From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

I am starting to believe that he exists solely to punish Usenetters who would otherwise enjoy this forum. Boys and girls, this is why it is important to repent for your sins... to prevent your Lord from feeling
the necessity of unleashing such a vile beast as Snit on you.

It's common for religious zealots to be deathly afraid of facts.
So afraid, that they pray to God that those facts would just go away.

Unfortunately for religious zealots, I'm extremely well educated in both engineering and sciences so I summarized the facts in this thread below.

Newsgroups: Newsgroups: misc.phonmisc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.telecom.mobile
Subject: Re: EU standards compare Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra battery lifetime
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:39:38 -0600
Message-ID: <10slm59$1mhi$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Andy Newman wrote:

Here, here!

Since these facts, explained as they are, are likely nowhere else in the Internet in one spot, religious zealots who believe only in the (admittedly brilliant) propaganda, have no adult response other than ad hominems.

Their childish taunts actually prove actual facts made an actual impact.
This is progress...

We've accomplished a lot in this thread, using published UK/EU forced
facts, which I take the liberty to summarize below for all to benefit.

Those who are not as well educated in sciences and engineering as I am
might be shocked by the results we found out, which are summarized below.

1. When we compared the Galaxy S26 Ultra to the iPhone 17 Pro Max...
a. Efficiency:
Samsung wins. It gets 55 hours out of 4.855Ah,
while Apple gets 53 hours out of 4.8Ah.
b. Capacity:
Samsung wins, though Apple has finally started closing the
historic battery-capacity gap (but only recently).
c. Durability:
Samsung wins. The 1,200 cycle rating on Samsung's 2026 chemistry
provides the Kill-Time victory despite Apple's "efficiency" claims.

2. When we compared legally promised "full-support" windows
a. iPhone 15(+), Minimum 5 years from the first supply date
b. Pixel 8(+), 7 years of Security Updates, OS Updates & Feature Drops
c. Galaxy S24(+), 7 years of Security Updates & Android OS Upgrades

3. When we compared what "support" means (including Pixel for Andy)
a. Apple drops full support the instant the next release ships
but Apple doesn't ever define what CVEs go into full support
ahead of time. So we'd have to look to see if EVERY CVE is patched.
Most likely Apple patches from 8-10 severity CVEs, but I have NOT
researched to that level of detail what level of CVE is "FULL".

b. Google actually publishes the list in the ASB that they will patch.
But Google's monthly support patches seem to slow down in later years
but the actual list of CVEs fixed remains those that are in the ASB.

c. Samsung uses the ASB + Samsung has further lists that they publish.
Their support also "slows down" as the phone ages, but it's still
inclusive of all the vulnerabilities listed in their published lists.

4. When we discussed the tangential topic of AppleCare+ specifically,
we mathematically proved that it more than doubles the price of the
iPhone over the 7-year expected lifetime of that iPhone in most cases.

While all the calculations are in this thread, we need to add the
equivalent Samsung Care+ which, unfortunately, isn't as standardized.
Subject: AppleCare+ basically more than doubles the cost of a typical iPhone.
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:47:45 -0600
Message-ID: <10sh2vh$oqb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Is there anything else of import we should discuss to compare devices?

Like anyone who is extremely well educated in engineering & the sciences,
I'm open to correction of any mathematical calculations stated herein.
--
Many people believe brilliant propaganda, but I believe only in facts.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2