4 ms·
based on many comments in this thread your statement is not accurate. for example my iphone 15 pro is at 83% with 654 cycles. clearly it will drop below 80% in
by danaw 5mo ago
based on many comments in this thread your statement is not accurate.
for example my iphone 15 pro is at 83% with 654 cycles. clearly it will drop below 80% in less than 1000 cycles
- drstewart 5mo agoThe bar clearly won't be "any random person's phone meeting this criteria", so what your specific phone does doesn't really matter.
- danaw 5mo agomany others in the comments have this same issue (and the internet at large). my point is just that it's not obvious that apple has met this claim with real world devices. it will be seen how the actual requirements will be validated, likely in a way that favors the "best case" scenario for apple.
- infecto 5mo agoDoubtful if only because that would fall under warranty then. There is a financial incentive for that to not happen. I imagine this is a situation where the complaints seem a lot more frequent because it’s a complaint. The mass of phones that don’t have an issue will not show up in public forum data.
- danaw 5mo agosince these companies know this data perhaps they need to be audited to see what the ground truth reality is
- infecto 5mo agoWhat makes it not accurate? With the 15, apple was already making claims about 80% at 1000 cycles. Battery degradation has too many variables for you to make your claim and even in perfect situation, it’s not a linear degradation by cycle. My 17 is at 100 cycles with 100% health. Back to my original claim. Most manufacturers already meet the exception. Some of the low end garbage phones may not but it’s unclear how meaningful of the market share that will be.
- danaw 5mo agomaking claims is not the same a real world outcomes. the real question will be how these claims are audited by regulators
- infecto 5mo agoWhich will align with how manufacturers have been measuring it. The EU years ago already set battery standards for energy ratings. This won’t come as a surprise.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> What makes it not accurate? You’ve concluded because you don’t have the data nobody has the data and thus the legislation “is a waste of money.” Your ask for data is warranted. Your premature conclusion is inaccurate, or at least unsustained.
- infecto 5mo agoThat cuts both ways. Pointing out uncertainty doesn’t by itself invalidate the direction of the argument. My point was about incentives and scope: the exemption looks broad enough that most major OEMs can comply without going to removable batteries, especially at the high end where cycle-life claims are already trending toward the threshold. If that holds, the regulation mostly adds compliance cost while only forcing changes on a narrower slice of lower-end devices. If you think that’s wrong, the useful counter is data: what share of shipped units in the EU would actually fail the exemption and be forced into redesign? Without that, saying the conclusion is “unsustained” isn’t doing much more than asserting the opposite.