4. The analysis of measured battery capacity versus class was one of the
more counterintuitive findings. You showed that higher efficiency classes tend to have smaller batteries, which implies that software, silicon, and system-level optimization dominate over raw capacity. This is a valuable correction to the common assumption that larger batteries always correlate with better endurance as the endurance is a function of multiple factors.
Tyrone wrote:
4. The analysis of measured battery capacity versus class was one of the >>> more counterintuitive findings. You showed that higher efficiency
classes
tend to have smaller batteries, which implies that software, silicon,
and
system-level optimization dominate over raw capacity. This is a valuable >>> correction to the common assumption that larger batteries always
correlate
with better endurance as the endurance is a function of multiple
factors.
And yet you were the ONLY person here making the "common assumption".
You were
told multiple times by multiple people that higher efficiency means
the phone
can have a smaller - and LIGHTER - battery while maintaining long run
times. Which makes the phone that much more attractve. You were told
multiple times
that "software, silicon, and system-level optimization dominate over raw
capacity".
Of course you did not believe us, since we are all just "Stupid Apple
Trolls".
˙Right?
So can we now assume that you will FINALLY cease your absurd claims that
"Apple puts crappy batteries in iPhones"?˙ "The analysis of measured
battery
capacity versus class" was only counterintuitive to you.˙ To everyone
else it
makes perfect sense.
Maybe you misunderstood all the iPhone ever produced before June 20, 2025.
I've been saying for years that the Apple claim on high efficiency was a brazen lie & the dismal June 20th EU mandated "B" results proved me right.
Not a single iPhone prior to the very latest could earn even close to an A.
I knew that would be the case because I understand what Apple products are.
Tyrone wrote:
4. The analysis of measured battery capacity versus class was one of the >>> more counterintuitive findings. You showed that higher efficiency classes >>> tend to have smaller batteries, which implies that software, silicon, and >>> system-level optimization dominate over raw capacity. This is a valuable >>> correction to the common assumption that larger batteries always correlate >>> with better endurance as the endurance is a function of multiple factors. >>And yet you were the ONLY person here making the "common assumption". You were
told multiple times by multiple people that higher efficiency means the phone
can have a smaller - and LIGHTER - battery while maintaining long run times. >> Which makes the phone that much more attractve. You were told multiple times >> that "software, silicon, and system-level optimization dominate over raw
capacity".
Of course you did not believe us, since we are all just "Stupid Apple Trolls".
Right?
So can we now assume that you will FINALLY cease your absurd claims that
"Apple puts crappy batteries in iPhones"? "The analysis of measured battery >> capacity versus class" was only counterintuitive to you. To everyone else it
makes perfect sense.
Maybe you misunderstood all the iPhone ever produced before June 20, 2025.
I've been saying for years that the Apple claim on high efficiency was a brazen lie & the dismal June 20th EU mandated "B" results proved me right.
Not a single iPhone prior to the very latest could earn even close to an A.
I knew that would be the case because I understand what Apple products are.
On 2025-12-30 17:31, Marian wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
4. The analysis of measured battery capacity versus class was one of the >>>> more counterintuitive findings. You showed that higher efficiency
classes
tend to have smaller batteries, which implies that software, silicon,
and
system-level optimization dominate over raw capacity. This is a valuable >>>> correction to the common assumption that larger batteries always
correlate
with better endurance as the endurance is a function of multiple
factors.
And yet you were the ONLY person here making the "common assumption".
You were
told multiple times by multiple people that higher efficiency means
the phone
can have a smaller - and LIGHTER - battery while maintaining long run
times. Which makes the phone that much more attractve. You were told
multiple times
that "software, silicon, and system-level optimization dominate over raw >>> capacity".
Of course you did not believe us, since we are all just "Stupid Apple
Trolls".
Right?
So can we now assume that you will FINALLY cease your absurd claims that >>> "Apple puts crappy batteries in iPhones"? "The analysis of measured
battery
capacity versus class" was only counterintuitive to you. To everyone
else it
makes perfect sense.
Maybe you misunderstood all the iPhone ever produced before June 20, 2025. >>
I've been saying for years that the Apple claim on high efficiency was a
brazen lie & the dismal June 20th EU mandated "B" results proved me right.
1. a "B" isn't dismal.
2. Apple clearly explained why they CHOSE to have their phones scored as
a "B".
Not a single iPhone prior to the very latest could earn even close to an A. >> I knew that would be the case because I understand what Apple products are.
Like you understood privileged ports and SMB on iOS?
Chris wrote:
the new EU energy efficiency regs came in this summer I've been
curious to do some analysis to understand the implications.
So, here it is. Have a look and see what you think.
https://rpubs.com/ithinkiam/1384638
Take home messages are:
1. There are lot more phones on the market that I would have guessed.
2. Although, there are some trends between the energy classes, it isn't
very clear cut overall.
