Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.advocacy > #149507 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-16 08:50 -0700 |
| Last post | 2026-10-23 12:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-16 08:50 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-16 09:40 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-16 18:57 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-16 13:56 -0400
Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 14:02 +0200
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 14:10 +0200
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-10-19 11:18 +1300
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-19 19:47 -0400
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 12:47 -0400
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 09:54 -0700
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-20 10:01 -0700
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:10 +0000
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 21:16 +0200
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 15:42 -0400
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 07:20 +0000
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-21 12:48 -0700
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-22 12:02 -0400
Re: Apple iPhone Duo preorder frenzy (was Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster) Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-20 01:01 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 08:43 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 21:07 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-17 21:40 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 21:13 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 15:10 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 08:15 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 13:06 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 19:13 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 13:26 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 19:43 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 15:02 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 21:10 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 15:28 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 21:42 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-20 17:33 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 17:45 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-20 14:55 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 07:29 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 12:33 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-21 18:47 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 13:35 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-21 19:43 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-21 18:55 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 13:33 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-21 19:38 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-21 12:30 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 21:36 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 18:23 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 20:05 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-23 13:26 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-20 10:46 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 19:52 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 19:55 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 11:36 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 21:05 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 12:18 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-20 19:11 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 12:17 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 21:21 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 15:36 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 21:54 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 17:55 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 20:10 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 15:19 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-20 21:38 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 17:50 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-20 14:56 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 22:30 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 20:56 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 07:20 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 12:44 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 19:06 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 17:06 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 20:54 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-20 14:12 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 17:52 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 22:30 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 20:56 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 07:09 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 13:04 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-21 19:12 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 13:58 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 12:26 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-21 21:56 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 17:10 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 15:32 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-22 12:51 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-22 12:00 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-22 18:06 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-23 13:02 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-23 19:15 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-23 13:33 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 10:55 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-23 20:16 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 11:18 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-24 10:09 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-24 19:41 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 20:48 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 10:55 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 21:21 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-21 17:50 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 19:51 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-23 12:58 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 20:28 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2026-10-21 10:47 +1300
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 10:27 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 06:43 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-19 19:32 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 06:31 +0000
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 13:13 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-20 10:18 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-18 14:11 -0700
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 11:08 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-20 12:03 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-20 13:39 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 11:12 -0400
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-10-23 09:50 +0200
Re: Apple's iPhone Duo Repair Prices Are Out, and Dropping This $2,000 Foldable Could Be a Financial Disaster Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-10-23 12:50 -0400
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 07:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b9pkf$3nagg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149645 |
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: > CrudeSausage wrote: >>> According to Claude, emphasis mine. >> >> I don't need technical data because I have my own experience: the nearly >> five-year-old iPhone I own lasts me all day, not one Android I've ever >> owned has been able to do the same. Similarly, my MacBook Air can easily >> last a day or two for my kind of work, not one PC I've ever owned has >> been able to do the same, and neither has any Android device or Linux >> installation. I know that they are now making PCs with battery life that >> competes with what Macs offer, but if you are going to buy devices with >> a long-lasting battery, why the heck would you want it to run Windows? > > Why is iPhone battery life substantially shorter than the similar Samsung? It isn't. > Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.telecom.mobile > Subject: EU standards compare Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy > S26 Ultra battery lifetime > Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 23:30:04 -0600 > Message-ID: <10rsggs$2vhk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> Because you're massively over-interpreting the data. The cycle count is a manufacturer-provided *minimum* to meet the EU requirement. To be in spec in needs to be at least 1000 cycles. That it. No-one checks whether it's real or not. They could, but it would likely take months of continuous testing and would be challenged as being unrealistic. You're using this number as some kind of quantifiable variable. It isn't. It's just marketing. Samsung have made their number bigger than Apple for the lolz. They got caught using an unbelievably high number last year and so reduced it significantly it this year.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 12:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11bapgr$2p31$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #149664 |
Chris wrote:
>> Why is iPhone battery life substantially shorter than the similar Samsung?
>
> It isn't.
>> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.telecom.mobile
>> Subject: EU standards compare Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy
>> S26 Ultra battery lifetime
>> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 23:30:04 -0600
>> Message-ID: <10rsggs$2vhk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
>
> Because you're massively over-interpreting the data. The cycle count is a
> manufacturer-provided *minimum* to meet the EU requirement. To be in spec
> in needs to be at least 1000 cycles. That it. No-one checks whether it's
> real or not. They could, but it would likely take months of continuous
> testing and would be challenged as being unrealistic.
>
> You're using this number as some kind of quantifiable variable. It isn't.
> It's just marketing. Samsung have made their number bigger than Apple for
> the lolz. They got caught using an unbelievably high number last year and
> so reduced it significantly it this year.
You can't just say all math that doesn't make Apple look good is wrong.
And, it's hilarious that you, of all people, claim "It's just marketing".
The chemistry is *different* so cycle count differences are plausible.
Here's the relevant post for others to read, given it's from April.
