On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7
Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
"18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
Alan, 2024-01-01 19:30:
On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7 >>>> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying
"18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
Reference for what? A info like the battery capacity is a reference. But "18:32 without our custom tests" is the exact opposite to "reference".
On 2024-01-02 00:44, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2024-01-01 19:30:
On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7 >>>>> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying >>>> "18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
Reference for what? A info like the battery capacity is a reference. But
"18:32 without our custom tests" is the exact opposite to "reference".
Because the tests are common, dude.
Alan, 2024-01-02 17:16:
On 2024-01-02 00:44, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2024-01-01 19:30:
On 2024-01-01 06:18, Arno Welzel wrote:
Alan, 2023-12-31 23:14:
[...]
The longest running smartphone on tomsguide.com is the Asus ROG Phone 7 >>>>>> Ultimate at 18:32 and it has a 6,000 milliAmp-hour battery.
<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Well - battery life depends on what you do with the phone. Just saying >>>>> "18:32" without specifying the exact test conditions is useless. All
It provides a common reference.
Reference for what? A info like the battery capacity is a reference. But >>> "18:32 without our custom tests" is the exact opposite to "reference".
Because the tests are common, dude.
Where is the specification of the tests then? "surf the web surf the web
over cellular" does not sound very specific.
What if I also "surf the web surf the web over cellular" and find out,
that the battery of a tested device only lasts 12 hours instead of 18?
Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:
On 2024-01-02 08:46, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
[...]<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Where is the specification of the tests then? "surf the web surf the web >>> over cellular" does not sound very specific.
What if I also "surf the web surf the web over cellular" and find out,
that the battery of a tested device only lasts 12 hours instead of 18?
Oh, please.
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
On 2024-01-02 08:46, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
[...]<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>
Where is the specification of the tests then? "surf the web surf the web
over cellular" does not sound very specific.
What if I also "surf the web surf the web over cellular" and find out,
that the battery of a tested device only lasts 12 hours instead of 18?
Oh, please.
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:50:35 +0100, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
Agree the test results are usually pointless unless you have one of the
exact devices tested and if you use the phone the way they tested it.
As you said, since each battery shootout typically uses DIFFERENT test criteria, you can't extrapolate the tests from one phone to another.
The ONLY thing you can compare amongst ALL phones is battery capacity.
The bigger the better in every way imaginable (both daily & total life).
A bigger battery capacity means fewer charges which means overall longer battery life since the nominal 500 charge cycles are reached sooner on smaller batteries (even if they claim "higher efficiency").
A typical "higher efficiency" claim is in the single digits but let's give them a whopping 25% higher efficiency to test out the simple math.
Phone A has a 3 amp hour battery with a claimed 25% higher efficiency.
Phone B has a 6 amp hour battery (they don't advertise the efficiency).
Which phone dies soonest in a day (assuming normal use patterns)?
Which phone dies soonest in a few years (due to reaching 500 cycles)?
These are just example numbers which make the point that you can't beat a bigger battery since it's better in every way that you can do the math.
No, the nominal 500 charge cycles are NOT reached sooner if the phone is
more efficient in its power usage.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:36:45 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
No, the nominal 500 charge cycles are NOT reached sooner if the phone is
more efficient in its power usage.
Without a cite showing the percentage, your claimed efficiency is BS.
If phone A is 3 amp hours and 25% more efficient than phone B of 6 amp
hours, the total number of charge cycles will always be reached sooner with the "more efficient" phone because it has a smaller capacity battery (assuming everything else being equal in terms of daily use & charging).
Worse, I doubt the efficiency you tout is higher than single digits, but
why don't you bring up a cite which shows what the claimed efficiency is?
Specifically, without a cite showing efficiency at least as great as the
lack in capacity, then it stands to basic reason (and simple math) that the number of charge cycles will always be much higher for the smaller battery.
Even worse, the much smaller battery will likely approach much lower thresholds, which will also reduce the life of the battery over time.
Hence, lower overall lifetime (since battery life is mostly due to charge cycles although there are other ways to prematurely degrade a battery).
