XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 09:55:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

Given battery capacity is the single most important component of
overall product life, expect it to show up as pure crap in EU benchmarks.

Incorrect. It has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. But I don't fault you. Almost nobody understands the rating yet. Capacity is the fundamental starting point of the Efficiency rating.

The efficiency is exactly = RUNTIME HOURS PER AMP/HOUR of CAPACITY.

Without the capacity, you can't calculate the efficiency. The EU's Energy Efficiency Class (A¡VG) hinges on normalized battery capacity, specifically
how much runtime a device delivers per 1,000mAh of battery capacity.

Runtime/Capacity === Efficiency
a. Devices are tested to see how long they can run on a full charge
b. That runtime is divided by the battery's mAh <== capacity!
c. This assesses how many hours per 1000 mAh the device delivers

The result determines where the device lands on the A-G scale.
However, as you noted, battery capacity isn't DIRECTLY the determinant.

For example, a phone with 3500 mAh capacity lasting 40 hours may be rated
as more efficient than one with 5000 mAh capacity lasting 45 hours.

Size matters. As does endurance. Efficiency === endurance/size

A smaller battery can earn a higher efficiency rating if the device
squeezes more usable time out of every milliamp-hour.

The Galaxy Edge with a puny 3786 mAh battery has an A rating which is
higher than the Galaxy Ultra at 4855 mAh. https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2284553

Your example is well chosen as it perfectly illustrates how battery
capacity alone doesn't determine the EU's Energy Efficiency Class (A-G).

The Galaxy S25 Edge has a rated battery capacity of 3786 mAh, yet it earned
an A rating under the EU's efficiency labeling system.

Samsung submitted the Galaxy S25 Edge to The Tech Chap Lab in the UK.
The S25 Edge efficiency per mAh matched that of the iPhone 16 Pro Max at
8.2 mAh/min, even though its total runtime was shorter due to the smaller battery.

According to you, the Galaxy S25 Ultra, with a larger 4855 mAh battery, received a lower rating (which I'll accept, a priori), where that rating
also depended on its actual runtime and power optimization.

The EU rating measures how efficiently a device uses its battery, not how
big the battery is. But how big it is factors into the efficiency math.

If the Edge delivers more hours of use per 1000 mAh than the Ultra, it's considered more energy efficient - even if its total runtime is shorter.

We can likely opine that the Edge probably has better hardware/software optimization, lower idle drain, or more efficient display & processor
tuning but we'd have to know more facts to make that conclusion definite.

You have to wonder who buys this Apple crap.

The same people who want the Samsung Galaxy Edge. TBH I don't get it
either. A super thin phone will be more fragile and will need to be permanently attached to a charger.

Well, some people like pink phones so I guess we can't account for personal tastes. Back to the efficiency thing, these are the results from just one
lab in the UK, the "Tech Chap Lab", who tested these ten flagship devices.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiLNpIWNCQk>
1. Xiaomi 15 Ultra | 5000 | 47h30m | 5.7 | A
2. Galaxy S25 Edge | 3786 | 32h20m | 8.2 | A
3. Pixel 9 Pro XL | 5050 | 41h50m | 5.0 | B
4. iPhone 16 Pro Max | 4422 | 36h10m | 8.2 | B
5. Xiaomi 15 Pro | 4800 | 39h40m | 4.9 | B
6. Galaxy S25 Ultra | 4855 | 38h10m | 4.7 | B
7. OnePlus 13 | 6000 | 49h00m | 4.9 | B
8. Honor Magic7 RSR | 5100 | 42h30m | 5.0 | B
9. Vivo X200 Pro Mini | 4700 | 37h40m | 4.8 | B
10. Asus Zenfone 12 Ultra | 5000 | 39h10m | 4.7 | B

Note that Apple did NOT submit any phone to any independent lab!
(I thought they did but I was wrong if/when I had said that prior.)

I've since found out (by digging deeper) that while independent labs did
test the iPhones, Apple didn't pay them to run those tests.

