From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Thank God the UK and the EU have forced the OEMs to give us legally binding facts instead of (admittedly brilliant) marketing spin on "efficiency".

To their credit, the UK forced OEMs to declare the length of "support" &
the EU forced OEMs to provide data which refutes their "efficiency" claims.

SUMMARY: iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
The iPhone is more efficient but due to its crappy battery, it dies sooner.
The Android is less efficient, but due to the battery, it lasts 12% longer.

DETAILS:
As of June 20, 2025, the EU's new Ecodesign and Energy Labelling rules for smartphones officially kicked in. This was a massive win for people who
don't believe in amorphous claims of absurdly impossible efficiencies.

Specifically the EU forced Apple & Samsung to move away from meaningless "marketing hours" and into standardized Efficiency Classes (A-G).

According to the 2026 EU Energy Labels for both flagships:

1. The Efficiency Benchmark (The "A" Rating)
Both the iPhone 17 Pro Max and the Galaxy S26 Ultra have achieved
an Energy Efficiency Class A rating. However, the data behind the
label reveals the truth about the actual "cycle math" which matters.

a. iPhone 17 Pro Max Efficiency:
The EU label indicates an endurance of ~58 hours under their
standardized "low-intensity" test. It does this with a battery of
roughly 18.7 Wh (approx. 4,823 mAh).

b. Galaxy S26 Ultra Efficiency:
The EU label indicates an endurance of ~55 hours under the same test.
It does this with a larger 19.3 Wh (approx. 5,000 mAh) battery.

Clearly, Apple is officially more efficient per watt-hour of capacity.
But the question is which wins in terms of overall battery lifetime?
i. The more efficient hardware with the smaller-capacity battery?
ii. Or the lower-efficiency hardware with a larger-capacity battery?

Luckily, the EU has thought ahead for us, so we have cycle life specs.

2. The 80% "Kill Time" (Cycle Life)
The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles
a battery can withstand while maintaining 80% capacity.
This is the "kill time" that we are trying to derive here.

a. iPhone 17 Pro Max, 1,000 Cycles at ~0.41 cycles per EU test day
b. Galaxy S26 Ultra, 1,200 Cycles at ~0.44 cycles per EU test day

3. The "Kill Time" Calculation (using EU Standards)
If we use the EU's standardized "daily usage" profile:
a. Phone: 1,000 cycles / 0.41 daily cycles = 2,439 days
b. Samsung: 1,200 cycles / 0.44 daily cycles = 2,727 days

Hmmmm....

Even with the huge upgrade in the iPhone battery capacity to 4.8AH
(compared to all earlier iPhones), under the EU's efficiency metrics,
Samsung still wins on overall lifespan by 288 Days (roughly 9.5 months).

That's 11.8% more total lifespan.
How can that be?

According to the EU tests, that iPhone is more efficient (as it uses fewer cycles per year), but Samsung's 2026 battery chemistry is rated for 20%
more cycles than Apple's in those EU reports (which nobody disputes).

Samsung's "durability buffer" is larger than Apple's "efficiency lead".

The result is, that based on EU metrics, the Samsung battery should
chemically outlast the iPhone by about 12% before falling to 80%.

Partly this may be due to Samsung using stacked battery technology (derived from EV tech) in the S26 Ultra, which allows for those 1,200 cycles.

Even though the iPhone 17 Pro Max is the "Efficiency King" of 2026, it is essentially a high-performance engine with a standard-sized fuel tank.

Summary:
a. The iPhone 17 Pro Max wins on daily longevity
b. The Galaxy S26 Ultra wins on lifetime longevity

Basically, the iPhone user gets to brag about not needing a charger today,
but the Samsung user gets to brag about not needing a new battery in 2029.
--
I don't defend any mothership because all I care about is the truth.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On 17/04/2026 18:09, Maria Sophia wrote:

Thank God the UK and the EU have forced the OEMs to give us legally binding facts instead of (admittedly brilliant) marketing spin on "efficiency".

To their credit, the UK forced OEMs to declare the length of "support" &
the EU forced OEMs to provide data which refutes their "efficiency" claims.

SUMMARY: iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
The iPhone is more efficient but due to its crappy battery, it dies sooner. The Android is less efficient, but due to the battery, it lasts 12% longer.

DETAILS:
As of June 20, 2025, the EU's new Ecodesign and Energy Labelling rules for smartphones officially kicked in. This was a massive win for people who
don't believe in amorphous claims of absurdly impossible efficiencies.

Specifically the EU forced Apple & Samsung to move away from meaningless "marketing hours" and into standardized Efficiency Classes (A-G).