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.telecom.mobile
Subject: Re: EU standards compare Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra battery lifetime
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:18:37 -0600
Message-ID: <10s07cd$td$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Chris wrote:
> Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> 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. `
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 18:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11baqbc$471r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149670 |
On 21/10/2026 18:33, Maria Sophia wrote: [..] > 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. It's a dumb, pointless value... [..]> 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 ... because it ASSumes that a battery can be fully charged, and then depleted to 0% repeatedly over 7.5 years. Again, you show you have no clue. [snip] -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 13:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11bat4g$1rl1$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #149672 |
John Bokma wrote:
> Again, you show you have no clue.
These are facts using similar phones which we chose blind in April, before
we ran the calculations based only EU specifications, which we agreed on.
iPhone 17 Pro Max hrs of runtime per charge cycle = 18.87 hours
Samsung S26 Ultra hrs of runtime per charge cycle = 21.82 hours
*Winner = Samsung (+15.6%)*
iPhone 17 Pro Max endurance per charge = 53 hours
Samsung S26 Ultra endurance per charge = 55 hours
*Winner = Samsung (+3.8%)*
iPhone 17 Pro Max efficiency (hrs/Ah) = 11.04
Samsung S26 Ultra efficiency (hrs/Ah) = 11.33
*Winner = Samsung (+2.6%)*
iPhone 17 Pro Max calendar life (calculated) = ~6.05 years
Samsung S26 Ultra calendar life (calculated) = ~7.53 years
*Winner = Samsung (24.5%)*
Why do you think, given Apple's brilliant marketing spews efficiency 12
times in every 9-page iPhone datasheet, that this iPhone sucks compared to
this comparable Samsung?
Anyone care to run the same task but against the folding flagships?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 19:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11batju$5h6i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149683 |
On 21/10/2026 19:35, Maria Sophia wrote: [..] > Anyone care to run the same task but against the folding flagships? "Bottom line: the formula treats battery wear as a simple, linear, time-independent cycle problem, when in reality it's a combination of cycle wear *and* calendar aging *and* temperature/charging behavior — three factors that compound each other, not cleanly divide into one tidy number." -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 18:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11baqqi$4der$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149670 |
On 21/10/2026 18:33, Maria Sophia wrote: > 2. 'Kill Time' = Total Life Cycles / Daily Cycles " Here's what's wrong with the "Kill Time = Total Life Cycles / Daily Cycles" calculation when it comes to real-world battery usage: 1. It ignores calendar aging entirely Batteries degrade even when not being used — the chemistry inside the electrolyte and electrodes breaks down over time regardless of cycle count. As we discussed earlier: a 1-year-old battery with 150 cycles will almost always outperform a 5-year-old battery with the same 150 cycles. Your formula (1,200 cycles ÷ 0.436/day ≈ 7.5 years) implicitly assumes only cycles matter — but by 7.5 years, the battery will have aged chemically regardless of whether it ever actually reaches 1,200 cycles. 2. "Daily cycles" derived from the EU endurance test is an unrealistic proxy for real usage The 55-hour figure comes from a standardized lab test (continuous use until full depletion in one go). Nobody uses a phone for 55 hours straight and then charges once. Most people charge daily, often overnight, with a partial discharge (say, 60% down to 100%, not 0% to 100%). That shifts real-world cycle accumulation in two opposing ways the formula doesn't capture: More frequent partial charges can be less stressful per cycle than one deep full discharge (partial cycles count only partially toward a "full" cycle). But sitting at 100% overnight more often increases degradation from high state-of-charge exposure — something the formula doesn't account for at all. 3. 80% capacity isn't "death" — it's an arbitrary industry threshold "Kill time" implies the battery stops functioning at that point. It doesn't — the phone keeps working fine well past 80%, often for years, just with noticeably shorter battery life per day. There's no hard "death" cliff at cycle 1,200; degradation is continuous, not a sudden drop-off. 4. Degradation isn't linear The cycle rating (1,200 to 80%) reflects an average under controlled test conditions (fixed temperature, fixed charging protocol). In practice, degradation often accelerates past a certain point — especially from heat and fast charging — rather than proceeding evenly the way the formula implies. 5. Usage patterns vary significantly over a device's lifetime A new device often gets heavier use (novelty effect), seasons change heat exposure, and software updates shift power draw — so "daily cycles" isn't the constant the formula treats it as. Bottom line: the formula treats battery wear as a simple, linear, time-independent cycle problem, when in reality it's a combination of cycle wear and calendar aging and temperature/charging behavior — three factors that compound each other, not cleanly divide into one tidy number. " Back to school with you! -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 13:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11bat0b$coj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #149673 |
John Bokma wrote:
> Back to school with you!