And guess what? See the "B" above? Apple *knew* that would happen!
Only in Apple's (bogus) "internal" tests could an iPhone earn an A.

There is no proof outside of Apple's bullshit any iPhone earned an A.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 10:13:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

Wrong. But I don't fault you. Almost nobody understands the rating yet.

Least of all you.

Capacity is the fundamental starting point of the Efficiency rating.

The efficiency is exactly = RUNTIME HOURS PER AMP/HOUR of CAPACITY.

Without the capacity, you can't calculate the efficiency. The EU's Energy
Efficiency Class (A–G) hinges on normalized battery capacity, specifically >> how much runtime a device delivers per 1,000mAh of battery capacity.

Almost. See the actual regulation: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/1669

Annexe IV provides the proper calculation - not your made up edfinition - which is:

EEI = 1000 x ENDdevice/(Unom x Crated)

Where; EEI is the energy efficiency index (A-G), ENDdevice is battery endurance (hr), Unom is the nominal voltage (V), Crated is rated battery capacity (mAh)

Both Unom and Crated are measured as part of the test and are not based on marketing values - as you'll be happy to hear - hence why the EU values are typically less than the manufacturer claims. See Annexe I for specific definitions ((3) & (8)).

The EEI class is read off this table:

A EEI > 2.70
B 2.30 < EEI ≤ 2.70
C 1.95 < EEI ≤ 2.30
D 1.66 < EEI ≤ 1.95
E 1.41 < EEI ≤ 1.66
F 1.20 < EEI ≤ 1.41
G EEI ≤ 1.20

Unfortunately, Unom data is not shared so we cannot do the calculation ourselves.

We can, using the table above, and knowing Crated, ENDdevice put bounds on what the Unom is for any non-A-rated phone i.e. the Galaxy S25+ and iPhone
16 PM.

Unom S25+ is 4.15V - 4.85V
Unom 16PM is 3.79V - 4.44V

So, yes there is a time/capacity factor, but also a voltage factor which differs between phones and affects the final result.

I'm no electrical expert, but if a phone uses less current performing the same task (Unom) it is more efficient. Right?

Runtime/Capacity === Efficiency

Or more explicitly:

Runtime/Capacity * Power == (EU Energy) Efficiency

a. Devices are tested to see how long they can run on a full charge
b. That runtime is divided by the battery's mAh <== capacity!
c. This assesses how many hours per 1000 mAh the device delivers

The result determines where the device lands on the A-G scale.
However, as you noted, battery capacity isn't DIRECTLY the determinant.

For example, a phone with 3500 mAh capacity lasting 40 hours may be rated
as more efficient than one with 5000 mAh capacity lasting 45 hours.

Size matters. As does endurance. Efficiency === endurance/size

A smaller battery can earn a higher efficiency rating if the device
squeezes more usable time out of every milliamp-hour.

Correct.

The Galaxy Edge with a puny 3786 mAh battery has an A rating which is
higher than the Galaxy Ultra at 4855 mAh.
https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2284553

Your example is well chosen as it perfectly illustrates how battery
capacity alone doesn't determine the EU's Energy Efficiency Class (A-G).

Thanks for confirming what we have been saying about iPhones since forever. Your claim that your A-class phone with 5000 mAh is automatically better
than an iphone is false.

The current Samsung A-36 is rated as "C": https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2301641

Surely that's in "utter crap" territory according to you? That model is related to your iphone beating A-32, so it must be crap as well.

The Galaxy S25 Edge has a rated battery capacity of 3786 mAh, yet it earned >> an A rating under the EU's efficiency labeling system.

Samsung submitted the Galaxy S25 Edge to The Tech Chap Lab in the UK.

Unsubstantiated claim.

The S25 Edge efficiency per mAh matched that of the iPhone 16 Pro Max at
8.2 mAh/min, even though its total runtime was shorter due to the smaller
battery.

Again confirming what you've been told many, many times.

