Chris wrote:

> Counting the wider family also no changes over a similar time period and
> eight devices. We're mostly on our second phone having had the first for
> 3-4 years.

The problem is it's a fact iPhone batteries age below minimum sooner than
Android phone batteries do. That's just a fact backed up by physics.

However, my immediate family has one Apple holdout, but _everyone_ in the
immediate family has _both_ an iPad and either an Android or an iPhone.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

Not only do the iPhones always cost more to purchase and equip than the
Android phones, the laughably puny batteries on iPhones are a huge problem.

The problem with the iPhones, in terms of the inevitable need for battery
replacement is that iPhones are designed to die sooner than Android phones.

Given the fact all iPHones have laughably puny batteries, and given that
the aging process of all similar batteries (regardless of capacity) is the
same, then it's just a fact that iPhones age faster than do Android phones.

The only way an iPhone in typical use would not die sooner than an Android
phone is if you replace the laughably puny iPhone batteries sooner.

It's basic physics, which I'm sure iKooks don't understand but will deny.
And yet, it's a fact.

The smaller the battery capacity, the sooner it ages below minimum.
Apple puts in smaller batteries which always age sooner than larger ones.

On 2023-01-05 15:25, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Counting the wider family also no changes over a similar time period and
>> eight devices. We're mostly on our second phone having had the first for
>> 3-4 years.
>
> The problem is it's a fact iPhone batteries age below minimum sooner than
> Android phone batteries do. That's just a fact backed up by physics.

And then you fail to back it up.

>
> However, my immediate family has one Apple holdout, but _everyone_ in the
> immediate family has _both_ an iPad and either an Android or an iPhone.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax
>
> Not only do the iPhones always cost more to purchase and equip than the
> Android phones, the laughably puny batteries on iPhones are a huge problem.
>
> The problem with the iPhones, in terms of the inevitable need for battery
> replacement is that iPhones are designed to die sooner than Android phones.
>
> Given the fact all iPHones have laughably puny batteries, and given that
> the aging process of all similar batteries (regardless of capacity) is the
> same, then it's just a fact that iPhones age faster than do Android phones.
>
> The only way an iPhone in typical use would not die sooner than an Android
> phone is if you replace the laughably puny iPhone batteries sooner.

Or if the processors in iPhones used less power than the best processors
in Android phones...

....which they do.

>
> It's basic physics, which I'm sure iKooks don't understand but will deny.
> And yet, it's a fact.
>
> The smaller the battery capacity, the sooner it ages below minimum.
> Apple puts in smaller batteries which always age sooner than larger ones.

And the load put on the battery doesn't matter?

How are you defining "minimum"?

:-)

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-01-05 15:25, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Counting the wider family also no changes over a similar time period and
>>> eight devices. We're mostly on our second phone having had the first for
>>> 3-4 years.
>>
>> The problem is it's a fact iPhone batteries age below minimum sooner than
>> Android phone batteries do. That's just a fact backed up by physics.
>
> And then you fail to back it up.

Arlen just used bad physics. He's comparing a car's range by only looking
at the size of tank and ignoring its fuel efficiency.

A car with a 10 gallon tank and 30 mpg will need to refuel more often than
one with an 8 gallon tank and 40 mpg.

>>
>> However, my immediate family has one Apple holdout, but _everyone_ in the
>> immediate family has _both_ an iPad and either an Android or an iPhone.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax
>>
>> Not only do the iPhones always cost more to purchase and equip than the
>> Android phones, the laughably puny batteries on iPhones are a huge problem.
>>
>> The problem with the iPhones, in terms of the inevitable need for battery
>> replacement is that iPhones are designed to die sooner than Android phones.
>>
>> Given the fact all iPHones have laughably puny batteries, and given that
>> the aging process of all similar batteries (regardless of capacity) is the
>> same, then it's just a fact that iPhones age faster than do Android phones.
>>
>> The only way an iPhone in typical use would not die sooner than an Android
>> phone is if you replace the laughably puny iPhone batteries sooner.
>
> Or if the processors in iPhones used less power than the best processors
> in Android phones...
>
> ...which they do.
>
>>
>> It's basic physics, which I'm sure iKooks don't understand but will deny.
>> And yet, it's a fact.
>>
>> The smaller the battery capacity, the sooner it ages below minimum.
>> Apple puts in smaller batteries which always age sooner than larger ones.
>
> And the load put on the battery doesn't matter?
>
> How are you defining "minimum"?

He doesn't. He never does...

Chris wrote:

> He's comparing a car's range by only looking
> at the size of tank and ignoring its fuel efficiency.

Chris,

How could you possibly deny that batteries age consistently?
And that they age below a working threshold over time?
And that a smaller capacity battery reaches that threshold sooner?

Do you really believe your own claim Apple has "special" chemistry?
*The smaller battery will always chemically age sooner below threshold.*

> A car with a 10 gallon tank and 30 mpg will need to refuel more often than
> one with an 8 gallon tank and 40 mpg.

You're the one who lied about having a PhD in the sciences, and yet you
didn't know a single thing about basic chemistry, physics, or calculus.

Unlike you with a fabricated science degree, every scientist and engineer
is well acquainted with basic redox potential chemistry.

What you don't seem to even begin to comprehend is that Apple's (admittedly
bogus) _daily_ battery life claims are not what we're talking about here.

What we're discussing, in terms of replacing batteries, is:
*The smaller battery will always chemically age sooner below threshold.*

> He doesn't. He never does...

What you iKooks seem to believe only in are Apple's advertisements.

Those advertisements are about (admittedly bogus) battery life claims for
daily use - but Apple doesn't advertise battery aging for its puny
batteries.

What you're also ignorant of is those cheap iPhone batteries are laughably
puny compared to the huge batteries on most modern Android phones today.

What you only know is Apple advertising that they're "more efficient" in
daily use, which is bogus but it doesn't even matter for this topic.

What matters is you need to comprehend two things:
a. Battery daily life on a single charge (measured in hours)
b. Battery overall life of a single battery (measured in years)

They're different.
a. One is most greatly affected by charge capacity & current draw.
b. The other is affected by design capacity & chemical aging processes.

You iKooks can't seem to comprehend these are DIFFERENT things:
a. How many hours a battery lasts on a charge, versus
b. How many years a battery lasts before aging below threshold.

It's physics. It's chemistry. It's engineering. It's science.
All stuff none of you uneducated low-IQ iKooks will ever understand.

Put simply...
*The smaller battery will always chemically age sooner below threshold.*

Especially when that smaller battery is as laughably puny as those cheap
pieces of utter crap batteries that Apple puts in all the latest iPhones.