From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles a battery
can withstand while maintaining $80% capacity. This is the "kill time".

In a recent thread on the Apple newsgroups, we proved that Apple is known
to purposefully cheapen out on battery system component hardware, e.g.,

Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Did Ming-Chi Kuo ever report Apple puts cheap components in batteries, or not?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 13:04:43 -0700
Message-ID: <10re9gr$2dlv$[email protected]>
Ming-Chi Kuo claimed Apple cheaps out for pure profit motives alone.

But Apple also cheaps out on battery capacity.
Only one iPhone ever made has met the standards set in 2014 by Android.

Other than that one iPhone, no iPhone has ever reached even close to 5AH. That's important to note since it's a battle between efficiency & capacity.

We've been observing crappy iPhone battery capacity since at least 2018.
But Chris argues, rightfully so, that capacity is only the starting point.

Overall efficiency matters too.

In the end, what matters to all is how many YEARS a battery will last.
The definition to use is how many charge cycles before it drops below 80%.

So let's run the math.
We'll use the *best* possible competitive devices we can find today.

Let's mathematically compare overall life between these two flagships:
Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

We will use only EU standards to derive the kill time.
I don't know the answer yet, as I'm just now replying to Chris.

Who will win given these competing mathematical claims?
a. Samsung has presumably higher capacity but lower efficiency
b. Apple has presumably lower capacity but higher efficiency

Which will win in overall charge cycle lifetime based on EU standards?
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia <[email protected]> wrote:

The EU now requires manufacturers to declare

Before you go any further look at this and let me know what further
information you need:

https://rpubs.com/ithinkiam/1415197

Maybe, for once, you'll engage with empirical data.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Chris wrote:

Maybe, for once, you'll engage with empirical data.

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:
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.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-16 22:30, Maria Sophia wrote:

The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles a battery can withstand while maintaining $80% capacity. This is the "kill time".

Cite this rule, please.

In a recent thread on the Apple newsgroups, we proved that Apple is known
to purposefully cheapen out on battery system component hardware, e.g.,

No. No one proved anything of the kind.

Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Did Ming-Chi Kuo ever report Apple puts cheap components in batteries, or not?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 13:04:43 -0700
Message-ID: <10re9gr$2dlv$[email protected]>
Ming-Chi Kuo claimed Apple cheaps out for pure profit motives alone.

But Apple also cheaps out on battery capacity.
Only one iPhone ever made has met the standards set in 2014 by Android.

Other than that one iPhone, no iPhone has ever reached even close to 5AH. That's important to note since it's a battle between efficiency & capacity.

Battery capacity alone is unimportant as a metric.

A car with a smaller gas tank can go farther than one with a larger...

...if it is more fuel efficient.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-16 22:30, Maria Sophia wrote:

The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles a battery can withstand while maintaining $80% capacity. This is the "kill time".

...and boiling it down to the real world:

<https://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=13964&idPhone2=14320>

Phone Battery size (mA-h) Active use score

iPhone 17 Pro Max 4,823 or 5,088 17:58

Galaxy S26 Ultra 5,000 16:23


So assuming they test the larger battery version (the eSIM only
version), The iPhone runs 10% longer with a battery less than 2% larger.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-17 10:30, Alan wrote:

On 2026-04-16 22:30, Maria Sophia wrote:

The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles a
battery
can withstand while maintaining $80% capacity. This is the "kill time".

...and boiling it down to the real world:

<https://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=13964&idPhone2=14320>

Phone              Battery size (mA-h)  Active use score

iPhone 17 Pro Max   4,823 or 5,088           17:58

Galaxy S26 Ultra        5,000                16:23

So assuming they test the larger battery version (the eSIM only
version), The iPhone runs 10% longer with a battery less than 2% larger.

I added my iPhone 16 to the comparison.

With 3,561 mA-h battery...

...29% smaller than the Galaxy S26 Ultra's...

...the Active use score is 15:42...

...or less than 5% shorter than the Galaxy's.

But my battery is "crappy"...

...right?

:-)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Maria Sophia <[email protected]> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Maybe, for once, you'll engage with empirical data.

Thank God

Sadly it seems not. Time to put you back in your box.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 4/17/26 1:30 AM, Maria Sophia wrote:

The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles a battery can withstand while maintaining $80% capacity. This is the "kill time".

In a recent thread on the Apple newsgroups, we proved that Apple is known
to purposefully cheapen out on battery system component hardware, e.g.,

Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Did Ming-Chi Kuo ever report Apple puts cheap components in batteries, or not?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 13:04:43 -0700
Message-ID: <10re9gr$2dlv$[email protected]>
Ming-Chi Kuo claimed Apple cheaps out for pure profit motives alone.

But Apple also cheaps out on battery capacity.
Only one iPhone ever made has met the standards set in 2014 by Android.

Other than that one iPhone, no iPhone has ever reached even close to 5AH. That's important to note since it's a battle between efficiency & capacity.

We've been observing crappy iPhone battery capacity since at least 2018.
But Chris argues, rightfully so, that capacity is only the starting point.

Overall efficiency matters too.

In the end, what matters to all is how many YEARS a battery will last.
The definition to use is how many charge cycles before it drops below 80%.

So let's run the math.
We'll use the *best* possible competitive devices we can find today.

Let's mathematically compare overall life between these two flagships:
Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra

We will use only EU standards to derive the kill time.
I don't know the answer yet, as I'm just now replying to Chris.

Who will win given these competing mathematical claims?
a. Samsung has presumably higher capacity but lower efficiency
b. Apple has presumably lower capacity but higher efficiency

Which will win in overall charge cycle lifetime based on EU standards?

A real world comparison for a Samsung flagship.


https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s26-review-3650267/

Quotes:

"Are the cameras downright terrible or completely unusable? No. But for
a $900 Galaxy S26 — and especially for an $1,100 Galaxy S26 Plus — these sensors aren’t acceptable. These are fine cameras for a $600 or $700
phone, but not for the prices Samsung is asking for the S26 and S26 Plus."

"Things aren’t much better (than underperforming cameras) when it comes
to battery life and charging. The Galaxy S26 has a slightly larger
4,300mAh battery compared to the Galaxy S25’s 4,000mAh cell, while the
S26 Plus remains unchanged at 4,600mAh."

"Both phones consistently last one full day of use per charge, but don’t expect anything beyond that. This isn’t like the OnePlus 15 and its monstrous 7,300mAh battery, which can last between two and three days on
a single charge. Samsung’s battery life is perfectly adequate and
nothing more."