According to you, the Galaxy S25 Ultra, with a larger 4855 mAh battery,
received a lower rating (which I'll accept, a priori), where that rating
also depended on its actual runtime and power optimization.

Not according to me. This is fact (a real one): https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2339789

The EU rating measures how efficiently a device uses its battery, not how
big the battery is. But how big it is factors into the efficiency math.

If the Edge delivers more hours of use per 1000 mAh than the Ultra, it's
considered more energy efficient - even if its total runtime is shorter.

We can likely opine that the Edge probably has better hardware/software
optimization, lower idle drain, or more efficient display & processor
tuning but we'd have to know more facts to make that conclusion definite.

Honestly, you're dismantling your own dogma beautifully. Keep going...

You have to wonder who buys this Apple crap.

The same people who want the Samsung Galaxy Edge. TBH I don't get it
either. A super thin phone will be more fragile and will need to be
permanently attached to a charger.

Well, some people like pink phones so I guess we can't account for personal >> tastes. Back to the efficiency thing, these are the results from just one
lab in the UK, the "Tech Chap Lab", who tested these ten flagship devices. >>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiLNpIWNCQk>
1. Xiaomi 15 Ultra | 5000 | 47h30m | 5.7 | A
2. Galaxy S25 Edge | 3786 | 32h20m | 8.2 | A
3. Pixel 9 Pro XL | 5050 | 41h50m | 5.0 | B
4. iPhone 16 Pro Max | 4422 | 36h10m | 8.2 | B
5. Xiaomi 15 Pro | 4800 | 39h40m | 4.9 | B
6. Galaxy S25 Ultra | 4855 | 38h10m | 4.7 | B
7. OnePlus 13 | 6000 | 49h00m | 4.9 | B
8. Honor Magic7 RSR | 5100 | 42h30m | 5.0 | B
9. Vivo X200 Pro Mini | 4700 | 37h40m | 4.8 | B
10. Asus Zenfone 12 Ultra | 5000 | 39h10m | 4.7 | B

Where did you get this table from? It does not match the youtube link at
all. For a start there were only 9 models tested plus you're missing the
OPPO Find X8 Pro and there's no such thing as a Vivo X200 Pro mini. The battery capacities are completely wrong and the endurance times in the YT were around 10hrs. The scores in 3rd column don't make sense...

Did you get ChatGPT to make this up for you?

Note that Apple did NOT submit any phone to any independent lab!

Unsubstantiated claim.

(I thought they did but I was wrong if/when I had said that prior.)

I've since found out (by digging deeper) that while independent labs did
test the iPhones, Apple didn't pay them to run those tests.

And guess what? See the "B" above? Apple *knew* that would happen!
Only in Apple's (bogus) "internal" tests could an iPhone earn an A.

Unsubstantiated claim.

There is no proof outside of Apple's bullshit any iPhone earned an A.

Your claim has always been that Apple *failed* the EU tests. You have never been able to show that. You are now reduced to arguing semantics and making shit up. That table above is a joke!

Regarding....
>> Almost nobody understands the rating yet.
>
> Least of all you.

You know what, Chris. I appreciate that you said that. I really do.
Not because you think I know the least but because you're actually right.

I'm well educated, so I love being told I'm wrong (see sig).
Because it means I will learn something from you.

I "knew" the most of all of you on this ng, since I've been reporting this
for years, and none of you had any clue Apple would fare badly save for me.

I knew Apple lied about their vaunted efficiency - but I didn't know
exactly HOW the EU would test it - where you dug up exactly how they do it.

I agree with you. I was close, but not fully correct when I stated that
it's the runtime per amp hour of capacity, since I wasn't aware until just
now that the calculation is (slightly) more complicated that I thought.

So THANK YOU for pointing out the complete calculation.
EEI = ENDdevice / (Unom × Crated_Ah)

Up until you just now edified me (thank you!), I was thinking in current capacity, which works fine if voltage is constant. The EU method shifts it
to energy capacity, which is a more complete measure of efficiency.

