From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Thank God the UK and the EU have forced the OEMs to give us legally binding facts instead of (admittedly brilliant) marketing spin on "efficiency".

To their credit, the UK forced OEMs to declare the length of "support" &
the EU forced OEMs to provide data which refutes their "efficiency" claims.

SUMMARY: iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra
The iPhone is more efficient but due to its crappy battery, it dies sooner.
The Android is less efficient, but due to the battery, it lasts 12% longer.

DETAILS:
As of June 20, 2025, the EU's new Ecodesign and Energy Labelling rules for smartphones officially kicked in. This was a massive win for people who
don't believe in amorphous claims of absurdly impossible efficiencies.

Specifically the EU forced Apple & Samsung to move away from meaningless "marketing hours" and into standardized Efficiency Classes (A-G).

According to the 2026 EU Energy Labels for both flagships:

1. The Efficiency Benchmark (The "A" Rating)
Both the iPhone 17 Pro Max and the Galaxy S26 Ultra have achieved
an Energy Efficiency Class A rating. However, the data behind the
label reveals the truth about the actual "cycle math" which matters.

a. iPhone 17 Pro Max Efficiency:
The EU label indicates an endurance of ~58 hours under their
standardized "low-intensity" test. It does this with a battery of
roughly 18.7 Wh (approx. 4,823 mAh).

b. Galaxy S26 Ultra Efficiency:
The EU label indicates an endurance of ~55 hours under the same test.
It does this with a larger 19.3 Wh (approx. 5,000 mAh) battery.

Clearly, Apple is officially more efficient per watt-hour of capacity.
But the question is which wins in terms of overall battery lifetime?
i. The more efficient hardware with the smaller-capacity battery?
ii. Or the lower-efficiency hardware with a larger-capacity battery?

Luckily, the EU has thought ahead for us, so we have cycle life specs.

2. The 80% "Kill Time" (Cycle Life)
The EU now requires manufacturers to declare the number of cycles
a battery can withstand while maintaining 80% capacity.
This is the "kill time" that we are trying to derive here.

a. iPhone 17 Pro Max, 1,000 Cycles at ~0.41 cycles per EU test day
b. Galaxy S26 Ultra, 1,200 Cycles at ~0.44 cycles per EU test day

3. The "Kill Time" Calculation (using EU Standards)
If we use the EU's standardized "daily usage" profile:
a. Phone: 1,000 cycles / 0.41 daily cycles = 2,439 days
b. Samsung: 1,200 cycles / 0.44 daily cycles = 2,727 days

Hmmmm....

Even with the huge upgrade in the iPhone battery capacity to 4.8AH
(compared to all earlier iPhones), under the EU's efficiency metrics,
Samsung still wins on overall lifespan by 288 Days (roughly 9.5 months).

That's 11.8% more total lifespan.
How can that be?

According to the EU tests, that iPhone is more efficient (as it uses fewer cycles per year), but Samsung's 2026 battery chemistry is rated for 20%
more cycles than Apple's in those EU reports (which nobody disputes).

Samsung's "durability buffer" is larger than Apple's "efficiency lead".

The result is, that based on EU metrics, the Samsung battery should
chemically outlast the iPhone by about 12% before falling to 80%.

Partly this may be due to Samsung using stacked battery technology (derived from EV tech) in the S26 Ultra, which allows for those 1,200 cycles.

Even though the iPhone 17 Pro Max is the "Efficiency King" of 2026, it is essentially a high-performance engine with a standard-sized fuel tank.

Summary:
a. The iPhone 17 Pro Max wins on daily longevity
b. The Galaxy S26 Ultra wins on lifetime longevity

Basically, the iPhone user gets to brag about not needing a charger today,
but the Samsung user gets to brag about not needing a new battery in 2029.
--
I don't defend any mothership because all I care about is the truth.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2