"The Galaxy S26 Plus is already overpriced and no longer worth buying,
and the baseline Galaxy S26 is dangerously close to reaching that point,
too. The Galaxy S series desperately needs a revamp, and the S26 and S26
Plus make that point clearer than ever before."
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Chris wrote:

Maria Sophia <[email protected]> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Maybe, for once, you'll engage with empirical data.

Thank God

Sadly it seems not. Time to put you back in your box.

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

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-18 11:18 a.m., Maria Sophia wrote:

Chris wrote:

Maria Sophia <[email protected]> wrote:

Chris wrote:

Maybe, for once, you'll engage with empirical data.

Thank God

Sadly it seems not. Time to put you back in your box.

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>

Honestly, there is no reason to doubt those numbers. Nevertheless, the knowledge that I can get the mediocre experience I get with an Android
lasts longer than the stellar experience I get with iOS isn't much of a selling point.
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

Honestly, there is no reason to doubt those numbers. Nevertheless, the knowledge that I can get the mediocre experience I get with an Android
lasts longer than the stellar experience I get with iOS isn't much of a selling point.

I think it's valuable to use legally binding benchmarks to double check
Apple's bogus claims of efficiency given Apple felt compelled to spin a web
of excuses extending for 42 pages to defend the fact that in the first EU reports, it was proven that no iPhone had ever earned an A in efficiency.

So much for (admittedly brilliant) marketing claims turned to dust by fact. (Only in subterranean Cupertino caverns did an iPhone even get close to A.)

Nobody topside, on planet earth, could ever reproduce Apple's wild claims. Which, let's face it, has always been so with Apple marketing propaganda.

I thank God, the EU and the UK for proving that Apple's (admittedly
brilliant) marketing propaganda was, in effect, meaningless drivel.

The iPhone 17 Pro Mac may be more efficient but with its crappy batteries,
it still lags behind the competing Galaxy S26 Ultra by a 1-1/2 years.

Given this kind of information is nowhere to be found on the Internet,
it's valuable to thank those in the UK & in the EU for forcing this out.

The efficiency exists, but paired with crappy batteries, it means nothing.

That's despite every iPhone official product-description PDF for many
years, proffering the word "efficiency" exactly 12 times in every 9 pages.

As for that "mediocre" experience, when was the last time you owned an
Android phone, keeping in mind I've *always* owned both iOS & Android.

Current Android flagships have longer support than they ever had before.
a. iPhone 15(+) === Minimum 5 years from the first supply date
b. Pixel 8(+) === 7 years of Security Updates, OS Updates & Feature Drops
c. Galaxy S24(+) === 7 years of Security Updates & Android OS Upgrades

Note that one potential flaw in the UK system is that "support" isn't
defined by the UK (AFAIK) so we have to rely on the OEM's own definition.

I've asked what "support" means, especially when we contrast with the fact that Windows XP received its last CVE fix 17-1/2 years after it released.
a. Windows XP release date is on or about October 25, 2001
b. Microsoft released (BlueKeep) KB4500331 on May 14, 2019
c. That's 17 years, 6 months, and 19 days of "support".

But nobody sensible would ever dare to call that 17.5 years to be "full" support, so we need to understand what each OEM means by "support".

We hashed out on the Android newsgroup what "full support" means, where, unfortunately, digging into the details, each OEM defined it differently.

As far as we can tell by hashing this out for a week on the Android and
Apple newsgroups (where the Pixel is included as a courtesy to Andy!):

a. Apple drops full support the instant the next release ships
but Apple doesn't ever define what CVEs go into full support
ahead of time. So we'd have to look to see if EVERY CVE is patched.
Most likely Apple patches from 8-10 severity CVEs, but I have NOT
researched to that level of detail what level of CVE is "FULL" support.

b. Google actually publishes the list in the ASB that they will patch.
But Google's monthly support patches seem to slow down in later years
but the actual list of CVEs fixed remains those that are in the ASB.

c. Samsung uses the ASB + Samsung has further lists that they publish.
Their support also "slows down" as the phone ages, but it's still
inclusive of all the vulnerabilities listed in their published lists.

Anything I say above can be wrong, but I would wager that this is a rare
place on the Internet where 'support' is discussed in accurate terms.

Marketing of "support" is brilliant.
But I prefer the facts.

Given most people get all their knowledge from (admittedly brilliant) marketing propaganda, this thread employed legally binding data that I
thank both the UK & EU for forcing the OEMs to provide to us, thank God.
--
I don't defend any OEM mothership. I only care about understanding facts.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Tom Elam wrote:

"Both phones consistently last one full day of use per charge, but don�t expect anything beyond that. This isn�t like the OnePlus 15 and its monstrous 7,300mAh battery, which can last between two and three days on
a single charge. Samsung�s battery life is perfectly adequate and
nothing more."

The readers here need to note the cherry picking involved by Tom Elam.
The article he's referencing has *nothing* to do (per se) with the phones:
a. iPhone 17 Pro Max
b. Galaxy S26 Ultra

It's well known the base S26 is actually less efficient than the Ultra
but there are so many component differences, that's a different topic.

Here, we're discussing only these two phones:
a. iPhone 17 Pro Max
b. Galaxy S26 Ultra

All my posts contain information which is always sourced reliably, but
which I put together so that we can all *learn* from the efforts invested.

To that end, I keep an open mind as we look at efficiency claims for these
two phones under a wide variety of conditions
a. iPhone 17 Pro Max
b. Galaxy S26 Ultra
using EU 2023/1670 Standards, and not some high-school term paper.

Here, we're discussing durability, where the efficiency lead of the Android phone is only slight under the EU test conditions, and yet it still wins.

That's because Apple traditionally puts crappy batteries in the iPhone.

The point being if you prioritize the health of the phone in Year 5,
Samsung's 1,200-cycle chemistry makes it the efficiency winner.

However, if you prioritize the longest possible unplugged day in Year 1, Apple's software-level power management still remains a worthwhile factor.

Marketing departments can no longer hide behind amorphous (yet brilliant) efficiency claims because the EU requires standardized reproducible data.

a. Longevity (The "Kill Time"): With Samsung's battery rated for 1,200
cycles vs. Apple's 1,000, Samsung wins the long game on durability.