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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 19:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11batak$5fe0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149680 |
On 21/10/2026 19:33, Maria Sophia wrote: > John Bokma wrote: >> Back to school with you! [ Same flawed calculations ] I really do wonder about your education. You remind me of a class mate who had high grades in the theoretical area but managed to connect a transformer the wrong way around, blowing up a circuit board. Another class mate fell sorry for him, and borrowed his circuit board. And he managed to connect it the wrong way around once more. Later, I heard that he had several mishaps during his internship. We joked that he would become a manager. Maybe he even did. Well, you actually don't remind me of him; he was good at theory. You seem to suck at both theory and the real world. -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11bb3s9$82l4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149670 |
On 2026-10-21 09:33, Maria Sophia wrote: > Chris wrote: >>> Why is iPhone battery life substantially shorter than the similar Samsung? >> >> It isn't. >>> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.telecom.mobile >>> Subject: EU standards compare Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy >>> S26 Ultra battery lifetime >>> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 23:30:04 -0600 >>> Message-ID: <10rsggs$2vhk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> >> >> Because you're massively over-interpreting the data. The cycle count is a >> manufacturer-provided *minimum* to meet the EU requirement. To be in spec >> in needs to be at least 1000 cycles. That it. No-one checks whether it's >> real or not. They could, but it would likely take months of continuous >> testing and would be challenged as being unrealistic. >> >> You're using this number as some kind of quantifiable variable. It isn't. >> It's just marketing. Samsung have made their number bigger than Apple for >> the lolz. They got caught using an unbelievably high number last year and >> so reduced it significantly it this year. > > You can't just say all math that doesn't make Apple look good is wrong. > > And, it's hilarious that you, of all people, claim "It's just marketing". > > The chemistry is *different* so cycle count differences are plausible. Did you just recently admit that there was no difference in chemistry, Arlen? That the only way in which iPhone batteries were supposedly "crappy" was their capacity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 21:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bbb88$atij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149670 |
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: > Chris wrote: >>> Why is iPhone battery life substantially shorter than the similar Samsung? >> >> It isn't. >>> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.telecom.mobile >>> Subject: EU standards compare Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy >>> S26 Ultra battery lifetime >>> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 23:30:04 -0600 >>> Message-ID: <10rsggs$2vhk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> >> >> Because you're massively over-interpreting the data. The cycle count is a >> manufacturer-provided *minimum* to meet the EU requirement. To be in spec >> in needs to be at least 1000 cycles. That it. No-one checks whether it's >> real or not. They could, but it would likely take months of continuous >> testing and would be challenged as being unrealistic. >> >> You're using this number as some kind of quantifiable variable. It isn't. >> It's just marketing. Samsung have made their number bigger than Apple for >> the lolz. They got caught using an unbelievably high number last year and >> so reduced it significantly it this year. > > You can't just say all math that doesn't make Apple look good is wrong. I'm not saying that. > And, it's hilarious that you, of all people, claim "It's just marketing". You should appreciate it, then. > The chemistry is *different* so cycle count differences are plausible. You're assuming the chemistry is different. Do you have any evidence that isn't a tautology. > > If any numbers are wrong, I ask the team to point them out please. I have done many, many times. Yet you still claim that day is night. > 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. No drug company would use LD50. A toxicology or research lab might. What you're thinking about is EC50 which requires experimentally validated data. The claimed battery cycle count is not validated data so can't be used in your tortured argument. > 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. Yet you've calculated efficiency values yourself and very happy to quote the EU's efficiency classes. You can't argue it both ways. It can't be bogus and something you've calculated yourself. So which is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 18:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11bbe0s$2ff1$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #149702 |
Chris wrote:
>> The chemistry is *different* so cycle count differences are plausible.
>
> You're assuming the chemistry is different. Do you have any evidence that
> isn't a tautology.
The last time I *looked* at that Samsung claim was April 2026, so I don't remember what's different, but what you're doing is absurd, Chris.
Let's say Samsung claims 1,200.
Let's say NOBODY disputes that, not the EU, not Google, not even Apple.
Then, let's say, Chris disputes it.
Chris thinks it should be, oh, take a swab. Say 958 instead.
That way, if Chris fabricates any number that NOBODY ELSE backs up, then Chris can claim better results in the overall battery-life calculations.
My point?
That's not how science works, Chris.
You can't just say you don't like the numbers & then fabricate a number.
Just because it's better than Apple's numbers.
That's not how science works in the real world, Chris.
You have to find someone reputable, publicly claiming different numbers.
We'll accept any number you can prove is reputably backed up in cites.
What we won't accept is Chris' made up number of, oh, say, 958.
Just so that his Apple iPhone stands a chance of competing on overall life.
>> If any numbers are wrong, I ask the team to point them out please.
>
> I have done many, many times. Yet you still claim that day is night.
Which numbers in the calculation are you saying are wrong Chris.
You can't just say they're all wrong, 'cuz they came from EU documents.
To help you, I repeated the calculation below.
Don't say they're all wrong.
That's an absurd excuse all you Apple religious nutcases use.
Tell us which number, exactly, you think is wrong.
And tell us exactly what you think it should be.
And back it up with cites.
Like I did.
See below, where I make it VERY EASY for you to pick out the number
you think is wrong, and then you show us a cite showing what you think
it should be, but you can't just use "Chris' 958" swag as the number.
>> 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.
>
> No drug company would use LD50. A toxicology or research lab might. What
> you're thinking about is EC50 which requires experimentally validated data.
> The claimed battery cycle count is not validated data so can't be used in
> your tortured argument.
As you know, I have higher degrees, one of which is in the biological
sciences, so that's why I used the LD50 as an example, but it was just an
example so people could understand the point that the battery will die.
Again, you harp on Chris' 958" number, as if your fabrications of Samsung's
"actual" number is more accurate than the one Samsung publishes openly.
Find someone, anyone, reputable who disputes Samsung's number, and find
what they claim the real number is, Chris. Otherwise cut the crap.
