Posted on 10/03/2016 5:34:22 PM PDT by Swordmaker
How would an iPhone with half the battery of competing smartphones ever have won the test, and why didn’t Which test a similar device?
Which? is getting lots of attention today on strength of its report that claims smaller batteries don’t last as long as larger batteries. That’s the only logical discovery the organization made in a flawed-by-design smartphone battery life test that’s being widely reported.
What the report’s headline doesn’t make clear is that the iPhone 7 in the test has a 4.7-inch display, while all three of the other smartphone models tested are larger (5.1-inches, or more), and equipped with larger batteries. The iPhone could never have won this unequal comparison.
In other words, the larger the battery the longer the battery life. Which? even admits this, saying, “it should hardly be surprising that one battery nearly half the size of another offers roughly half as much charge.”
It’s easy to imagine the test was set up precisely to deliver the conclusion the magazine chose to run as its headline. After all, if Which had really wanted to run a truly comparative test, it would have tested the larger alternatives against iPhone 7 Plus, a 5.5-inch display device with a Li-Ion 2900 mAh battery. That’s a fair test.
The test it ran is an unfair test, a perfect example of selective testing
Accepting Which? chose not to review a comparative device in a comparative review, then how can it possibly justify a conclusion that could never have gone in Apple’s direction?
I’m declaring the report to be yet more of the FUD and nonsense that passes for Apple coverage these days. Cheap and tawdry sensationalist clicktivism from an organization I expect much more from. In my opinion, at it’s best the test is flawed, at worst, unethical.
No link provided as none is deserved.
Whatever...Cheap and disposable are the words of the day at Apple. Take Bendgate for example.
And don’t forget Touch Disease...
The volume of the iPhone is about 66cc; the volume of the Samsung S7 is about 78cc. That's a difference of 12cc.
LiPo batteries are about 230 Whr/L. There are 1000cc per liter, so that 12cc difference is about (12/1000 * 230) 2.76 Whr.
LiPo batteries are also 3.7V nominal devices, so the current capacity of that extra volume is (2.76 / 3.7) 745 mAhr. Less than the ~1100 mAhr difference in the batteries.
In other words the volumetric difference - if it was 100% dedicated to more battery - would only account for about 67% of the gain in battery size. The other 33% (or more?) must be from more efficient packaging.
The battery CANNOT be doubled in size from the volumetric change - doesn't work with physics. Sorry!
Oh, and that's a package that's within a few mm in all dimensions of the iPhone, with a larger screen (what, you want a smaller screen?) that has nearly four TIMES the pixel count and a much higher PPI (which obviously is good - why else would the iPhone 7 Plus have a higher PPI?).
The test results show the S7 beats the iPhone 7 in terms of battery life. That's for a phone within a few mm in the length/width, and less than 1mm in depth difference in size. And with a bigger screen (is that a bad thing?) with nearlt 4X the number of pixels.
Now, you want to bring in the BIG iPhone 7 Plus? The 90cc phone? The change from the iPhone 7 to the S7 is about the same as the volumetric change from the S7 up to the much bigger iPhone 7 Plus. Really - you want to use the EXACT SAME THING you try to lay on me as an unfair move?
Is that what it comes down to, Swordmaker? And independent test shows results you don't like, you go on the warpath, and you obfuscate and whilst decrying a volumetric difference in size - you try to do the same thing?
Face it - Apple's iPhone 7 came up short this time.
PS: the other phones all have 3.5mm jacks - I guess you can't put much battery in that space, can you?
Looking at the iPhone 7, the same things we find with the bigger boys holds true. More battery per unit volume - by a large margin.
Seems the other guys know how to put more stuff in the phone...
LIAR! The Google Pixel "XL is also smaller than the iPhone 7 Plus", huh? Only in your reality challenged mind.
As usual you make your facturds up!
The iPhone 7 Plus is 12% SMALLER than the Google Pixel XL with same 5.5" diagonal dimension screen.
Another checkable fact which you didn't bother to check.
"Cheap and disposable," huh? How is it then that only Apple iPhones have any appreciable resale value of all mobile phones? Your Android junk devices are the true disposables. The vast majority of Android devices cannot be safely erased of your data. . . even after Android devices were "blanked" to factory condition, personal data, photos, and even passwords were recoverable from supposedly empty phones and tablets.
Not so on any iOS devices. When an iOS device is erased, it is truly erased.
Apple devices have the best return for initial owners than any other device maker by far. That is NOT the sign of disposable devices.