Even with similar power draw, the more resilient chemistry wins
the "years of use" metric over the crappy Apple battery components.

b. Efficiency can be considered to be work done per unit of energy.
i. iPhone 17 Pro Max: 53 hours / 4.8 Ah = 11.04 hrs/Ah
ii. Galaxy S26 Ultra: 55 hours / 4.855 Ah = 11.33 hrs/Ah

The margin is razor-thin (~2.6%) in favor of the Samsung device.
Despite Apple's (admittedly brilliant) claims, it's not more efficient.

Even Apple's historic crappy capacity isn't what hurts the iPhone here.
a. Capacity: Samsung 4,855 mAh / Apple 4,800 mAh (slight Samsung win)
b. Endurance: Samsung 55 Hours / Apple 53 Hours (slight Samsung win)
c. Cycle Life: Samsung 1,200 Cycles / Apple 1,000 Cycles (Samsung win)
d. Kill Time: Samsung ~7.53 Years / Apple ~6.05 Years (big Samsung win)

Even though the iPhone "efficiency" claims are shown to be nothing more
than (admittedly brilliant) marketing propaganda, to be fair to Apple,
for all we know the iPhone may have a higher "Idle Efficiency" (perhaps due
to presumed aggressive background management for all that we know).

However... Apple doesn't get to claim an efficiency based on placing a
phone in a drawer with nothing running and then claims it lasts longer.

The EU standardized test simulates active use-scrolling, calling and video where raw hardware efficiency matters most.

Like almost all my posts, I provide information that is found only in the
most accurate specifications on the net, where I ask others to check my
numbers because even I was surprised the iPhone lost on all counts.

a. On iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Galaxy S26 Ultra efficiency:
It is a statistical tie or slight Samsung win.
The "Apple is twice as efficient" trope is officially dead.

b. On iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Galaxy S26 Ultra longevity:
Samsung wins decisively due to better battery resilience.

This information exposes another component of the astoundingly huge hidden
cost of ownership of Apple products, where, if both phones cost the same,
the Samsung offers a significantly lower "Cost Per Year" by lasting nearly
18 months longer (in addition to far longer security promises & drastically lower repair costs).

I suspect the reason this is "news" to most people is my obsservation that
most people get all their ideas only from (admittedly brilliant) marketing.
--
I shill for no OEM. I treat every OEM with the science of engineering.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 17/04/2026 06:30, Maria Sophia wrote:

The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles a battery can withstand while maintaining $80% capacity. This is the "kill time".

In a recent thread on the Apple newsgroups, we proved that Apple is known
to purposefully cheapen out on battery system component hardware, e.g.,

<snipped>

I'll bet you believe the Earth is flat, the Moon landings never
happened, space does not exist and 5G signals caused Covid?

Although, funnily enough, there is an observable difference in battery
life between my Apple MacBook Pro running macOS and my Lenovo Thinkpad
X1 Carbon running Linux. My MacBook is far faster and more capable yet
the battery lasts much longer... strange that!
--
Andy

"Do only that which is right and may your God go with you..."

"By reading this post, you acknowledge that I may later claim I had a
point, plan or plausible deniability. Terms subject to change!"
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-18 9:57 p.m., Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

Honestly, there is no reason to doubt those numbers. Nevertheless, the
knowledge that I can get the mediocre experience I get with an Android
lasts longer than the stellar experience I get with iOS isn't much of a
selling point.

I think it's valuable to use legally binding benchmarks to double check Apple's bogus claims of efficiency given Apple felt compelled to spin a web of excuses extending for 42 pages to defend the fact that in the first EU reports, it was proven that no iPhone had ever earned an A in efficiency.

So much for (admittedly brilliant) marketing claims turned to dust by fact. (Only in subterranean Cupertino caverns did an iPhone even get close to A.)

Nobody topside, on planet earth, could ever reproduce Apple's wild claims. Which, let's face it, has always been so with Apple marketing propaganda.

I thank God, the EU and the UK for proving that Apple's (admittedly brilliant) marketing propaganda was, in effect, meaningless drivel.

I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!

The iPhone 17 Pro Mac may be more efficient but with its crappy batteries,
it still lags behind the competing Galaxy S26 Ultra by a 1-1/2 years.

The best part is that the S26 still runs Android and provides its
customers with the mediocre experience they have come to expect.

Given this kind of information is nowhere to be found on the Internet,
it's valuable to thank those in the UK & in the EU for forcing this out.

It is also very important to thank both the EU and the UK for its
heroism in arresting those hundreds of people who posted mean tweets.

The efficiency exists, but paired with crappy batteries, it means nothing.

That's despite every iPhone official product-description PDF for many
years, proffering the word "efficiency" exactly 12 times in every 9 pages.

As for that "mediocre" experience, when was the last time you owned an Android phone, keeping in mind I've *always* owned both iOS & Android.

Current Android flagships have longer support than they ever had before.
a. iPhone 15(+) === Minimum 5 years from the first supply date
b. Pixel 8(+) === 7 years of Security Updates, OS Updates & Feature Drops
c. Galaxy S24(+) === 7 years of Security Updates & Android OS Upgrades

Note that one potential flaw in the UK system is that "support" isn't
defined by the UK (AFAIK) so we have to rely on the OEM's own definition.

I've asked what "support" means, especially when we contrast with the fact that Windows XP received its last CVE fix 17-1/2 years after it released.
a. Windows XP release date is on or about October 25, 2001
b. Microsoft released (BlueKeep) KB4500331 on May 14, 2019
c. That's 17 years, 6 months, and 19 days of "support".

I'm glad to know that the mediocre experience I got from Android will theoretically be supported for seven years. Knowing that my miserable experience will _at least_ last that long enhances it.

But nobody sensible would ever dare to call that 17.5 years to be "full" support, so we need to understand what each OEM means by "support".

We hashed out on the Android newsgroup what "full support" means, where, unfortunately, digging into the details, each OEM defined it differently.

As far as we can tell by hashing this out for a week on the Android and
Apple newsgroups (where the Pixel is included as a courtesy to Andy!):

a. Apple drops full support the instant the next release ships
but Apple doesn't ever define what CVEs go into full support
ahead of time. So we'd have to look to see if EVERY CVE is patched.
Most likely Apple patches from 8-10 severity CVEs, but I have NOT
researched to that level of detail what level of CVE is "FULL" support.

b. Google actually publishes the list in the ASB that they will patch.
But Google's monthly support patches seem to slow down in later years
but the actual list of CVEs fixed remains those that are in the ASB.

c. Samsung uses the ASB + Samsung has further lists that they publish.
Their support also "slows down" as the phone ages, but it's still
inclusive of all the vulnerabilities listed in their published lists.