Find Apple, for God's sake, complaining about Samsung's number.
Or Google. Hell, there are plenty of OEMs that compete with Samsung.
If NONE of them dispute Samsung's number, what basis do you have doing so?
>> 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.
>
> Yet you've calculated efficiency values yourself and very happy to quote
> the EU's efficiency classes. You can't argue it both ways.
>
> It can't be bogus and something you've calculated yourself. So which is it?
Chris,
Here is a template of how the calculations came about.
A *normal* person would either agree, or, find something wrong.
If they find something wrong, they back it up with cites.
You can't just say every fact that doesn't flatter Apple is wrong.
that's what nutcase Apple religious zealots do, Chris.
Be sensible.
a. Tell us exactly which figure you think is wrong below.
b. Tell us exactly what you think it should be
c. And provide a reputable cite to back up your claim
HINT: That's what normal people would do.
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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-22 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bdqa6$168a6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149707 |
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: > Chris wrote: >>> The chemistry is *different* so cycle count differences are plausible. >> >> You're assuming the chemistry is different. Do you have any evidence that >> isn't a tautology. > > The last time I *looked* at that Samsung claim was April 2026, so I don't > remember what's different, but what you're doing is absurd, Chris. > > Let's say Samsung claims 1,200. > Let's say NOBODY disputes that, not the EU, not Google, not even Apple. > > Then, let's say, Chris disputes it. > Chris thinks it should be, oh, take a swab. Say 958 instead. Samsung themselves disputed their own numbers. Last year their cycle count was 1700+. This year it's 1200. No one told them to change it and no one disputed it. So, how we can trust a number that not even Samsung can stand by? > That way, if Chris fabricates any number that NOBODY ELSE backs up, then > Chris can claim better results in the overall battery-life calculations. I absolutely did not fabricate a number. Stop making shit up. > And back it up with cites. > Like I did. You never provide cites that matter. For example, where's your cite that Apple batteries are known to fail sooner than Samsung et al? > As you know, I have higher degrees, I know you live in the mountains. Is that what you mean by higher degrees? > Here is a template of how the calculations came about. Why do you keep using the 17 Pro Max, when I gave you the 18 Pro Max numbers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-23 13:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11bg5bd$21mg$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #149742 |
Chris wrote: >> Chris thinks it should be, oh, take a swab. Say 958 instead. > > Samsung themselves disputed their own numbers. Last year their cycle count > was 1700+. This year it's 1200. No one told them to change it and no one > disputed it. So, how we can trust a number that not even Samsung can stand > by? Jesus Christ, Chis, Why must you prove me correct about you every single time you post? a. You say my math is wrong b. Fine. But why, I ask c. You say I didn't use a number you don't like. WTF? You can't say the math is wrong because of a number which you feel is wrong but which was never used in any of the calculations, Chris. *That's the definition of an absurd excuse* WTF? Why not say all my math is wrong because, oh, because I didn't use 2000 as the number. Oh wait, my math is wrong because I didn't use 3000. 4000? Given there are an infinite set of numbers I didn't use, why pick the arbitrary one you picked, that I didn't use, to say my math is wrong? You prove me right every time you post about your absurd excuses. The math is right. You claiming the math is wrong with that inane excuse is simply absurd. > >> That way, if Chris fabricates any number that NOBODY ELSE backs up, then >> Chris can claim better results in the overall battery-life calculations. > > I absolutely did not fabricate a number. Stop making shit up. Cut the crap Chris. Just cut it. Stop lying. Stop this shit. Seriously. Cut the crap. a. You argue I used 1700+. b. NEVER ever did I use 1700+ c. You say my math is wrong because you say I used 1700+ That's a lie. You'll stop at nothing to defend Apple to the death, Chris. Cut the crap. You can't say the math is wrong when it's not wrong. It's just your first inane absurd excuse to defend Apple to the death. Stop proving me right about you. > >> And back it up with cites. >> Like I did. > > You never provide cites that matter. For example, where's your cite that > Apple batteries are known to fail sooner than Samsung et al? The calculations are put there for you to understand them. If you don't understand them, then I can't make you intelligent, Chris. >> As you know, I have higher degrees, > > I know you live in the mountains. Is that what you mean by higher degrees? My point is you Apple nutcases don't. I can tell because every argument from you would fail any entrance exam. >> Here is a template of how the calculations came about. > > Why do you keep using the 17 Pro Max, when I gave you the 18 Pro Max > numbers? Jesus Christ, Chris. You're a nut case. a. In April, I spent hours crunching the numbers. b. Those numbers used the 17 Pro Max, c. For you to not UNDERSTAND that fact is a real problem Seriously. You are a nutcase, Chris. I quoted the exact thread. the exact message ID. The exact text. If you said something that stupid in a college entrance interview, you'd never get into that college, Chris. Stop proving me right about you Apple religious zealots. I gave you the numbers that I had as a template for you to run the math. I don't care how the iPhone flagships come out. I don't care how Samsung flagships come out. that's what's different about us. a. I don't give a shit about Samsung (or Google). b. So I only care about the facts c. You DO CARE very much to show Apple only in a handsome light So be it. You run the calculations. I gave you the template I used. And the references. Follow it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b89dv$383a5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149606 |
On 2026-10-20 10:26, Maria Sophia wrote: > John Bokma wrote: >>> Q: What are the most important top 3 specifications for any battery? >>> A: ? >> >> 1) How safe is it (don't want an exploding battery), >> 2) How long it keeps my device up & running during the day, >> 3) After how much time do I have to replace it (see 2). > > For the Windows newsgroup, I'm testing all the free no-registration LLMs, > where I am scheduled to test easemate today, so this is the first query: > <https://www.easemate.ai/webapp/chat?from=ai-chat> > > Pops this query into that LLM and tell us what you get as the output? > > "When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most, > what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order > of most important to least important, at purchase time of the device?" Lying by omission... ...and thinking you're too clever for anyone to notice? Here's a clue for you, Arlen: You're not that clever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 19:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b89p7$387jb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149611 |
On 20/10/2026 19:46, Alan wrote:
> On 2026-10-20 10:26, Maria Sophia wrote:
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>>> Q: What are the most important top 3 specifications for any battery?
