is the benefit of Apple
>> putting in a far smaller battery (other than profits for Apple itself)?
>>
>> What's the benefit of a smaller battery (other than to Apple)?
>
> Size is overly reductive. Longevity is key which you are clearly not
> able to evidence that iphones are worse than androids at.

A smaller battery will ALWAYS degrade below threshold sooner than a larger
batter, for the two reasons already provided - and which are irrefutable.

1. Chemical aging (which is the same percentage for both)
2. Charge/discharge cycle stress (which stresses the smaller battery more)

That's science.
You're trying to refute science.

Apple knows the science.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 12:28 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Apple's hardware and software designs use energy more efficiently,
> allowing competitive run times on smaller batteries.

You actually believe Apple has a "special" energy retrieval system that
nobody on the planet can figure out except Apple?

Seriously?

You're that gullible?

Psssst. Wanna buy a bridge?

[nospam]

In article <tkmemp$1dvj$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Heron

<McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> A smaller battery will ALWAYS degrade sooner than a larger one assuming
> all other factors are equal (which they are for equivalent devices).

not true, and another thing you fail to understand is that the other
factors *aren't* equal.

[nospam]

In article <tkmf3m$1jfo$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Heron

<McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> > Apple's hardware and software designs use energy more efficiently,
> > allowing competitive run times on smaller batteries.
>
> You actually believe Apple has a "special" energy retrieval system that
> nobody on the planet can figure out except Apple?

that's quite the twist.

> Seriously?
>
> You're that gullible?
>
> Psssst. Wanna buy a bridge?

will you be using it to jump?

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 4:49 PM, nospam wrote:
>> A smaller battery will ALWAYS degrade sooner than a larger one assuming
>> all other factors are equal (which they are for equivalent devices).
>
> not true, and another thing you fail to understand is that the other
> factors *aren't* equal.

You actually believe Apple has a special super secret chemical energy

retrieval system that nobody on the planet can figure out except Apple?

Not only that but you believe it without even a single cite backing it up?
You're that gullible?

Apple puts substandard batteries in all iPhones for one reason alone.
Profit.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 4:49 PM, nospam wrote:

>> You actually believe Apple has a "special" energy retrieval system that
>> nobody on the planet can figure out except Apple?
>
> that's quite the twist.

Indeed. Your claim that Apple has a super secret special energy retrieval
system is quite the twist, especially since you simply made it all up.

Apple puts those substandard batteries in iPhones for one reason alone.

[Chris]

Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 10:46 AM, Chris wrote:
>> The advantage of Apple is that it is kinder on batteries. As the OP
>> quite clearly shows - along with other comparable studies - iphones last
>> longer with smaller batteries than androids with larger ones.
>
> After a dozen posts you still don't understand there are different "last
> longer" measurements, where I'm talking about years, not hours.
>
>>
>>> Knowing that the iPhone isn't any smaller than similar Androids which have
>>> far larger battery capacity, what are you claiming is the benefit of Apple
>>> putting in a far smaller battery (other than profits for Apple itself)?
>>>
>>> What's the benefit of a smaller battery (other than to Apple)?
>>
>> Size is overly reductive. Longevity is key which you are clearly not
>> able to evidence that iphones are worse than androids at.
>
> A smaller battery will ALWAYS degrade below threshold sooner than a larger
> batter,

Yet you can't evidence it. You only talk about unsubstantiated theory.

for the two reasons already provided - and which are irrefutable.
>
> 1. Chemical aging (which is the same percentage for both)
> 2. Charge/discharge cycle stress (which stresses the smaller battery more)
>
> That's science.
> You're trying to refute science.

I'm refuting your interpretation which is making very basic assumptions.

> Apple knows the science.
>
> Other than to Apple's profit, there is no advantage to a smaller battery.
> If there was, you'd be able to name it.

I already have. You've yet to support your claim with real world evidence.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 11:47 PM, Chris wrote:
> I'm refuting your interpretation which is making very basic assumptions.

What you're doing is trying to defend a smaller battery over a larger one.
Why?

There's no possible advantage to the substandard batteries in iPhones.