Anything I say above can be wrong, but I would wager that this is a rare place on the Internet where 'support' is discussed in accurate terms.

Marketing of "support" is brilliant.
But I prefer the facts.

Given most people get all their knowledge from (admittedly brilliant) marketing propaganda, this thread employed legally binding data that I
thank both the UK & EU for forcing the OEMs to provide to us, thank God.

Yes, it is best to look to the UK and EU rather than rely on our friends
and colleagues who own iPhones and tell us that they're awesome, that
they're fully satisfied by what they bought and that they can't wait to
get the next edition.
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-19 1:28 a.m., Andy Newman wrote:

On 17/04/2026 06:30, Maria Sophia wrote:

The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles a
battery
can withstand while maintaining $80% capacity. This is the "kill time".

In a recent thread on the Apple newsgroups, we proved that Apple is known
to purposefully cheapen out on battery system component hardware, e.g.,

<snipped>

I'll bet you believe the Earth is flat, the Moon landings never
happened, space does not exist and 5G signals caused Covid?

Although, funnily enough, there is an observable difference in battery
life between my Apple MacBook Pro running macOS and my Lenovo Thinkpad
X1 Carbon running Linux. My MacBook is far faster and more capable yet
the battery lasts much longer... strange that!

1) The ARM platform was designed to be efficient, ensuring that it
easily beats an x86 machine in that respect.

2) The Mx series of processors is built upon that platform and runs
exclusively on machines designed by Apple, all of which can easily be optimized for performance and battery life.

3) Linux is terrible with battery life no matter what you do, and that includes using tpm and cpufreq scheduler. Even if you managed to get
decent battery life, the performance compromises needed to obtain it are significant whereas there are none whatsoever on the Mac.

4) The Mac outperforms a similar PC without even needing to use fans to maintain performance. Fans are only necessary to _maintain_ performance
when the processor gets hot during intense workloads, like those of
someone doing 3D design or video editing. Everyone else is not likely to
ever hear them. Meanwhile, most PCs sound like helicopters when turned on.

Unless you're a gamer where the PC is obviously better, there is simply
no good reason to get a PC anymore.
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Andy Newman wrote:

In a recent thread on the Apple newsgroups, we proved that Apple is known
to purposefully cheapen out on battery system component hardware, e.g.,

<snipped>

I'll bet you believe the Earth is flat, the Moon landings never
happened, space does not exist and 5G signals caused Covid?

Although, funnily enough, there is an observable difference in battery
life between my Apple MacBook Pro running macOS and my Lenovo Thinkpad
X1 Carbon running Linux. My MacBook is far faster and more capable yet
the battery lasts much longer... strange that!

Keeping this thread fact based and on topic, I will ignore the classic whataboutism ad hominem attack above which is designed as an insult.

"The goal of whataboutism isn't to disprove the original claim, but to
shift the focus and create a sense of "moral equivalency" elsewhere.

While whataboutism is usually a simple tool for evasion, pointing out inconsistency isn't always a bad thing so allow me to prove my statements.

The fact is we've been aware of Apple cheaping out on batteries, for years.

Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Did Ming-Chi Kuo ever report Apple puts cheap components in batteries, or not?
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 13:04:43 -0700
Message-ID: <10re9gr$2dlv$[email protected]>

FACT:
*Kuo: iPhone 12 5G components will cost Apple around $75-$125 per unit*
<https://9to5mac.com/2020/08/21/kuo-iphone-12-5g-component-cost/>
Benjamin Mayo, Aug 21 2020

SPECIFICALLY:
a. Kuo names the battery printed circuit board as one area where
*Apple is downgrading its specifications*.
b. Kuo says that the *cost cuts on internal parts* will have
*almost* no noticeable effect on user experience.

This is old news that Apple historically has put el-cheapo components into
the iPhone batteries (in addition to laughably puny capacity sizes), so
many of these supporting links are 404 by now, but they've been discussed
in the Apple newsgroups for years, so nobody can deny a statement of fact.

4/12/23 <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/OQk2_G0iYoM/m/aITK_9M-AAAJ>
*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/> <https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-to-skimp-on-battery-tech-for-5g-iPhones-says-Kuo_id126708>

Nov 9, 2022 <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/xwGiq6050ls/m/papwYkNGGwAJ>
*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/

Sep 15, 2021 <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/zmumvfSvCUk/m/OgBZYUORBwAJ>
*Apple put cheap batteries and boards into the iPhone 12 purely 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/

etc.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!

Ignoring the untoward ad hominem whataboutism racist credibility attack on
the entire UK in order to deflect this thread from the topic at hand...

a. iPhone 17 Pro Max
i. 1,000 cycles
ii. 53 hours per charge
iii. ~6.05 years to 80%
b. Galaxy S26 Ultra
i. 1,200 cycles
ii. 55 hours per charge
iii. ~7.53 years to 80%

Using the EU benchmark data, we can easily calculate practical results:
i. Samsung (+20%)
ii. Samsung (+3.7%)
iii. Samsung (+1.48 yrs)

Note I didn't know what the answer would be beforehand, and, you'll note my original calculations had a minor flaw so I've corrected the math since.

Please do check the numbers though, as this kind of comparison is not
easily found on the Internet, and I'd wager this thread is actually unique.

In terms of making sure this is a uniquely accurate assessment which, I'd wager, is not found anywhere on the Internet, I'm a bit surprised nobody challenged me on the simplified efficiency comparisons in prior posts.

The claim that the Samsung lasts roughly 1.5 years longer before the
battery reaches 80% health is mathematically sound based on the provided EU specs, but my calculation of comparative efficiency was simplified a bit.

While the math is right as far as I'm aware, "efficiency" in engineering usually refers to power consumption (Wh) and not just current (Ah).

I simplified since both phones operate at similar lithium-ion voltages.
To improve the validity of the results, I'll run that math separately.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-19 1:48 p.m., Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!

Ignoring the untoward ad hominem whataboutism racist credibility attack on the entire UK in order to deflect this thread from the topic at hand...

What race is Islam?
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

Ignoring the untoward ad hominem whataboutism racist credibility attack on >> the entire UK in order to deflect this thread from the topic at hand...

What race is Islam?

Ignoring the ad hominem whataboutism attempt to deflect the topic of this thread, we should summarize what we've found out using UK & EU regulations.