I won't bother replying to your BS until & unless you provide a cite
backing up your claims with actual percentage numbers that can be trusted.
On 2024-01-03 08:50, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
And knowing the size of the battery is useless unless you know the power consumption of the phone.
Alan, 2024-01-03 18:14:
On 2024-01-03 08:50, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
Alan, 2024-01-02 17:48:
The point is that they did the SAME things on EACH PHONE.
No, not on "each phone", only on the phones they tested. The test is
completely pointless if I want to compare it to *my* device.
And knowing the size of the battery is useless unless you know the power
consumption of the phone.
Well - along with the SoC and the display used you have can an idea if
it might be better or worse. A Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 with an Andreno
320 GPU core speed will always use the same power, regardless in which
device it is built in.
And to compare your own device with other devices, a *defined* test is important which you can try on your own device as well. But "surfing the
web" is not "defined" since it depends on what websites you visit and
how you interact with the browser.
But the point remains that battery size ALONE doesn't tell you how well
your phone will do.
On this Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:48:38 -0800, Alan wrote:
But the point remains that battery size ALONE doesn't tell you how well
your phone will do.
There is no substitute for much larger battery capacity no matter how much you try to argue the iphone's dearth of battery capacity isn't important.
The facts show that iPhones DO NOT have a "dearth of battery capacity".
150 phones in this list, the top iPhone is at 4 with 3 places in the top 10 <https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>
How long will you try and maintain your belief in this shibboleth that battery size is what's important?
Run time is what matters, and it doesn't matter whether you get it by
large battery and with average energy efficiency or small battery with
better than average energy efficiency.
On 1/4/2024 6:06 PM, Alan wrote:
The facts show that iPhones DO NOT have a "dearth of battery capacity".
Whoosh.
You make lame excuses for all iphones having very low battery capacity.
150 phones in this list, the top iPhone is at 4 with 3 places in the top 10 >> <https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>
Idiot. I'm talking about overall battery life, as in years. Not hours.
How long will you try and maintain your belief in this shibboleth that
battery size is what's important?
Dumbass. A small battery will always reach the 500 charge cycles sooner.
Run time is what matters, and it doesn't matter whether you get it by
large battery and with average energy efficiency or small battery with
better than average energy efficiency.
The smaller the battery, the sooner its life-ending charge cycling occurs.
Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours
...if it had twice the gas mileage.
On 1/4/2024 8:18 PM, Alan wrote:
Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours
Dumbass.
You're making up absurd excuses for iPhones all having small batteries.
In your example the iPhone is B because all iPhones have a small battery. Your claim that this tiny-battery iPhone is TWICE AS EFFICIENT is absurd.
While you're making ridiculous excuses for the small iPhone battery, why
stop at merely claiming twice the efficiency of a typical Android phone?
Why not claim ten times, no, twenty, no one hundred times more efficient?
If your iPhone was one hundred, no..... two hundred times more efficient, then those tiny batteries would reach the 500 cycles at a later date.
While you're making up excuses for the small iPhone batteries, why not
claim iPhones are five hundred, no..... a THOUSAND times more efficient.
At ten thousand times the efficiency, then your lame excuses for the small batteries found in all iPhones can begin to start to make arithmetic sense.
Why stop there. Why not claim TWENTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
Do I hear THIRTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
FORTY?
At a HUNDRED THOUSAND times the efficiency, you could make your case that
the always much smaller iPhone battery has the same lifetime as others do.
On 1/4/2024 11:15 PM, Alan wrote:
...if it had twice the gas mileage.
Anyone reading this can already do the basic simple math that you can't do which is the small iPhone batteries will always reach 500 cycles sooner.
Your absurd lie of twice the efficiency is the ONLY WAY you can make your lame case small iPhone batteries will not reach 500 charge cycles sooner.
Until you retract your dumbass lie of twice the efficiency, we're done.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 475 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 47:34:19 |
| Calls: | 9,493 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,621 |
| Messages: | 6,123,316 |
| Posted today: | 1 |