[Chris]

Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 11:52 AM, sms wrote:
>>> A 6AH battery that degrades 40% in two years is worse than a 4AH one
>>> that only degrades 20% regardless what the absolute remaining capacity is.
>>
>> There's a couple of advantages of the iPhone versus Android when it
>> comes to batteries.
>
> Two factors will ALWAYS cause a smaller battery to degrade to the minimum
> threshold sooner than a larger battery (all other factors being equal).

Which is where you're going wrong. The other factors aren't equal. The
battery usage between Apple and Android is different - as no-one can
dispute - therefore the longterm lifespan is also likely to be different.

[sms]

His narrative about a larger battery having more absolute capacity left
when it degrades by the same percentage as an iPhone battery, and this
somehow being an enormous advantage, is especially naïve.

iPhone 14 Pro Max
4323 mAH battery (100%)
Independent battery test: 819 minutes
3459mAH (20% degraded)
Estimated operating time: 655 minutes

Galaxy S22 Ultra
5000 mAH battery (100%)
Independent battery test: 618 minutes
4000mAH (20% degraded)
Estimated operating time: 494 minutes

iPhone advantage percentage: 32.5%. The iPhone retains the same
percentage advantage in operating time, despite the larger battery in
the Android device.

Of course Samsung and Apple are about six months apart in terms of the
introduction of flagship devices. The S23 will use the Qualcomm
Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 will be fabbed on the same TSMC 4nm process as the
A16 bionic and will likely have similar power efficiency and
performance. And remember, the iPhone has a disadvantage because the
modem is not integrated into the Bionic SOC as it is on the Snapdragon.
Apple will gain a further advantage when they have their own 5G modem to
integrate.

[nospam]

In article <tkmrrn$1006n$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> And remember, the iPhone has a disadvantage because the
> modem is not integrated into the Bionic SOC as it is on the Snapdragon.

it does not.

> Apple will gain a further advantage when they have their own 5G modem to
> integrate.

no.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-11, Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> You forgot to whine about face ID.
>>
>> You mean sms's laughable claim that Face ID doesn't work in the dark,
>> which he gleefully added to his Super-Duper Book of Silly Lies? I
>> don't think anyone is whining about that - just laughing at how
>> ridiculous the claim is and using it as an obvious example of how
>> full of shit sms and everyone else in your little Apple troll gang
>> are. You're all fucking losers with no lives who hang out in the
>> Apple news groups trolling all day every day. : D
>
> Jolly Roger can be forgiven

Trolls like sms and Arlen will just get laughed at for claiming Face ID
doesn't work in the dark, because we all know better. : )

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 11:52 PM, Chris wrote:
>> Two factors will ALWAYS cause a smaller battery to degrade to the minimum
>> threshold sooner than a larger battery (all other factors being equal).
>
> Which is where you're going wrong. The other factors aren't equal. The
> battery usage between Apple and Android is different - as no-one can
> dispute - therefore the longterm lifespan is also likely to be different.

Now that the science is finally accepted by you, let's turn to your
ridiculous argument Apple has a super secret very special long term battery
life energy preservation algorithm that you made up out of thin air and
that you can't find cites for despite numerous entreaties to back it up.

Please do not respond without noting that you /understand/ that concept
and without citing the source for your made up ridiculous claims that Apple
has found a "fountain of youth" for chemical aging of smartphone batteries.

[Heron]

On 11/11/2022 7:11 PM, sms wrote:
> His narrative about a larger battery having more absolute capacity left
> when it degrades by the same percentage as an iPhone battery, and this

> somehow being an enormous advantage, is especially naive.

Speaking of naivety, when, if ever, will you realize I wasn't discussing
/daily/ battery life. I'm discussing battery long term chemical aging.

Long term, a larger battery will /always/ outperform the smaller one,
simply because of the two scientific factors you are unable to grasp.

Please do not respond without noting that you /understand/ not only the
concept of long term battery chemical aging, but also that you provide a
source for your made up claim that Apple has found a mysteriously secret
special "fountain of youth" for chemical aging of smartphone batteries.