>>>> A: ?
>>>
>>> 1) How safe is it (don't want an exploding battery),
>>> 2) How long it keeps my device up & running during the day,
>>> 3) After how much time do I have to replace it (see 2).
>>
>> For the Windows newsgroup, I'm testing all the free no-registration LLMs,
>> where I am scheduled to test easemate today, so this is the first query:
>> <https://www.easemate.ai/webapp/chat?from=ai-chat>
>>
>> Pops this query into that LLM and tell us what you get as the output?
>>
>> "When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most,
>> what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order
>> of most important to least important, at purchase time of the device?"
> Lying by omission...
>
> ...and thinking you're too clever for anyone to notice?
>
> Here's a clue for you, Arlen:
>
> You're not that clever.
Yup, asking the same question to Github Copilot (gpt-6-luna):
"
When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most,
what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order
of most important to least important, at purchase time of the device?
Thought for 10s
Thought for 2s
For battery lifetime in years, prioritize these at purchase—not just how
long one charge lasts:
1. Published cycle life to a stated capacity-retention level — Look for
a figure such as “at least 1,000 full-equivalent cycles to 80%
capacity,” and check the test conditions. A cycle-life number without a
retention target or test details is hard to compare.
2. Battery replacement options — Check whether the battery can be
replaced, whether parts and service are available, and the likely cost.
A replaceable battery can extend the device’s useful life more reliably
than a small difference in battery chemistry.
3. Temperature management — Heat accelerates battery aging. Reviews that
report sustained charging or heavy-use temperatures can be more useful
than a processor or charging-speed spec alone.
4. Charging controls — Prefer a device that lets you set a charge limit
(for example, 80%) or has effective adaptive charging. Spending less
time hot and fully charged generally helps a lithium-ion battery last
longer.
5. Chemistry, if clearly disclosed — Chemistry affects cycle life, but
phone makers often provide little detail. Don’t assume “lithium-polymer”
or a particular marketing label guarantees longer life.
6. Capacity (mAh) — A larger battery may require fewer full-equivalent
cycles for the same daily use, but capacity by itself does *not* tell
you how many years the battery will last.
Bottom line: prioritize a credible cycle-life rating, then battery
replacement support and evidence of good temperature and charging
management. Treat fast-charging wattage and mAh as poor indicators of
battery longevity on their own.
"
Especially notice the *not* by 6. (Emphasis Copilot, not me).
--
Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/
Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 19:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b89v7$3888f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149612 |
On 20/10/2026 19:52, John Bokma wrote: > On 20/10/2026 19:46, Alan wrote: >> On 2026-10-20 10:26, Maria Sophia wrote: >>> John Bokma wrote: >>>>> Q: What are the most important top 3 specifications for any >>>>> battery? >>>>> A: ? >>>> >>>> 1) How safe is it (don't want an exploding battery), >>>> 2) How long it keeps my device up & running during the day, >>>> 3) After how much time do I have to replace it (see 2). >>> >>> For the Windows newsgroup, I'm testing all the free no-registration >>> LLMs, >>> where I am scheduled to test easemate today, so this is the first query: >>> <https://www.easemate.ai/webapp/chat?from=ai-chat> >>> >>> Pops this query into that LLM and tell us what you get as the output? >>> >>> "When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most, >>> what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order >>> of most important to least important, at purchase time of the >>> device?" >> Lying by omission... >> >> ...and thinking you're too clever for anyone to notice? >> >> Here's a clue for you, Arlen: >> >> You're not that clever. > > Yup, asking the same question to Github Copilot (gpt-6-luna): > > " > When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most, > what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order > of most important to least important, at purchase time of the device? [..] > 6. Capacity (mAh) — A larger battery may require fewer full-equivalent > cycles for the same daily use, but capacity by itself does *not* tell > you how many years the battery will last. > > Bottom line: prioritize a credible cycle-life rating, then battery > replacement support and evidence of good temperature and charging > management. Treat fast-charging wattage and mAh as poor indicators of > battery longevity on their own. > " > > > Especially notice the *not* by 6. (Emphasis Copilot, not me). And ChatGPT gives item 7 as: " 7. Battery capacity (mAh or Wh) A larger battery generally provides longer runtime per charge, but *does not necessarily last more years*. A larger capacity can be useful if it means fewer full-equivalent charge cycles for your daily usage. However, actual battery aging also depends on temperature, charging habits, cell design, and the device's power consumption. " Again, emphasis by AI, not mine. -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1792521385.51344A4D@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #149612 |