The UK forced OEMs to declare their "support" period:
a. iPhone 15(+) === Minimum 5 years from the first supply date
b. Pixel 8(+) === 7 years of Security Updates, OS Updates & Feature Drops
c. Galaxy S24(+) === 7 years of Security Updates & Android OS Upgrades

And the EU forced OEMs to provide specs on battery & runtime benchmarks.

It's interesting to note that the (admittedly brilliant) "efficiency"
claims by Apple turn out to be false when compared to the Galaxy but we
might get very different efficiency results for different devices.

So while not every Android phone will beat out every iPhone in efficiency, this particular Android phone certainly beat it's competitor soundly in
one of the most important lifetime criteria which is battery longevity.

Unless the math is wrong, for these two phones under test, we showed:
a. Galaxy S26 Ultra gets +20% more charge cycles than iPhone 17 Pro Max
b. Galaxy S26 Ultra has +3.7% more hours per charge than iPhone 17 Pro Max
c. The Galaxy S26 Ultra lives +1.48 yrs longer life than iPhone 17 Pro Max

And, while it's off topic to discuss in this thread full support
d. The Galaxy S26 Ultra has 2 yrs longer promised full support than
the iPhone 17 Pro Max (thanks to the recent UK regulations).

And, let's not forget that every Android phone on Android 10 and above gets free maintenance support for core modules forever (i.e., Project Mainline).

I wager one in a million people understand something as simple as support.
a. There's full support (which the UK forced OEMs to put in writing)
b. Then, there's basic maintenance forever (which only Android does)
c. Lastly, there's courtesy support (which can last for decades)
[Witness WinXP bug fixes 17 years, 6 months & 19 days after release.)

If you have a smartphone that has reached its full-support cutoff,
if it's an Android device, you still have (b) forever and (c) above.
If it's an Apple device, you only have (c) above.

I'd wager that one in a million people know what we just wrote above.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 06:58:25 -0400, CrudeSausage <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 2026-04-18 9:57 p.m., Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

Honestly, there is no reason to doubt those numbers. Nevertheless, the
knowledge that I can get the mediocre experience I get with an Android
lasts longer than the stellar experience I get with iOS isn't much of a
selling point.

I think it's valuable to use legally binding benchmarks to double check
Apple's bogus claims of efficiency given Apple felt compelled to spin a web >> of excuses extending for 42 pages to defend the fact that in the first EU
reports, it was proven that no iPhone had ever earned an A in efficiency.

So much for (admittedly brilliant) marketing claims turned to dust by fact. >> (Only in subterranean Cupertino caverns did an iPhone even get close to A.) >>
Nobody topside, on planet earth, could ever reproduce Apple's wild claims. >> Which, let's face it, has always been so with Apple marketing propaganda.

I thank God, the EU and the UK for proving that Apple's (admittedly
brilliant) marketing propaganda was, in effect, meaningless drivel.

I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!

Another thick twat kill-filled.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-20 4:14 a.m., Trolleybus wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 06:58:25 -0400, CrudeSausage <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 2026-04-18 9:57 p.m., Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

Honestly, there is no reason to doubt those numbers. Nevertheless, the >>>> knowledge that I can get the mediocre experience I get with an Android >>>> lasts longer than the stellar experience I get with iOS isn't much of a >>>> selling point.

I think it's valuable to use legally binding benchmarks to double check
Apple's bogus claims of efficiency given Apple felt compelled to spin a web >>> of excuses extending for 42 pages to defend the fact that in the first EU >>> reports, it was proven that no iPhone had ever earned an A in efficiency. >>>
So much for (admittedly brilliant) marketing claims turned to dust by fact. >>> (Only in subterranean Cupertino caverns did an iPhone even get close to A.) >>>
Nobody topside, on planet earth, could ever reproduce Apple's wild claims. >>> Which, let's face it, has always been so with Apple marketing propaganda. >>>
I thank God, the EU and the UK for proving that Apple's (admittedly
brilliant) marketing propaganda was, in effect, meaningless drivel.

I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!

Another thick twat kill-filled.

Oh no! My life is ruined!
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 4/18/26 11:30 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

This information exposes another component of the astoundingly huge hidden cost of ownership of Apple products, where, if both phones cost the same,
the Samsung offers a significantly lower "Cost Per Year" by lasting nearly 18 months longer (in addition to far longer security promises & drastically lower repair costs).

A remind you that these numbers are meaningless in real world
conditions. And, batteries are easily replaceable. The iPhone 17 camera
is also better.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 4/19/26 1:21 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

This is old news that Apple historically has put el-cheapo components into the iPhone batteries (in addition to laughably puny capacity sizes), so
many of these supporting links are 404 by now, but they've been discussed
in the Apple newsgroups for years, so nobody can deny a statement of fact.

OMG, all those articles are WAY outdated.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-20 4:10 p.m., Tom Elam wrote:

On 4/18/26 11:30 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

This information exposes another component of the astoundingly huge
hidden
cost of ownership of Apple products, where, if both phones cost the same,
the Samsung offers a significantly lower "Cost Per Year"  by lasting
nearly
18 months longer (in addition to far longer security promises &
drastically
lower repair costs).

A remind you that these numbers are meaningless in real world
conditions. And, batteries are easily replaceable. The iPhone 17 camera
is also better.

At this point, I think that most Apple users know that getting AppleCare
is a good idea and an even better deal. If, after three years, your
battery is anywhere near 20%, you replace it and you're good for another
three years without issue. Other manufacturers offer it too, but none
make it as easy to replace as Apple does.
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Tom Elam wrote:

On 4/19/26 1:21 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:

This is old news that Apple historically has put el-cheapo components into >> the iPhone batteries (in addition to laughably puny capacity sizes), so
many of these supporting links are 404 by now, but they've been discussed
in the Apple newsgroups for years, so nobody can deny a statement of fact.

OMG, all those articles are WAY outdated.

Given the point was to prove that Apple did it, that's to be expected.

For those who don't know how Apple religious zealots work, while they
defend Apple to the death, no matter what, they do so using the first
utterly absurd excuse they can come up with, which is what Tom did above.

Their only goal is to deflect, deny, and change the subject somehow,
so that facts about Apple can not be discussed in an adult manner.

In that particular proof that Apple chooses to use crappy components,
the whole point was that on the Apple newsgroup, we've been tracking the
known fact that Apple historically puts crappy batteries in the iPhone.

Some of the Apple religious zealots insisted, always without a shred of evidence, that not only did we NOT talk about it, but that it was false.

So we resurrected the proof that it happened & that we discussed it.
Yet, today, the Apple religious zealots absurdly denied it even happened.