Bendgate involved a total of NINE phones that were spontaneously bent accidentally because of being in someone's pocket. The rest were bent deliberately. When independent laboratories put iPhone 6 plus and competitor phones and phablets in test rigs, the iPhone 6 plus was STRONGER than all of the rest in resisting bending. Sorry, Bendgate was pure FUD.
“The iPhone 7 Plus is 12% SMALLER than the Google Pixel XL with same 5.5” diagonal dimension screen. “
Selective editing! The Pixel XL is SMALLER in frontal area while being slightly thicker.
ERGO ... Google packs the same size screen in a SMALLER footprint!
“The vast majority of Android devices cannot be safely erased of your data. . .”
Samsung says all personal data is wiped ...
A lot of Samsung phones that we not updated are not wiped. . . only their newer models are. The newer Samsung models are only small minority subset of the Android devices in the wild. So, tell me, exactly what part of "The vast majority of Android devices cannot be safely erased of your data" did you fail to grasp?
And how does that impact my overall point of resale value after two years? Samsung devices don't hold their value anywhere close to what Apple devices hold theirs, because Samsung cuts the retail prices monthly as they issue more models and newer flagship models.
BZZZZZZZTTTTTT!
This whole discussion has been about VOLUME, Tex. There is no "Selective Editing," nor are we talking about screen size. We are talking about what battery an fit in the volume made available inside the case. Pay attention.
Interesting - I spent 8+ hours in the hospital with my father today - and I used my iPhone 6+ nearly the entire time - texting, phone calls (to update folks on his condition), email, and several other tasks... I got down to 6% battery by the time I left the hospital...
” Samsung devices don’t hold their value anywhere close to what Apple devices hold theirs, because Samsung cuts the retail prices monthly as they issue more models and newer flagship models. “
LOL! S7 is about the same price as I paid last February.
“This whole discussion has been about VOLUME, Tex. There is no “Selective Editing,” “
NO! You inferred that iPhone got the same size screen in a smaller footprint. It did NOT.
Selective editing! The Pixel XL is SMALLER in frontal area while being slightly thicker.
YOU: There is no "Selective Editing," nor are we talking about screen size.
Bold is mine.
No, none of these we are talking about is about SCREEN SIZE, Texas. Read the entire thread. I said It got 5.5" screen in a smaller phone. . . and it is. Everything I wrote is literally true in reference to Volume. Here is Shanghai Dan's original comment to which I was replying:
"Interesting comparison of the bigger iPhone 7 Plus. Not only is it BIGGER than the Samsung Note 7 (in terms of volume), it has 20% less battery! And the new Google Pixel XL has 28% more battery-per-volume as compared to the iPhone 7 Plus (the XL is also smaller than the iPhone 7 Plus.)."
"(in terms of volume)" . . . do you see the word "area" any where in that comment? I certainly do not.
I posted the exact volumes to the cubic millimeter of both the iPhone 7 Plus and the Google Pixel XL and shot Dan out of the water!
YOU just don't comprehend what you read. I said NOTHING AT ALL about screen area to case area. ZIP!
Now you ignorantly jump in to infer something I never implied to accuse me of something I never said when I was quite precise in what I did say.
You anti-Apple Hate Brigade members live in your own dimension of unreality.
Again you use the canard that more is better in pixel count when the normal 20/20 "perfect vision" human eye cannot discern any more than 326 pixels per inch at the normal reading distance a mobile device will be held.
Apple uses 401 pixels per inch to maintain the 16:9 industry standard aspect ratio of the screen at the larger size of iPhone 7 Plus. It is simply what is required to do a 1080P screen at that 5.5" diagonal size. Any lower pixel size would require a larger screen at that pixel count. 401 per inch is, in fact, overkill for the human eye to see but is necessary to maintain the aspect ration of the . Providing a mobile device with per inch pixel counts of ANYTHING over the minimum necessary to maintain aspect ratio is pure hype and is NOT better for anything and is, in fact, a detriment to the overall performance of the device. That is schooling YOU in human optics and engineering. I've provided links for you before to the science on this, but you repeatedly ignore this.
As for the rest of your twaddle, the volume inside these phones increases at the CUBE of the measurements. That is quite an increase. So does battery capacity. I showed you the math of the volume. You keep trying to obfuscate the actual amount of volume that becomes available with just a small increase, but it is a lot. Just a four tenths of an inch (8%) increase in diagonal screen measurement, scales up the case size, results in an estimated 11% to 12% increase in volume inside the case.