On Oct 20, 2026 at 10:52 AM, John Bokma wrote in 11b89p7$387jb$1@dont-email.me: > On 20/10/2026 19:46, Alan wrote: >> On 2026-10-20 10:26, Maria Sophia wrote: >>> John Bokma wrote: <snip 6 lines> >>> >>> For the Windows newsgroup, I'm testing all the free no-registration >>> LLMs, where I am scheduled to test easemate today, so this is the >>> first query: <https://www.easemate.ai/webapp/chat?from=ai-chat> >>> >>> Pops this query into that LLM and tell us what you get as the >>> output? >>> >>> "When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters >>> most, what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in >>> order of most important to least important, at purchase time of the >>> device?" >> Lying by omission... >> >> ...and thinking you're too clever for anyone to notice? >> >> Here's a clue for you, Arlen: >> >> You're not that clever. > > Yup, asking the same question to Github Copilot (gpt-6-luna): > > " > When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most, > what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order > of most important to least important, at purchase time of the device? > Thought for 10s > Thought for 2s > > For battery lifetime in years, prioritize these at purchase—not just > how long one charge lasts: > > 1. Published cycle life to a stated capacity-retention level — Look > for a figure such as "at least 1,000 full-equivalent cycles to 80% > capacity," and check the test conditions. A cycle-life number without > a retention target or test details is hard to compare. 2. Battery > replacement options — Check whether the battery can be replaced, > whether parts and service are available, and the likely cost. A > replaceable battery can extend the device's useful life more reliably > than a small difference in battery chemistry. 3. Temperature > management — Heat accelerates battery aging. Reviews that report > sustained charging or heavy-use temperatures can be more useful than a > processor or charging-speed spec alone. 4. Charging controls — Prefer > a device that lets you set a charge limit (for example, 80%) or has > effective adaptive charging. Spending less time hot and fully charged > generally helps a lithium-ion battery last longer. 5. Chemistry, if > clearly disclosed — Chemistry affects cycle life, but phone makers > often provide little detail. Don't assume "lithium-polymer" or a > particular marketing label guarantees longer life. 6. Capacity (mAh) — > A larger battery may require fewer full-equivalent cycles for the same > daily use, but capacity by itself does *not* tell you how many years > the battery will last. > > Bottom line: prioritize a credible cycle-life rating, then battery > replacement support and evidence of good temperature and charging > management. Treat fast-charging wattage and mAh as poor indicators of > battery longevity on their own. " > > > Especially notice the *not* by 6. (Emphasis Copilot, not me). He gets ideas in his head and they will not go away with evidence. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 21:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b8e23$3a0uq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #149615 |
On 20/10/2026 20:36, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2026 at 10:52 AM, John Bokma wrote in
> 11b89p7$387jb$1@dont-email.me:
[snip]
>> Bottom line: prioritize a credible cycle-life rating, then battery
>> replacement support and evidence of good temperature and charging
>> management. Treat fast-charging wattage and mAh as poor indicators of
>> battery longevity on their own. "
>>
>>
>> Especially notice the *not* by 6. (Emphasis Copilot, not me).
>
> He gets ideas in his head and they will not go away with evidence.
I like the "Treat fast-charging wattage and mAh as poor indicators of
battery longevity on their own.".
I asked Claude.ai the same question:
"
When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most,
what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order of
most important to least important, at purchase time of the device?
When you're optimizing specifically for how many years a battery will
remain usable (not just how long it lasts per charge), the specs that
matter most — and the order in which they matter — look different from
what most buying guides emphasize. Here's the ranking:
1. Charge cycle rating (rated cycle life)
This is the single most predictive spec. Manufacturers (or third-party
teardown sites) often state something like "rated for 800 cycles to 80%
capacity." A battery rated for 1000+ cycles will outlast one rated for
500, all else equal. This number directly reflects the chemistry and
cell engineering quality, so it's the most direct proxy for longevity.
2. Battery chemistry type
LFP (LiFePO₄) — significantly longer cycle life (often 2000–3000+
cycles) and much better tolerance of full charges/heat, at the cost of
lower energy density (bulkier for the same capacity). Rare in phones,
common in some e-readers, power banks, and increasingly some
budget/rugged devices.
Standard Li-ion (NMC/NCA/LCO blends) — what's in nearly all phones
and laptops; typically 300–800 rated cycles depending on quality.
Li-poly — essentially a packaging variant of Li-ion, not a separate
chemistry; doesn't meaningfully change longevity on its own.
Chemistry sets the ceiling that the cycle rating above is drawn from, so
in practice these two specs are closely linked — but chemistry is worth
checking separately since it's sometimes disclosed when cycle count isn't.