What kind of strange person does that?
I don't know.

It's how Apple religious zealots are.

The absurdity of these ridiculous excuses of the Apple religious zealots
was proven by pointing out exact message Id's of threads in which the Apple religious zealots who denied knowing anything about these facts, actually participated on multile threads discussing these very facts, and, in some cases, these Apple religious zealots who denied knowing anything about the topic (and hence, they said it was false) actually authored the threads!

What this proves is the Apple zealot likely *hates* all facts about Apple
that don't match with the (admittedly brilliant) propaganda they believed.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

I, for one, am glad that the United Kingdom spare no expense and put
their best minds at work to figure out whether iPhones are as efficient
as Android devices rather than how to defend their country from the
millions of migrants looking to conquer it for Islam. Good work!

Another thick twat kill-filled.

Oh no! My life is ruined!

Ignoring that Apple religious zealots are the last to know facts (since
they're often different from admittedly brilliant marketing propaganda),
and hence, they're desperate to derail this conversation from the topic,
I applaud both the UK & the EU for forcing OEMs to provide us useful data.

Prior I used "efficiency" calculations assuming the same battery voltage.

To address the "efficiency" point more rigorously using the EU data,
we need to move beyond Amp-hours (current) to Watt-hours (energy).

Engineering efficiency is best expressed as the "Average Power Draw"
required to sustain the EU standardized "Day" profile.

1. Technical Efficiency Analysis (Energy vs. Power)
Standard Li-ion Nominal Voltage: 3.85V

A. Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max
a. Total Energy (Wh): 4.8 Ah * 3.85V = 18.48 Wh
b. EU Endurance: 53 Hours
c. Avg. Power Draw: 18.48 Wh / 53h = 348.68 mW

B. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
a. Total Energy (Wh): 4.855 Ah * 3.85V = 18.69 Wh
b. EU Endurance: 55 Hours
c. Avg. Power Draw: 18.69 Wh / 55h = 339.82 mW

2. Efficiency Conclusion:
a. Samsung Power Draw: 339.82 mW
b. Apple Power Draw: 348.68 mW
c. Delta: Samsung is ~2.54% more energy efficient per hour.

3. Summary of Engineering Facts:
a. Work Density:
Samsung's hardware/software stack requires less power (mW)
to execute the exact same EU-mandated task suite.
b. Total Energy Throughput (Lifetime):
iPhone: 1,000 cycles * 18.48 Wh = 18,480 Wh total life energy.
Galaxy: 1,200 cycles * 18.69 Wh = 22,428 Wh total life energy.

The Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra provides 3,948 Wh more total
utility over its lifespan than the iPhone. That is roughly
equivalent to 213 extra "full" iPhone charges.

Efficiency isn't just a marketing buzzword; it's physics.
The EU data shows Samsung is doing more work with less power .

Since this information is not found anywhere on the Internet (as far as I'm aware), please check the calculations for any omissions or errors I made.

The goal is to make our assessments based on facts, not on propaganda.
--
Note: There are slight differences in battery capacity depending on if it's
the marketing spec, the phone spec, or the EU spec for a given device.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

At this point, I think that most Apple users know that getting AppleCare
is a good idea and an even better deal. If, after three years, your
battery is anywhere near 20%, you replace it and you're good for another three years without issue. Other manufacturers offer it too, but none
make it as easy to replace as Apple does.

Disagreeing with the math-free argument that paying almost twice the
original cost for a phone over time in order to have expensive insurance
is a "good idea", on the Android newsgroups we've been discussing another ramification of the EU standards for product maintenance & support.

From: "Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Security updates in the EU.
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 22:45:24 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]r>

For all smartphones placed on the EU market after 20 June 2025, OEMs are
now mandated to "support" them for "five years of OS updates".

*New EU rules mandate five years of OS updates for smartphones and tablets* <https://www.osnews.com/story/142500/new-eu-rules-mandate-five-years-of-os-updates-for-smartphones-and-tablets/>

Specifically:
"Starting 20 June 2025, new rules and regulations in the
European Union covering, among other things, smartphones
and tablets..."

What's a bit confusing is the mandate clock seems to start at the last sale point, which is where most of the discussion today on the Android ng lies.

Given how customer-hostile some OEMs are in terms of repairs, basically necessitating expensive insurance that almost doubles the cost of the phone over time, the EU mandate forces OEMs to perform customer-friendly actions: <https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2026/04/20/eu-to-force-replaceable-batteries-in-phones-and-tablets-from-2027/>

Specifically, these will extend the overall life of our phones.
1. availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods
(at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on
the market of the last unit of a product model)

2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand at least
800 charge and discharge cycles while retaining at least 80%
of their initial capacity

3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations for
producers to make critical spare parts available within 5-10
working days, and for 7 years after the end of sales of
the product model on the EU market

4. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers to any
software or firmware needed for the replacement

5. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches

6. Protection from dust and water

Since this is welcome news that OEMs are mandated to provide at least five years of support, most of the discussion, so far, centers around how the EU defines "after the end of sales of the product model on the EU market".




--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-24 12:33 p.m., Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

At this point, I think that most Apple users know that getting AppleCare
is a good idea and an even better deal. If, after three years, your
battery is anywhere near 20%, you replace it and you're good for another
three years without issue. Other manufacturers offer it too, but none
make it as easy to replace as Apple does.

Disagreeing with the math-free argument that paying almost twice the
original cost for a phone over time in order to have expensive insurance
is a "good idea", on the Android newsgroups we've been discussing another ramification of the EU standards for product maintenance & support.

From: "Carlos E.R." <[email protected]d>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Security updates in the EU.
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 22:45:24 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]r>

For all smartphones placed on the EU market after 20 June 2025, OEMs are
now mandated to "support" them for "five years of OS updates".

*New EU rules mandate five years of OS updates for smartphones and tablets* <https://www.osnews.com/story/142500/new-eu-rules-mandate-five-years-of-os-updates-for-smartphones-and-tablets/>

Specifically:
"Starting 20 June 2025, new rules and regulations in the
European Union covering, among other things, smartphones
and tablets..."

What's a bit confusing is the mandate clock seems to start at the last sale point, which is where most of the discussion today on the Android ng lies.