3. Within the 5,000 mAh segment the difference between each A-G classes is >> equivalent to approx. 15% or over an hour per 1,000 mAh.
4. Apple improved their battery capacity and efficiency significantly with >> the most recent models.
5. A Moto model is, on average, likely a better option than Samsung in
terms of battery alone.
I know this is EU-specific and since Brexit not directly relevant to the
UK, but most models are available here and some manufacturers are showing
these EU ratings within the UK.
For our US cousins note that some models - especially Motorola from what
I've seen - will be different or may not even exist on your side of the
pond.
This analysis is not meant to start a flame war and is presented
objectively in good faith. I will be revisiting this over time and will
share here if people are interested.
Hi Chris,
That was a fantastically astute summary of the EU battery regulation data, and your RPubs analysis adds a level of technical clarity that is usually missing when people discuss these new A-to-G efficiency classes. I wanted
to give you an assessment that focuses on the analytical structure of what you presented, since the dataset is large and the implications are not
always obvious at first glance.
1. Your identification of the scale of the dataset was important. With 760 models and 102 manufacturers represented, your analysis makes it clear that the EU market is far more diverse than the typical consumer or reviewer
might assume it is. This provides useful context for why the A to G classification system behaves the way it does.
2. The observation that more than 70 percent of devices fall into Class A
or B shows that the regulation is not forcing a dramatic shift in
engineering practice. Instead, it is standardizing reporting and making cross-manufacturer comparisons possible. This is a key point because it frames the regulation as a transparency mechanism rather than a disruptive requirement.
4. The analysis of measured battery capacity versus class was one of the
more counterintuitive findings. You showed that higher efficiency classes tend to have smaller batteries, which implies that software, silicon, and system-level optimization dominate over raw capacity.
This is a valuable
correction to the common assumption that larger batteries always correlate with better endurance as the endurance is a function of multiple factors.
5. The endurance-per-cycle metric was the strongest part of the technical analysis. The data supports your conclusion that the classes separate
cleanly in A to C, while D to G are perhaps too sparse and therefore likely too noisy to form reliable trends. The median endurance values you
extracted make the efficiency gradient explicit, and the roughly 12 to 16 percent loss per class is a practical and quantifiable rule.
6. The 5000 mAh segment analysis was especially compelling because it isolates a large and homogeneous subset of the market. My free Android, for example, from 2021, has exactly a 5Ah battery capacity, so it's at that dividing line. With 259 models in this range, the class differences become much clearer. The 52 hour spread between best and worst endurance within
the same nominal capacity illustrates how much variation exists even when battery size is held constant.
8. The Apple section was surprisingly well structured given your proclivity to make excuses for Apple no matter what.
By comparing three generations of
devices, you demonstrated that the shift from Class B to Class A in the iPhone 17 series is not a labeling artifact but a measurable improvement in both capacity and efficiency. The linear trends you identified in the base, Plus, and Pro Max models reinforce this point.
9. Your conclusion that the EU database finally provides a standardized, objective basis for cross-brand battery comparison is seemingly accurate. Certainly I applaud any measure that divorces us from Apple's rather brilliant marketing propaganda (even as Apple had to make excuses in the recent past for iPhone poor efficiency performance).
Historically, battery
testing has been inconsistent (to say the least) across reviewers and methodologies. We have many threads in the past regarding the fact that nobody has ever in the history of Apple's existence been able to reproduce any of Apple's wild-assed battery claims.
Hence, the new regulation creates a unified measurement framework that
allows for genuine apples-to-apples comparisons.
Chris wrote:
I was really quite surprised at how clear cut the differences were. All
things being equal a buyer should always go for the higher graded phone.
I expect the main factor people choose on is Apple or not-Apple.
Then for the Android folks does choice begin, can't think why e.g.
motorola devices seem so different to all others, who does the testing?
Chris wrote:
I was really quite surprised at how clear cut the differences were. All
things being equal a buyer should always go for the higher graded phone.
I expect the main factor people choose on is Apple or not-Apple.
Then for the Android folks does choice begin, can't think why e.g.
motorola devices seem so different to all others, who does the testing?
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Chris wrote:
I was really quite surprised at how clear cut the differences were. All
things being equal a buyer should always go for the higher graded phone.
I expect the main factor people choose on is Apple or not-Apple.
Then for the Android folks does choice begin, can't think why e.g.
motorola devices seem so different to all others, who does the testing?
Until we?ve seen all phones tested by the same independent test house I?d regard the manufacturers? claims in the same way that I view car fuel consumption figures.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 22:30:14 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 367 |
| D/L today: |
560 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,898 |
| Posted today: | 26 |