According to the 2026 EU Energy Labels for both flagships:

1. The Efficiency Benchmark (The "A" Rating)
Both the iPhone 17 Pro Max and the Galaxy S26 Ultra have achieved
an Energy Efficiency Class A rating. However, the data behind the
label reveals the truth about the actual "cycle math" which matters.

a. iPhone 17 Pro Max Efficiency:
The EU label indicates an endurance of ~58 hours under their
standardized "low-intensity" test. It does this with a battery of
roughly 18.7 Wh (approx. 4,823 mAh).

b. Galaxy S26 Ultra Efficiency:
The EU label indicates an endurance of ~55 hours under the same test.
It does this with a larger 19.3 Wh (approx. 5,000 mAh) battery.

Correction: the rated battery capacity is 4,855 mAh.

Also, what you call "efficiency" is actually "endurance".

Clearly, Apple is officially more efficient per watt-hour of capacity.
But the question is which wins in terms of overall battery lifetime?
i. The more efficient hardware with the smaller-capacity battery?
ii. Or the lower-efficiency hardware with a larger-capacity battery?

Luckily, the EU has thought ahead for us, so we have cycle life specs.

2. The 80% "Kill Time" (Cycle Life)
The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles
a battery can withstand while maintaining 80% capacity.
This is the "kill time" that we are trying to derive here.

"Kill time" is not a thing. It is simply the *minimum* number of
*expected* cycles that a battery can do while retianing 80% of the
original capacity. A phone is still perfectly usable with 79% of
remaining capacity. There is no "kill" here.

a. iPhone 17 Pro Max, 1,000 Cycles at ~0.41 cycles per EU test day
b. Galaxy S26 Ultra, 1,200 Cycles at ~0.44 cycles per EU test day

That's an odd way to represent it, and you've got your numbers mixed up.

An easier calculation is:

(endurance (e) * cycles (c)) = total life cycles endurance at 80%
limit (lc)

lc/24 hours = lc in days

3. The "Kill Time" Calculation (using EU Standards)
If we use the EU's standardized "daily usage" profile:
a. Phone: 1,000 cycles / 0.41 daily cycles = 2,439 days

Correction: (58*1000)/24 = 2,416 days

b. Samsung: 1,200 cycles / 0.44 daily cycles = 2,727 days

Correction: (55*1200)/24 = 2,750 days

Hmmmm....

Even with the huge upgrade in the iPhone battery capacity to 4.8AH
(compared to all earlier iPhones), under the EU's efficiency metrics,
Samsung still wins on overall lifespan by 288 Days (roughly 9.5 months).

Correction: 334 days (11 months)

That's 11.8% more total lifespan.

Correction: 13.8%

How can that be?

According to the EU tests, that iPhone is more efficient (as it uses fewer cycles per year), but Samsung's 2026 battery chemistry is rated for 20%
more cycles than Apple's in those EU reports (which nobody disputes).

It's not a rating. It's a manufacturer-supplied estimate. The
regulations requires a minimum of 1000 cycles. The regulator does not
test nor verify this.

Interestingly, the S25 series had specified 1700+ cycles. So Samsung
have *dropped* their claim by nearly 30% with the S26 series. I wonder why?

Samsung's "durability buffer" is larger than Apple's "efficiency lead".

The result is, that based on EU metrics, the Samsung battery should chemically outlast the iPhone by about 12% before falling to 80%.

Partly this may be due to Samsung using stacked battery technology (derived from EV tech) in the S26 Ultra, which allows for those 1,200 cycles.

Which is worse than previous models.

Even though the iPhone 17 Pro Max is the "Efficiency King" of 2026, it is essentially a high-performance engine with a standard-sized fuel tank.

There's no efficiency being calculated here. Only endurance, either per
cycle or over all cycles dwon to 80% battery capacity.

The Pro Max is not the "Efficiency King" of 2026. It's not even the most efficient iPhone. If you'd read my complete EU analysis - where I
actually do calculate battery efficiencies - you'd know this... <sigh>

Spoiler: Of the main brands, Motorola probably has the most efficient
phones on the market.

Summary:
a. The iPhone 17 Pro Max wins on daily longevity
b. The Galaxy S26 Ultra wins on lifetime longevity

Basically, the iPhone user gets to brag about not needing a charger today, but the Samsung user gets to brag about not needing a new battery in 2029.

Firstly, we have to believe that the manufacturer provided information
is correct. As we've seen, the declaration can change by 30% from one
year to another.

Secondly, that cycle value is a minimum requirement. There's no benefit
to the manufacturer to declare a higher value.