Given how customer-hostile some OEMs are in terms of repairs, basically necessitating expensive insurance that almost doubles the cost of the phone over time, the EU mandate forces OEMs to perform customer-friendly actions: <https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2026/04/20/eu-to-force-replaceable-batteries-in-phones-and-tablets-from-2027/>

Specifically, these will extend the overall life of our phones.
1. availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods
(at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on
the market of the last unit of a product model)

This should have been the case since the very beginning. How fascinating
that Android manufacturers needed an authority to force them to support hardware for them to actually do it. Apple seems to have made this
decision without the need for someone to bully them into it.

2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand at least
800 charge and discharge cycles while retaining at least 80%
of their initial capacity

If this ends up happening, that would be wonderful. It will force
Android manufacturers to stop selling complete rubbish.

3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations for
producers to make critical spare parts available within 5-10
working days, and for 7 years after the end of sales of
the product model on the EU market

Apple has already abided by this with the introduction of the MacBook
Neo. I imagine that their new phones will have the same kind of approach.

4. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers to any
software or firmware needed for the replacement

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your hardware, you should be allowed that right.

5. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches

The definition of "resistance" is hopefully defined.

6. Protection from dust and water

Since this is welcome news that OEMs are mandated to provide at least five years of support, most of the discussion, so far, centers around how the EU defines "after the end of sales of the product model on the EU market".

I look forward to seeing Android manufacturers completely drop the ball
on this matter.
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-24 09:33, Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

At this point, I think that most Apple users know that getting AppleCare
is a good idea and an even better deal. If, after three years, your
battery is anywhere near 20%, you replace it and you're good for another
three years without issue. Other manufacturers offer it too, but none
make it as easy to replace as Apple does.

Disagreeing with the math-free argument that paying almost twice the
original cost for a phone over time in order to have expensive insurance
is a "good idea", on the Android newsgroups we've been discussing another ramification of the EU standards for product maintenance & support.

Now for facts.

Checking on Apple (Canada), an iPhone 17 with 256GB of storage costs $1,129.

AppleCare+ coverage for that phone is $199 to extend warranty coverage
to two years (and adds coverage for accidental damage), and that's
certainly not "almost twice the cost" of the phone, now is it?

So what if you buy it by the month?

Well, then it's $9.99 -- $10 per month.

Now (and this is simple arithmetic so it probably explains where Arlen
went wrong), $1,129 / $9.99 per month equals:

113 months. That's nearly nine and a half YEARS. Now that certainly is
an interval of time, but is it actually realistic?

Anyone here keep their smartphone that long?

If you're current iPhone is 9.5 years old, then you're still using an
iPhone 7, which was first released in September 2016

Anyone here still using an iPhone 7?

The newest Samsung smartphone in October 2016 (9.5 years ago) was the
Galaxy S7.

Anyone still got one of those?
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your hardware, you should be allowed that right.

AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.

Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:47:45 -0600
Message-ID: <10sh2vh$oqb$[email protected]>

Since we're only discussing verifiable well-known public facts, it's
commonly known by most people that AppleCare+ doubles the iPhone price.

Since the Apple religious zealots defend Apple to the death, no matter
what, using the first inane excuse they can possibly think of, take a look
at this math for a new iPhone today, that lasts for 7 years on AppleCare+.
<https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/04/applecare-iphone-price-increase/>

See if you can find any flaws in the math using current pricing schedules.

Using the monthly plan, which is the most common way people pay for
AppleCare+, you're essentially buying the phone more than two times.
<https://www.pocket-lint.com/applecare-iphone-price-hike/>

How much more than twice the original cost you're paying for that iPhone depends on how you manage to pay for that absurdly expensive insurance.

With monthly insurance, an iPhone costs more than twice the original cost.
a. Initial Purchase: $1,000
b. AppleCare+ (Monthly): $1,175 ($13.99 x 84 months)
c. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,175 (i.e., $310 per year)
d. Percentage of Original Price: 217%

With monthly "Theft and Loss" insurance, the math only gets worse.
a. Initial Purchase: $1,000
b. AppleCare+ with Theft and Loss (Monthly): $1,343 ($15.99 x 84 months)
c. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,343 (i.e., $335 per year)
d. Percentage of Original Price: 234%

If you're clever, you pay for the first two years at a discount, then roll
into a monthly plan for the remaining five years of the iPhone lifetime.
a. Initial Purchase: $1,000
b. Upfront AppleCare+ (Years 1-2): $199
c. Monthly Renewal (Years 3-7): $839 ($13.99 x 60 months)
d. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,038 (i.e., $291 per year)
e. Percentage of Original Price: 204%

Again, even if you're clever, it only gets worse with Theft and Loss.
a. Initial Purchase: $1,000
b. Upfront AppleCare+ with Theft and Loss (Years 1-2): $299
c. Monthly Renewal (Years 3-7): $959 ($15.99 x 60 months)
d. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,258 (i.e., $323 per year)
e. Percentage of Original Price: 226%

As of February 2025, Apple bumped monthly rates by $0.50 for standard plans
and $1.00 for Theft and Loss. Hence, the clever path is more difficult now because Apple has removed the upfront 2-year payment option from physical stores, forcing gullible buyers into the subscription loop from day one.

There's a reason I say Apple's marketing propaganda is brilliant, as they fleece customers who gladly pay more than TWICE THE PRICE for their iPhone.

Having laid out the arithmetic based on current 2026 AppleCare+ rates and Apple's own 7-year support window, I expect Apple religious zealots to
object to the math, so, if they do, I simply ask for their calculations.

If anyone think's the math above is off, please show your work, as I don't shill for any OEM. I just want to make good assessments based on facts.

In fact, I'm happy for the math above to be corrected if anyone can find a
way to keep this device fully insured for its technical 7-year lifespan
without paying nearly double the sticker price.

Until then, the numbers suggest that Apple isn't just selling hardware;
they are directing loyal customers into a high-yield subscription model.
--
I don't care to defend any OEM to the death. I just want to know the facts.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your
hardware, you should be allowed that right.

AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.

You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-24 9:50 p.m., Alan wrote:

On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your
hardware, you should be allowed that right.

AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.

You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?

It is, yes. I usually have a lot of ptience for such people, but it is admittedly impossible not to get annoyed with Snit-level Sophia.
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 4/24/2026 9:50 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your
hardware, you should be allowed that right.

AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.

You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?

So why are you still replying to it?

It did not even know what the included-with-iOS music playing app was
called - "Music" - AND he did not know that it keeps playing once the
screen goes off. Which means that it has NEVER played music on an iPhone/iPad.

Not to mention that music playing has worked that way since the original click-wheel iPods. Which I still have a few of - with new batteries
and SSDs - that still work just fine BTW.