[Your Name]

Battery deterioration isn't just a pure aging thing. The more a battery
is used and recharged, the quicker it will degrade. iOS / iPadOS and
Apple Silicon chips are more efficient, and so the devices don't need
as big a battery and require charging less often, both of which
increases their overall longevity.

BUT, the difference in a real world situation is probably not really
enough to bother about.

[Heron]

On 11/12/2022 4:53 PM, Your Name wrote:
> Battery deterioration isn't just a pure aging thing. The more a battery
> is used and recharged, the quicker it will degrade. iOS / iPadOS and
> Apple Silicon chips are more efficient, and so the devices don't need
> as big a battery and require charging less often, both of which
> increases their overall longevity.

Your claim iPhones don't need frequent daily charging in use is ridiculous.

If the amazing secret new energy extraction chemistry that only Apple knows
about actually does what you are saying, then why charge an iPhone nightly?

If you can go weeks in use without charging, then prove it with cites.
Otherwise stop making ridiculous claims that you are simply making up.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-13, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 4:53 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> Battery deterioration isn't just a pure aging thing. The more a
>> battery is used and recharged, the quicker it will degrade. iOS /
>> iPadOS and Apple Silicon chips are more efficient, and so the devices
>> don't need as big a battery and require charging less often, both of
>> which increases their overall longevity.
>
> Your claim iPhones don't need frequent daily charging in use is
> ridiculous.

Your claim that they do is what is ridiculous.

> If the amazing secret new energy extraction chemistry that only Apple
> knows about actually does what you are saying, then why charge an
> iPhone nightly?

Desperate straw man.

> If you can go weeks in use without charging, then prove it with cites.
> Otherwise stop making ridiculous claims that you are simply making up.

You went from one day to weeks really quickly there, Sparky. ; )

Most people charge their iPhones overnight while they sleep and go all
day (or most of it) without recharging. You're a ridiculous troll.

[Chris]

A bit rich as this whole thing started with you claiming that iphones had a
shorter longevity which you've yet to prove with anything other than
supposition.

So unless you can back up your claim there's nothing more to say.

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 1:33 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> If the amazing secret new energy extraction chemistry that only Apple
>> knows about actually does what you are saying, then why charge an
>> iPhone nightly?
>
> Desperate straw man.

No. It is you who is claiming ridiculous miraculous secret powers that only
Apple knows about for smartphone battery chemistry. You made it all up.

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 8:03 PM, Chris wrote:
> So unless you can back up your claim there's nothing more to say.

Where are your cites for your made up claims of secret battery chemistry?

[Your Name]

On 2022-11-13 19:23:42 +0000, Heron said:
> On 11/12/2022 4:53 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> Battery deterioration isn't just a pure aging thing. The more a battery
>> is used and recharged, the quicker it will degrade. iOS / iPadOS and
>> Apple Silicon chips are more efficient, and so the devices don't need
>> as big a battery and require charging less often, both of which
>> increases their overall longevity.
>
> Your claim iPhones don't need frequent daily charging in use is ridiculous.

Where did a I say that??

Oh, I see, you're just another argumentative idiot troll with reading
comprehension issue to go in the killfile.

[Jolly Roger]

He never can back up his own words with factual evidence. His words mean
*nothing*. He's just trolling in the lamest way possible.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-13, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

He didn't say that. This another of your lame tactics where you claim
someone supposedly said something they did not in fact say. You lie
continuously. You full of shit.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-13, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2022 1:33 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> If the amazing secret new energy extraction chemistry that only Apple
>>> knows about actually does what you are saying, then why charge an
>>> iPhone nightly?
>>
>> Desperate straw man.
>
> No. It is you who is claiming ridiculous miraculous secret powers

The record shows I didn't say that. Keep lying, trollboi. It's all
you've got. Pathetic.

[Jolly Roger]

Heron is just another in the long line of nyms Arlen creates to fool
people into thinking his posts were supposedly written by someone other
than him. ; )

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 5:17 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> If the amazing secret new energy extraction chemistry that only Apple
>>>> knows about actually does what you are saying, then why charge an
>>>> iPhone nightly?
>>>
>>> Desperate straw man.
>>
>> No. It is you who is claiming ridiculous miraculous secret powers
>
> The record shows I didn't say that. Keep lying, trollboi. It's all
> you've got. Pathetic.