3. Charging/discharge voltage range and depth-of-discharge tolerance
Batteries that are chemically designed or firmware-limited to charge to
a lower peak voltage (e.g., capped at 4.0V instead of the typical
4.2–4.45V per cell) degrade far slower, at the cost of lower usable
capacity. Some devices expose this as a "battery health" / "optimized
charging" / "80% charge limit" feature — if a device offers
hardware-level charge-limiting as a built-in option, that's a meaningful
longevity-relevant spec, not just software fluff.
4. Nominal capacity (mAh) relative to device power draw
A larger battery for the same workload cycles less often per day — fewer
cycles consumed per year of real-world use extends calendar lifespan,
even with identical cycle-life chemistry. This matters less than #1–3
because it only shifts when you hit the cycle count, not how many cycles
the cell can take.
5. Fast-charging wattage supported (inversely important — lower is often
better for longevity)
Higher-wattage fast charging generates more heat and current stress per
cycle, accelerating degradation slightly faster than slow charging, all
else equal. This is a secondary factor — manufacturers increasingly
compensate with better thermal management and charge curves, so it
matters less than it used to, but very high wattages (100W+) on poorly
managed systems can meaningfully shorten lifespan.
6. Battery capacity density/form factor claims (Wh/L, Wh/kg)
These relate to thinness and weight, not longevity — denser batteries
are sometimes (not always) pushed to tighter tolerances that slightly
reduce cycle life, but this is a minor, inconsistent effect compared to
the specs above. Worth knowing about, but not something to weight
heavily in a purchase decision.
Why "mAh capacity" alone (which most buyers fixate on) ranks lower here:
raw capacity affects how long a charge lasts per day, but says nothing
about how many years of daily charging the cell can sustain before
degrading — which is a separate, chemistry/engineering-driven property.
Practical note: cycle-count ratings and charge-voltage specs are rarely
printed on spec sheets or marketing pages — they're usually found in
teardown reports (iFixit), manufacturer sustainability/repairability
disclosures, or battery health documentation (especially for Apple
devices, which publish this). If a listed spec sheet only gives you mAh
and nothing else, that alone tells you very little about multi-year
longevity.
"
Again, in the practical note we read: *If a listed spec sheet only gives
you mAh and nothing else, that alone tells you very little about
multi-year longevity.*
And of course, this gem: *Why "mAh capacity" alone (which most buyers
fixate on) ranks lower here: raw capacity affects how long a charge
lasts per day, but says nothing about how many years of daily charging
the cell can sustain before degrading — which is a separate,
chemistry/engineering-driven property.*
(Emphasis mine, in both cases)
--
Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/
Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1792523912.84AD6A7B@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #149617 |
On Oct 20, 2026 at 12:05 PM, John Bokma wrote in 11b8e23$3a0uq$1@dont-email.me: > On 20/10/2026 20:36, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> On Oct 20, 2026 at 10:52 AM, John Bokma wrote in >> 11b89p7$387jb$1@dont-email.me: > > [snip] > >>> Bottom line: prioritize a credible cycle-life rating, then battery >>> replacement support and evidence of good temperature and charging >>> management. Treat fast-charging wattage and mAh as poor indicators >>> of battery longevity on their own. " >>> >>> >>> Especially notice the *not* by 6. (Emphasis Copilot, not me). >> >> He gets ideas in his head and they will not go away with evidence. > > I like the "Treat fast-charging wattage and mAh as poor indicators of > battery longevity on their own.". > > I asked Claude.ai the same question: > > " > When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most, > what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order > of most important to least important, at purchase time of the device? > > When you're optimizing specifically for how many years a battery will > remain usable (not just how long it lasts per charge), the specs that > matter most — and the order in which they matter — look different from > what most buying guides emphasize. Here's the ranking: > > 1. Charge cycle rating (rated cycle life) > This is the single most predictive spec. Manufacturers (or third-party > teardown sites) often state something like "rated for 800 cycles to > 80% capacity." A battery rated for 1000+ cycles will outlast one rated > for 500, all else equal. This number directly reflects the chemistry > and cell engineering quality, so it's the most direct proxy for > longevity. > > 2. Battery chemistry type > > LFP (LiFePO₄) — significantly longer cycle life (often 2000–3000+ > cycles) and much better tolerance of full charges/heat, at the cost of > lower energy density (bulkier for the same capacity). Rare in phones, > common in some e-readers, power banks, and increasingly some > budget/rugged devices. Standard Li-ion (NMC/NCA/LCO blends) — what's > in nearly all phones and laptops; typically 300–800 rated cycles > depending on quality. Li-poly — essentially a packaging variant of > Li-ion, not a separate chemistry; doesn't meaningfully change > longevity on its own. > > Chemistry sets the ceiling that the cycle rating above is drawn from, > so in practice these two specs are closely linked — but chemistry is > worth checking separately since it's sometimes disclosed when cycle > count isn't. > > 3. Charging/discharge voltage range and depth-of-discharge tolerance > Batteries that are chemically designed or firmware-limited to charge > to a lower peak voltage (e.g., capped at 4.0V instead of the typical > 4.2–4.45V per cell) degrade far slower, at the cost of lower usable > capacity. Some devices expose this as a "battery health" / "optimized > charging" / "80% charge limit" feature — if a device offers > hardware-level charge-limiting as a built-in