It knows NOTHING about iOS. Or Apple. Or batteries. Or how long Apple supports things. It is a ridiculous troll that is only here to get
attention.

Please stop replying to it.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-04-24 9:50 p.m., Alan wrote:

On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your >>>> hardware, you should be allowed that right.

AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.

You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?

It is, yes. I usually have a lot of ptience for such people, but it is admittedly impossible not to get annoyed with Snit-level Sophia.

Example?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-24 10:32 p.m., Nick Charles wrote:

On 4/24/2026 9:50 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your >>>> hardware, you should be allowed that right.

AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.

You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?

So why are you still replying to it?

It did not even know what the included-with-iOS music playing app was
called - "Music" - AND he did not know that it keeps playing once the
screen goes off.   Which means that it has NEVER played music on an iPhone/iPad.

Not to mention that music playing has worked that way since the original click-wheel iPods.   Which I still have a few of - with new batteries
and SSDs - that still work just fine BTW.

It knows NOTHING about iOS.  Or Apple.  Or batteries.  Or how long Apple supports things.  It is a ridiculous troll that is only here to get attention.

Please stop replying to it.

I'll be honest and admit that my U2-edition iPod from around 2005 died
once I took it out of its permanent place in my car. It was essentially
my entertainment system for the time I drove that car and was constantly plugged. Once I took it out and unplugged it, it was left unused for a
bit and then refused to charge again. It was too bad because the
click-wheel interface was perfect, at the time anyway, for playing and skipping music while driving. This was a time before Bluetooth and Apple CarPlay.
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2026-04-25 2:29 a.m., Brock McNuggets wrote:

CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-04-24 9:50 p.m., Alan wrote:

On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your >>>>> hardware, you should be allowed that right.

AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.

You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?

It is, yes. I usually have a lot of ptience for such people, but it is
admittedly impossible not to get annoyed with Snit-level Sophia.

Example?

Piss off, faggot.
--
CrudeSausage
M4 MacBook Air
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-04-25 2:29 a.m., Brock McNuggets wrote:

CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-04-24 9:50 p.m., Alan wrote:

On 2026-04-24 17:49, Maria Sophia wrote:

CrudeSausage wrote:

If you insist on having Abderrahmane "Butterfingers" Al-Kaouki fix your >>>>>> hardware, you should be allowed that right.

AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.

You're such a tiresome little asshole, aren't you?

It is, yes. I usually have a lot of ptience for such people, but it is
admittedly impossible not to get annoyed with Snit-level Sophia.

Example?

Piss off, faggot.

So none. Got it.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

AppleCare+ used to raise the price of the iPhone by 1-1/2 times in the past
but new calculations using the latest price models shows it's double today.

Given Apple posters complained that we shouldn't have chosen $1,000 to make the point that AppleCare+ doubles the price of the phone, here are the corrected numbers (which don't change the fundamental assessment).

All I care about is the answer to the factual question:
Q: How many times does the typical iPhone owner pay for their iPhone?
A: About twice if you take into account AppleCare+ for a 7-year lifetime.

The "twice" doesn't change by much no matter which flagship we choose.

Which is why I had chosen a round $1,000 USD to make the math simpler.
But let's use today's pricing and today's (increased) AppleCare+ costs.

USA iPhone 17 model prices & AppleCare+ monthly premium
iPhone 17 (128GB): $799 AppleCare+ w/ T&L: $11.99/mo
iPhone 17 Air (128GB): $999 AppleCare+ w/ T&L: $13.99/mo
iPhone 17 Pro (256GB): $1,099 AppleCare+ w/ T&L: $13.99/mo
iPhone 17 Pro Max (256GB):$1,199 AppleCare+ w/ T&L: $14.99/mo
<https://tech.yahoo.com/phones/articles/iphone-17-getting-applecare-worth-203518260.html>

USA iPhone 17 (128GB) with monthly insurance, including Theft & Loss
a. Initial Purchase: $799
b. AppleCare+ w/ Theft & Loss (Monthly): $1,007 ($11.99 x 84 months)
c. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $1,806 (i.e., $258 per year)
d. Percentage of Original Price: *226%*

USA iPhone 17 (128GB) using the upfront+monthly method
a. Initial Purchase: $799
b. Upfront AppleCare+ (Years 1-2): $229
c. Monthly Renewal (Years 3-7): $719 ($11.99 x 60 months)
d. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $1,747 (i.e., $250 per year)
e. Percentage of Original Price: *219%*

USA iPhone 17 Air (128GB) with monthly insurance, including Theft & Loss
a. Initial Purchase: $999
b. AppleCare+ (Monthly): $1,175 ($13.99 x 84 months)
c. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,174 (i.e., $310 per year)
d. Percentage of Original Price: *218%*

USA iPhone 17 Air (128GB) using the upfront+monthly method
a. Initial Purchase: $999
b. Upfront AppleCare+ (Years 1-2): $279
c. Monthly Renewal (Years 3-7): $839 ($13.99 x 60 months)
d. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,117 (i.e., $302 per year)
e. Percentage of Original Price: *212%*

USA iPhone 17 Pro (256GB) with monthly insurance, including Theft & Loss
a. Initial Purchase: $1,099
b. AppleCare+ (Monthly): $1,175 ($13.99 x 84 months)
c. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,274 (i.e., $325 per year)
d. Percentage of Original Price: *207%*

USA iPhone 17 Pro (256GB) using the upfront+monthly method
a. Initial Purchase: $1,099
b. Upfront AppleCare+ (Years 1-2): $279
c. Monthly Renewal (Years 3-7): $839 ($13.99 x 60 months)
d. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,217 (i.e., $317 per year)
e. Percentage of Original Price: *202%*

USA iPhone 17 Pro Max (256GB) with monthly insurance, including T&L
a. Initial Purchase: $1,199
b. AppleCare+ (Monthly): $1,259 ($14.99 x 84 months)
c. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,458 (i.e., $351 per year)
d. Percentage of Original Price: *205%*

USA iPhone 17 Pro Max (256GB) using the upfront+monthly method
a. Initial Purchase: $1,199
b. Upfront AppleCare+ (Years 1-2): $299
c. Monthly Renewal (Years 3-7): $899 ($14.99 x 60 months)
d. Total 7-year cost (phone + insurance): $2,397 (i.e., $342 per year)
e. Percentage of Original Price: *200%*

Since these calculations are likely nowhere on the Internet,
this is unique value but if anyone thinks the calculations
are incorrect, simply supply your calculations so we can see.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2