This is what I had thought yesterday:
*How many hours the phone runs for each Ah of battery capacity*

This is what you taught me is the correct way of looking at it:
*How many hours the phone runs per watt-hour of battery energy*

THANK YOU.
(I suspect you and I are the only ones who understand this on this ng.)

It's designed to account for the voltage differences between devices.
a. My (wrong) assessment used "current" (as the base unit).
b. Your (correct) assessment uses "energy" (as the base unit).

THANK YOU.
I was wrong. Mea culpa!

This is the correct formula, as you had stated it was:
EEI = ENDdevice / (Unom × Crated_Ah)
ENDdevice === battery endurance in hours
Unom === actual voltage measured during the testing
Crated_Ah === verified by EU battery amp-hour rating

So the formula evaluates how long a device runs for every watt-hour of
stored energy, not just its size in current terms. If a device lasts longer
on the same amount of energy, it scores better.

Note that the voltage measured during the test should be very close to the voltage printed on the battery which, for lithium-ion cells, should be
around 3.6V to 3.85V per cell, depending on the specific chemistry. Looking
it up, I found for most smartphones, the printed voltage might be 0.1V to
0.3V higher than the tested Unom.

Still, my claim that Apple lied about vaunted efficiency is supported.
--
Being told by Alan Baker I'm wrong is meaningless though, becasue he is
never right, where the difference is I actually have to be wrong to learn.
At least Chris supported his claim that the EEI is based on watt-hours!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 07:06:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

I knew Apple lied about their vaunted efficiency

You've never been able to demonstrate Apple's claim.
The only one lying is you.

Jesus Christ, Chris.

You ignorant Apple trolls always prove to know nothing about Apple.
The fact you're completely unaware of Apple's claims is rather telling.

You are trying to make me justify that the sun comes up every morning.
Run a search for God's sake and tell me what you found in that search.

Even you ignorant uneducated Apple trolls can run a search for that.

You've now realised that battery size is not the most important feature.

Chris,

Don't take your success too far just because I congratulated you on delving deeper than I did on how the EU calculates the phone's efficiency rating.

You think I'm stupid - like you Apple trolls are stupid. I'm not.
When I'm ignorant, I look things up. You can't do that.

Which is why you're stupid, Chris. So don't pull too hard on that rope.
For the other power-related metrics, the battery capacity is critical.

So be careful playing your games to defend Apple to the death, Chris.

Battery capacity is the single most critical criteria for the other two
battery metrics - where Apple iPhones have a laughably puny capacity.

Apple isn't stupid.
Apple marketing, in particular, isn't stupid.

They want that iPHone to die sooner rather than later.
And they do die.

Apple doesn't have special physics, Chris.
Even as Apple claims they have special chemistry that responds to them.

Before we found out that Apple lied about efficiency, it used to be said
that iPhone batteries are puny but Apple has this vaunted "efficiency".

The Apple lie turned out to be that efficiency doesn't exist.
SO now we're back to the el cheap crappy batteries in the iPhone, Chris.

The other metrics suffer from the laughably puny iPhone battery capacity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

On 2025-07-19 03:53, Marion wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 09:55:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :

Given battery capacity is the single most important component of
overall product life, expect it to show up as pure crap in EU benchmarks. >>

Incorrect. It has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. But I don't fault you. Almost nobody understands the rating yet. Capacity is the fundamental starting point of the Efficiency rating.

Ummmmm...no.

The efficiency is exactly = RUNTIME HOURS PER AMP/HOUR of CAPACITY.

Without the capacity, you can't calculate the efficiency. The EU's Energy Efficiency Class (A–G) hinges on normalized battery capacity, specifically how much runtime a device delivers per 1,000mAh of battery capacity.

And without runtime, you can't calculate efficiency either.


You're...

...well, we'll call it "thinking"...

...would declare that a phone that ran without a battery at all was
"crap" because it's battery capacity was zero.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)