That's an irrelevancy, as is Google's search; once there are sufficient articles addressing a problem, there will be no more articles, because there only so many places to publish articles. The fact is that you tied into concatenated articles on "iPhone", plus "battery" plus "problems" which duly reported every instance of those search terms, not every instance of those search terms together.
Had you limited your search inside quotation marks like this: "iPhone battery problems", you would have gotten only 13,900 hits. Had I done the same thing using "Android" in place of "iPhone," the same search returns 15,100 hits. . . but I know how to use Google to limit searches to exactly what I want to find, not a search for every word in a search, no matter where it appears in the string, or body of the results. For example, replacing either "Android" or "iPhone" with "Windows" in that constrained search returns only NINE hits, but remove the quotation marks from around the constrained search returns 49,900,000 hits. . . of which only NINE are Windows which happen to have battery problems. Do you get it now?
Android phone battery life spans have been an historic problem that was well known due to the problems with Android not being well optimized for battery use the way iOS has always been. The reason Android got large screens was not because there was demand for larger screens but rather so that the Android phone makers could stuff larger batteries inside their cases without making their phones too thick to increase their talk and standby times. Check it out, you'll find it's true.
Started searching in 1993 with Excite, InfoSeek, and AltaVista, so I certainly know what a restricted search is.
But you’re just proving my point.
13,900,000 for iPhone.
16,400,000 for Android
With a restricted search...
13,900 for iPhone
15,100 for Android
the ratio is even more in favor of Androids.
Again, I can fix any battery problem I have, for $8.72 and 30 seconds.
What’s the iPhone solution?