option, that's a > meaningful longevity-relevant spec, not just software fluff. > > 4. Nominal capacity (mAh) relative to device power draw A larger > battery for the same workload cycles less often per day — fewer cycles > consumed per year of real-world use extends calendar lifespan, even > with identical cycle-life chemistry. This matters less than #1–3 > because it only shifts when you hit the cycle count, not how many > cycles the cell can take. > > 5. Fast-charging wattage supported (inversely important — lower is > often better for longevity) Higher-wattage fast charging generates > more heat and current stress per cycle, accelerating degradation > slightly faster than slow charging, all else equal. This is a > secondary factor — manufacturers increasingly compensate with better > thermal management and charge curves, so it matters less than it used > to, but very high wattages (100W+) on poorly managed systems can > meaningfully shorten lifespan. > > 6. Battery capacity density/form factor claims (Wh/L, Wh/kg) These > relate to thinness and weight, not longevity — denser batteries are > sometimes (not always) pushed to tighter tolerances that slightly > reduce cycle life, but this is a minor, inconsistent effect compared > to the specs above. Worth knowing about, but not something to weight > heavily in a purchase decision. > > Why "mAh capacity" alone (which most buyers fixate on) ranks lower > here: raw capacity affects how long a charge lasts per day, but says > nothing about how many years of daily charging the cell can sustain > before degrading — which is a separate, chemistry/engineering-driven > property. > > Practical note: cycle-count ratings and charge-voltage specs are > rarely printed on spec sheets or marketing pages — they're usually > found in teardown reports (iFixit), manufacturer > sustainability/repairability disclosures, or battery health > documentation (especially for Apple devices, which publish this). If a > listed spec sheet only gives you mAh and nothing else, that alone > tells you very little about multi-year longevity. " > > > > Again, in the practical note we read: *If a listed spec sheet only > gives you mAh and nothing else, that alone tells you very little about > multi-year longevity.* > > And of course, this gem: *Why "mAh capacity" alone (which most buyers > fixate on) ranks lower here: raw capacity affects how long a charge > lasts per day, but says nothing about how many years of daily charging > the cell can sustain before degrading — which is a separate, > chemistry/engineering-driven property.* > > (Emphasis mine, in both cases) Left the long quote... AI is not something to rely on blindly... but more reliable than he is. :) -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Charles <none@none.none> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oMucnSdo3uZsIUr3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #149615 |
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 20, 2026 at 10:52 AM, John Bokma wrote in > 11b89p7$387jb$1@dont-email.me: >> On 20/10/2026 19:46, Alan wrote: >>> On 2026-10-20 10:26, Maria Sophia wrote: >>>> John Bokma wrote: > <snip 6 lines> >>>> >>>> For the Windows newsgroup, I'm testing all the free no-registration >>>> LLMs, where I am scheduled to test easemate today, so this is the >>>> first query: <https://www.easemate.ai/webapp/chat?from=ai-chat> >>>> >>>> Pops this query into that LLM and tell us what you get as the >>>> output? >>>> >>>> "When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters >>>> most, what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in >>>> order of most important to least important, at purchase time of the >>>> device?" >>> Lying by omission... >>> >>> ...and thinking you're too clever for anyone to notice? >>> >>> Here's a clue for you, Arlen: >>> >>> You're not that clever. >> >> Yup, asking the same question to Github Copilot (gpt-6-luna): >> >> " >> When mobile device battery overall lifetime (in years) matters most, >> what are the most important specifications FOR THE BATTERY, in order >> of most important to least important, at purchase time of the device? >> Thought for 10s >> Thought for 2s >> >> For battery lifetime in years, prioritize these at purchase—not just >> how long one charge lasts: >> >> 1. Published cycle life to a stated capacity-retention level — Look >> for a figure such as "at least 1,000 full-equivalent cycles to 80% >> capacity," and check the test conditions. A cycle-life number without >> a retention target or test details is hard to compare. 2. Battery >> replacement options — Check whether the battery can be replaced, >> whether parts and service are available, and the likely cost. A >> replaceable battery can extend the device's useful life more reliably >> than a small difference in battery chemistry. 3. Temperature >> management — Heat accelerates battery aging. Reviews that report >> sustained charging or heavy-use temperatures can be more useful than a >> processor or charging-speed spec alone. 4. Charging controls — Prefer >> a device that lets you set a charge limit (for example, 80%) or has >> effective adaptive charging. Spending less time hot and fully charged >> generally helps a lithium-ion battery last longer. 5. Chemistry, if >> clearly disclosed — Chemistry affects cycle life, but phone makers >> often provide little detail. Don't assume "lithium-polymer" or a >> particular marketing label guarantees longer life. 6. Capacity (mAh) — >> A larger battery may require fewer full-equivalent cycles for the same >> daily use, but capacity by itself does *not* tell you how many years >> the battery will last. >> >> Bottom line: prioritize a credible cycle-life rating, then battery >> replacement support and evidence of good temperature and charging >> management. Treat fast-charging wattage and mAh as poor indicators of >> battery longevity on their own. " >> >> >> Especially notice the *not* by 6. (Emphasis Copilot, not me). > > He gets ideas in his head and they will not go away with evidence. LOL. “Ideas” in his “head”. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.advocacy
csiph-web