The components take up no more room than they did before, so all of that space can be applied toward more battery. If the original battery took only 10% of the original space, and there is now 10% more of that original space available, then the new battery can take 20% of the original space, ergo, it can be double the size it was before, and double the capacity. YOU are OBFUSCATING the issue by claiming that the the BATTERY only gains some percentage of power which you posted a lot of twaddle calculations based on your assumptions of gained size. . . But, Dan, the fact remains, IF YOU CAN DOUBLE THE VOLUME OF THE BATTERY YOU CAN DOUBLE THE CAPACITY OF THAT BATTERY! And yes, that is the way the physics, and the chemistry works, contrary to your obfuscation and dancing as fast as you can to claim the contrary! Simply put, a larger battery will have more mAh capacity than a smaller battery. . . And if you have a larger case, you can put a larger battery into that case!
The iPhone 7 is 65,887 cubic millimeters in volume, and 138 grams in weight, 326 ppi. The HTC-10 has 94,412 cubic millimeters in volume, 161 grams in weight, 565 ppi. The Samsung Galaxy S7 is 78,297 cubic millimeters, 152 grams, 576 ppi. The LG G5 is 84,785 cubic millimeters and 159 grams, 554 ppi. Respectively each of the Android phones have 43%, 18.8%, and 28.7% more volume than the iPhone 7 they were tested against. (Note the fragmentation Android developers have to contend with just in these three models with pixels per inch of 554, 565, and 576! There are hundreds of makers and even more screen sizes with even more ppi options that developers have to struggle to meet when developing apps.)
Since the other components of these phones are essentially the same size, or close to the same size, in all four tested phones—except for the iPhone 7 with its new haptic engine, which none of the others have—the only component that can take up more space IS THE BATTERY, and each of the competitors' phones has a large amount of extra volume to put in a much larger battery!
That is what is known as a measurable and demonstrable FACT! It's not obfuscating, it's checkable, it's confirmable, and it's repeatable. That's called science, Dan. It's good engineering. There. I've schooled YOU.
Now, you want to bring in the BIG iPhone 7 Plus? The 90cc phone? The change from the iPhone 7 to the S7 is about the same as the volumetric change from the S7 up to the much bigger iPhone 7 Plus. Really - you want to use the EXACT SAME THING you try to lay on me as an unfair move?
As to your complaint about my mentioning the iPhone 7 plus, and your point about the iPhone 7 Plus being 14.9% larger than the Samsung Galaxy S7, the SMALLEST of the three tested Android phones. I was pulling the same trick that "Which?" was pulling, Dan. . . Yet even then, the iPhone 7 plus was not as egregiously out of size class as the others to which "Which?" compared the iPhone 7 was being compared. The iPhone 7 plus was 14.9 percent larger than the Samsung phone, but the iPhone 7 Plus is 95.3% the size of the HTC-10! It's SMALLER, Dan. Nice try, but no banana. I'm throwing rotten tomatoes at YOU!
YOU want to ignore the fact that the iPhone 7 Plus blows these phones out of the water in battery life. . . with a SMALLER battery than the battery that two of them come equipped with, which destroys this entire premise. Keep dancing, Dan.
In the meantime, Dan, you can keep dancing, cavorting, and making excuses that "Which?" did not compare different classes of phones which other testing labs are pointing out. I've provided the size differences and the calculated percentage larger these other phones are. YOU want to have the facts be different.
What’s all the drama about? It is a phone and either works or not. I like my iPhone 7+, the 6+ previous to it, and earlier models back to 3 or thereabouts. I hated the Samsung Galaxy when I briefly had one. The iPhone works, battery is phenomenal when you charge it, even better will you optimize settings and kill unnecessary apps. Love the camera. I’ll post some iPhone 7+ pics of Trump and crowd in Reno later today.
I have to admit, Android is a pig of an OS. iOS is superior in efficiency because the apps are C++ and Swift. That probably gives them a 25% or better edge.
Touch Disease is another matter entirely. I suspect that will kill the resale of 6 series phones.
Latest data on the Pixel XL and the iPhone 7 plus. Your dimensions you post are wrong (perhaps - LYING?). The iPhone 7 Plus is 90cc; the Pixel XL is 85cc.
Sorry - you're wrong. The Pixel XL is smaller, and has the same size (and higher resolution!) screen than the iPhone. Of course iPhones are really known for their wasted space at the top and bottom (all forehead and jaw).
Oh - and I like how you COMPLETELY ignored the schooling I gave you on battery size and packing. Engineering and physics and stuff. Silence there once the facts are shown, eh?
I guess I could pull a Swordmaker and shout "LIAR!" or I can sit back and relish in the fact you were proven completely wrong - and you are not man enough to admit it.
The iPhone comes up short. Too big, not enough battery, too small a screen (with really low resolution to boot).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.