Yes you did. You said that a smaller battery will age slower over time than
a bigger battery if that smaller battery is in an iPhone which you made up.

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 4:16 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> He didn't say that. This another of your lame tactics where you claim
> someone supposedly said something they did not in fact say. You lie
> continuously. You full of shit.

There is no secret battery chemistry only you and Apple happen to know.

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 4:14 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> He never can back up his own words with factual evidence. His words mean
> *nothing*. He's just trolling in the lamest way possible.

Where is your cite for your claim Apple has some kind of age resistant very
secret special battery chemistry that defies all known laws of physics?

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 3:12 PM, Your Name wrote:
> Oh, I see, you're just another argumentative idiot troll with reading
> comprehension issue to go in the killfile.

I've been posting for years longer than you likely have been posting.
Your claim Apple has secret battery chemistry for iPhones is ridiculous.
Provide a cite for your ridiculous claims that defy all laws of physics.

[nospam]

In article <tks359$388$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Heron

<McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

>
> There is no secret battery chemistry only you and Apple happen to know.

if everyone knew about it, then it wouldn't be a secret, now would it?

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 7:52 PM, nospam wrote:
>> There is no secret battery chemistry only you and Apple happen to know.
>
> if everyone knew about it, then it wouldn't be a secret, now would it?

Their claim a much smaller iPhone battery will chemically age slower than a
much larger smartphone battery is ridiculous. No wonder they have no cites.

[Jolly Roger]

Nope, you're lying as usual. And to prove it, you will not be able to
provide a link to the post where you claim I said that "a smaller
battery will age slower over time than a bigger battery" because I never
said that. You're a laughably weak troll, Arlen. And a pathetic excuse
of a human being. You're just a lying shit bag troll with no life
outside of Usenet. : )

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2022 4:16 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> He didn't say that. This another of your lame tactics where you claim
>> someone supposedly said something they did not in fact say. You lie
>> continuously. You full of shit.
>
> There is no secret battery chemistry

The only one making that claim is you , dip shit.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2022 4:14 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> He never can back up his own words with factual evidence. His words mean
>> *nothing*. He's just trolling in the lamest way possible.
>
> Where is your cite

You made the claim, and you haven't provided any cite, dip shit troll.
You're a fucking loser.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2022 3:12 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> Oh, I see, you're just another argumentative idiot troll with reading
>> comprehension issue to go in the killfile.
>
> I've been posting for years longer than you likely have been posting.

And you regularly change nyms to avoid kill filters, like the little
worm you are.

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 8:32 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Nope, you're lying as usual. And to prove it, you will not be able to
> provide a link to the post where you claim I said that "a smaller
> battery will age slower over time than a bigger battery" because I never
> said that.

It's you who can't back up your own absurdly ridiculous thought process.
Not me.

Your argument is that the much smaller iPhone batteries don't degrade as
fast over the years as do the much larger Android batteries, is it not?

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 8:33 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> There is no secret battery chemistry
>
> The only one making that claim is you

Your ridiculous claim is that the much smaller iPhone batteries don't
degrade as fast over the years as do larger Android batteries, is it not?

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 8:34 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> You made the claim, and you haven't provided any cite,

I provided plenty of cites, more than a dozen, all of which back up the
known science of battery chemistry which your claims ridiculously defy.

Your argument is that the much smaller iPhone batteries don't degrade as
fast over the years as do the much larger Android batteries is absurd.

The only way that could possibly work is if Apple defies battery chemistry.

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 8:34 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

> like the little worm you are.

You call me names because you are disgusted at yourself for making your
absurdly ridiculous claims that Apple designed a special battery chemistry.

Your argument is clearly crazy that the much smaller iPhone batteries don't
degrade to threshold over the years as the much larger Android batteries.

The only way that could possibly happen is if iPhones defy chemistry.

