On 2024-01-04 17:06, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 6:06 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> The facts show that iPhones DO NOT have a "dearth of battery capacity".
>
> Whoosh.
> You make lame excuses for all iphones having very low battery capacity.
>
>> 150 phones in this list, the top iPhone is at 4 with 3 places in the top 10
>> <https://nanoreview.net/en/phone-list/endurance-rating>
>
> Idiot. I'm talking about overall battery life, as in years. Not hours.

Yes, and you are the idiot.

>
>> How long will you try and maintain your belief in this shibboleth that
>> battery size is what's important?
>
> Dumbass. A small battery will always reach the 500 charge cycles sooner.

Nope.

>
>> Run time is what matters, and it doesn't matter whether you get it by
>> large battery and with average energy efficiency or small battery with
>> better than average energy efficiency.
>
> The smaller the battery, the sooner its life-ending charge cycling occurs.

Let me lay this out as simply as I can for a simpleton you obviously are.

Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
you use it from the moment you get up at 8am until you go to bed and
recharge it overnight 16 hours later at midnight.

How many days will you use the phone to reach 500 charge cycles?

500 days.

Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours and you
use it just the same.

How many days will you use the phone to reach 500 charge cycles?

Also 500 days.

Run time on a single charge and how quickly you reach any arbitrary
number of charge cycles are inextricably...

....(and I know that's a big word for you, so please look up
"inextricably")...

....linked.

If you had cars that magically stopped working after you'd fill the tank
500 times, then it wouldn't matter that one car had a tank of half the
size...

....if it had twice the gas mileage.

On 1/4/2024 8:18 PM, Alan wrote:

> Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
> Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours

Dumbass.
You're making up absurd excuses for iPhones all having small batteries.

In your example the iPhone is B because all iPhones have a small battery.
Your claim that this tiny-battery iPhone is TWICE AS EFFICIENT is absurd.

While you're making ridiculous excuses for the small iPhone battery, why
stop at merely claiming twice the efficiency of a typical Android phone?

Why not claim ten times, no, twenty, no one hundred times more efficient?

If your iPhone was one hundred, no..... two hundred times more efficient,
then those tiny batteries would reach the 500 cycles at a later date.

While you're making up excuses for the small iPhone batteries, why not
claim iPhones are five hundred, no..... a THOUSAND times more efficient.

At ten thousand times the efficiency, then your lame excuses for the small
batteries found in all iPhones can begin to start to make arithmetic sense.

Why stop there. Why not claim TWENTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
Do I hear THIRTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
FORTY?

At a HUNDRED THOUSAND times the efficiency, you could make your case that
the always much smaller iPhone battery has the same lifetime as others do.

On 2024-01-04 19:54, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 8:18 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
>> Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours
>
> Dumbass.
> You're making up absurd excuses for iPhones all having small batteries.

Nope.

I'm noting some obvious facts and their logical conclusions...

....Arlen.

>
> In your example the iPhone is B because all iPhones have a small battery.
> Your claim that this tiny-battery iPhone is TWICE AS EFFICIENT is absurd.

I'm not claiming anything about specific phones, Arlen

Do you now understand that phones that have the same run time will reach
500 charge cycles in the same length of time...

....Arlen?

>
> While you're making ridiculous excuses for the small iPhone battery, why
> stop at merely claiming twice the efficiency of a typical Android phone?
>
> Why not claim ten times, no, twenty, no one hundred times more efficient?
>
> If your iPhone was one hundred, no..... two hundred times more efficient,
> then those tiny batteries would reach the 500 cycles at a later date.
>
> While you're making up excuses for the small iPhone batteries, why not
> claim iPhones are five hundred, no..... a THOUSAND times more efficient.
>
> At ten thousand times the efficiency, then your lame excuses for the small
> batteries found in all iPhones can begin to start to make arithmetic sense.
>
> Why stop there. Why not claim TWENTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
> Do I hear THIRTY THOUSAND TIMES the efficiency?
> FORTY?
>
> At a HUNDRED THOUSAND times the efficiency, you could make your case that
> the always much smaller iPhone battery has the same lifetime as others do.

Why did you snip the rest of my post...

....Arlen?

Let me lay this out as simply as I can for a simpleton you obviously are.

Phone A has a 6W-h battery and will run for precisely for 16 hours and
you use it from the moment you get up at 8am until you go to bed and
recharge it overnight 16 hours later at midnight.

How many days will you use the phone to reach 500 charge cycles?

500 days.

Phone B has a 3W-h battery and will also for precisely 16 hours and you
use it just the same.

How many days will you use the phone to reach 500 charge cycles?

Also 500 days.

Run time on a single charge and how quickly you reach any arbitrary
number of charge cycles are inextricably...

....(and I know that's a big word for you, so please look up
"inextricably")...

....linked.

If you had cars that magically stopped working after you'd fill the tank
500 times, then it wouldn't matter that one car had a tank of half the
size...

....if it had twice the gas mileage.

On 1/4/2024 11:15 PM, Alan wrote:

> ...if it had twice the gas mileage.

Anyone reading this can already do the basic simple math that you can't do
which is the small iPhone batteries will always reach 500 cycles sooner.

Your absurd lie of twice the efficiency is the ONLY WAY you can make your
lame case small iPhone batteries will not reach 500 charge cycles sooner.

Until you retract your dumbass lie of twice the efficiency, we're done.

On 2024-01-04 20:53, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 11:15 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> ...if it had twice the gas mileage.
>
> Anyone reading this can already do the basic simple math that you can't do
> which is the small iPhone batteries will always reach 500 cycles sooner.

Anyone who isn't a complete idiot can see that equal run times means
reaching 500 cycles in the same length of time.

>
> Your absurd lie of twice the efficiency is the ONLY WAY you can make your
> lame case small iPhone batteries will not reach 500 charge cycles sooner.
>
> Until you retract your dumbass lie of twice the efficiency, we're done.

You're a pussy, Arlen.

On 2024-01-04 21:15, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-01-04 20:53, Larry Wolff wrote:
>> On 1/4/2024 11:15 PM, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> ...if it had twice the gas mileage.
>>
>> Anyone reading this can already do the basic simple math that you
>> can't do
>> which is the small iPhone batteries will always reach 500 cycles sooner.
>
> Anyone who isn't a complete idiot can see that equal run times means
> reaching 500 cycles in the same length of time.
>
>>
>> Your absurd lie of twice the efficiency is the ONLY WAY you can make your
>> lame case small iPhone batteries will not reach 500 charge cycles sooner.
>>
>> Until you retract your dumbass lie of twice the efficiency, we're done.
>
> You're a pussy, Arlen.
>