Thirdly, this is the *minimum expected* battery longevity to 80% of
original capacity. Batteries and the phones are still very much usable
with <80% capacity. There is no "kill time". Of course, we should expect batteries to last as long as possible.

Lastly, the Pro Max *minimum expected* longevity is 6.6 years and Ultra
is 7.5 years. That's a very long time on both counts and most people
will have changed phones by then. Particularly with the Samsung as it
will be out of support.

It will be interesting to see in the coming months and years if the S25
series meet their high 1700+ cycles at 80% declaration of conformity.
And likewise what real-world cycle counts iphones actually drop below 80%.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Chris wrote:

Firstly, we have to believe that the manufacturer provided information
is correct.

If any numbers are wrong, I ask the team to point them out please.

The Samsung lasts 1-1/2 years *longer* than the "efficient" iPhone
(proving, yet again, that this bogus "efficiency" proffers no value).

The discussion regarding the EU Ecodesign Regulation (EU 2023/1670)
provides the first standardized 'Kill Time' metric we have ever had.

Note: Kill-time is a term chosen to make the point, much like an LD50
is for drug companies, that it's a calculated value to a detrimental state.

I'll ignore the insults and focus on the facts because it's important
to parse the (admittedly brilliant) marketing propaganda surrounding this bogus amorphous "efficiency" that has never once resulted in actual value.

To that end of forcing the OEM's hand at actually defining that
(admittedly brilliant but bogus) "efficiency" claim, we have to all
thank God for the UK & for the EU forcing OEMs to common benchmarks!

Even I'm learning more about it every day, where I belatedly realized I
had misquoted the numbers from the EPREL/EU certified test profile, which
is a rigid, simulated "day" that every phone must run to get its label.

It turns out that it's much worse than I had previously calculated in
that the Galaxy S26 Ultra delivers ~24.5% more total standardized battery
life to 80% capacity than the iPhone 17 Pro Max.

That's roughly 542 extra days, or about 1.5 years of calculated use.
So much for that bogus amorphous (yet admittedly brilliant) "efficiency". .

Among other things, under these UK/EU European rules, manufacturers must declare the cycles a battery withstands before dropping to 80% health.

They could have picked any percentage.
They picked 80%.
So that's what we will use.

1. The specifications (EU certified)
A. Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max
a. Capacity: 4800 mAh
b. EU Endurance (Single Charge): 53 hours
c. EU Cycle Rating (to 80%): 1,000 cycles
d. Daily Cycles (24h/53h): 0.45283 cycles/day

B. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
a. Capacity: 4855 mAh
b. EU Endurance (Single Charge): 55 hours
c. EU Cycle Rating (to 80%): 1,200 cycles
d. Daily Cycles (24h/55h): 0.43636 cycles/day

2. 'Kill Time' = Total Life Cycles / Daily Cycles
A. Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max:
1,000 / ~0.453 = 2,208.33 days (approx 6.05 years)
B. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra:
1,200 / ~0.436 = 2,750 days (approx 7.53 years)

3. Analysis of the data
A. Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max
Total Life: 2,208 days (approx 6.05 years)
Efficiency Calculation: 53 hours � 4.8 Ah = 11.04 hours per Ah
Efficiency: 11.04 hours per Ah

B. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
Total Life: 2,750 days (approx 7.53 years)
Efficiency Calculation: 55 hours � 4.855 Ah = 11.33 hours per Ah
Efficiency: 11.33 hours per Ah
Margin: 542 Days (approx 1.49 years)
Lifespan Advantage: +24.5%

4. Summary of the facts:
a. Efficiency:
Samsung wins. It gets 55 hours out of 4.855Ah,
while Apple gets 53 hours out of 4.8Ah.
b. Capacity:
Samsung wins, though Apple has finally started closing the
historic battery-capacity gap (but only recently).
c. Durability:
Samsung wins. The 1,200 cycle rating on Samsung's 2026 chemistry
provides the Kill-Time victory despite the claimed iPhone efficiency.

REFERENCES:
a. EU Regulation 2023/1670 (Ecodesign requirements)
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1670/oj>
b. EU Regulation 2023/1669 (Energy Labeling)
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1669/oj>
c. EPREL (European Product Registry for Energy Labeling)

<https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669>
d. Bitkom Compliance (June 2025 Implementation Details)

<https://bitkom-compliance-solutions.com/en/news/new-eu-requirements-ecodesign-and-energy-labelling-smartphones-and-tablets-june-2025>
--
One out of about ten million people know what we know about smartphones.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2