[Heron]

On 11/13/2022 8:03 PM, Chris wrote:

> A bit rich as this whole thing started with you claiming that iphones had a
> shorter longevity which you've yet to prove with anything other than
> supposition.

Your ridiculous claim is the much smaller iPhone batteries don't
degrade below minimum threshold as fast over the years as do the much
larger Android batteries, is it not?

The only way your absurd claims could happen is if the battery chemistry on
the iPhone is some super secret unknown to man special type of physics.

It's you who has yet to provide a single cite backing up your absurd claim.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

Go ahead and post a link to where I said those words, Arlen. I'll wait.
(Of course you won't, because you can't, because I never said them.)

You are incapable of refraining from putting words in other people's
mouths because lying is *literally* the only way you know to interact
with others.

You're a pathetic, lonely old man who adds no value to anything you
touch. Your only willful purpose is to disrupt and antagonize others.
Nobody loves you, and you know it, Arlen. Just curl up and die already,
so the Apple newsgroups can return to usefulness, and the world can be a
brighter place.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

The only one making that claim is you, Arlen.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2022 8:34 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> You made the claim, and you haven't provided any cite,
>
> I provided plenty of cites

You provided cites that don't back up your claim, Arlen. You seem to
think people are as gullible as you are (a common mistake stupid people
make), but they aren't. Your vaunted cites don't make your case, because
you have no case. You can't back up your on words, which is frankly
pitiful. Your trolls are extraordinarily weak. You are ineffective and
cowardly.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2022 8:34 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> like the little worm you are.
>
> You call me names

Oh that's rich... Arlen, who calls everyone else here an idiot and
worse, is upset when someone calls him the worm he is.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-14, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/2022 8:03 PM, Chris wrote:
>>
>> A bit rich as this whole thing started with you claiming that iphones
>> had a shorter longevity which you've yet to prove with anything other
>> than supposition.
>
> Your ridiculous claim

No, Arlen. *YOU* made the claim, and you are incapable of backing it up
with objective and verifiable evidence. You can't and won't because it's
a lie. You're pathetic.

[Heron]

On 11/14/2022 11:27 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Your only willful purpose is to disrupt and antagonize others.

I've been posting for quite a long time with good purpose.

In this situation I'm asking you why you claim that the much smaller iPhone
batteries degrade below threshold later than the larger Android batteries.

Your claim defies science.

[Heron]

On 11/14/2022 10:28 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> There is no secret battery chemistry
>>>
>>> The only one making that claim is you
>>
>> Your ridiculous claim is that the much smaller iPhone batteries don't
>> degrade as fast over the years as do larger Android batteries, is it
>> not?
>
> The only one making that claim is you

Then what is your claim about the smaller iPhone batteries with respect to
their lifespan compared to the larger batteries in similarly priced phones?

[Heron]

On 11/14/2022 10:30 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Your vaunted cites don't make your case, because
> you have no case.

The sites are based on science where a much smaller battery degrades below
threshold sooner than does a much larger battery due to basic chemistry.

Your claims on supposed longevity of iPhone batteries defies that science.

[Heron]

On 11/14/2022 10:32 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> You can't and won't because it's a lie. You're pathetic.

My longevity claim was based on the basic science I provided cites for.

You claim an Apple longevity for much smaller batteries that is impossible.

[Heron]

On 11/14/2022 10:31 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> is upset when someone calls him the worm he is.

You are who made the claim those much smaller iPhone batteries can enjoy a
battery lifetime longevity over much larger Android batteries. Not me.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-15, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2022 11:27 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Your only willful purpose is to disrupt and antagonize others.
>

> I'm asking you why you claim that the much smaller iPhone batteries
> degrade below threshold later than the larger Android batteries.
>
> Your claim defies science.

You're lying again. I never claimed that. Meanwhile you haven't been
able to back up your claim. You're fucking pathetic, Arlen.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-15, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

I haven't made a claim. You did, and you are squirming like the worm you
are since you can't back up your own claim. Pathetic.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-11-15, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/14/2022 10:30 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Your vaunted cites don't make your case, because
>> you have no case.
>
> The sites are based on science

The sites don't prove your claim.

> Your claims

I haven't made any.