this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
343 points (83.0% liked)
Technology
59080 readers
4093 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Apple users really just didn't notice the limitations. Whether you consider that "working" is up to you.
Apple users are used to their phones taking ninety minutes to charge and not lasting the whole day. They consider that "normal" and are unlikely to consider that for Android devices, even cheap ones, sub-1 hour fast charging and all-day battery life are standard, not exceptions.
Apple's (previously) bundled charger is a measly 5 W whereas my cheap $150 OnePlus comes with a 33 W charger, delivering over six times as much power. Granted, Apple devices tend to be more power-efficient than others, but not six times less.
I use my iPhone extensively and it consistently lasts me all day. The iPhone 11 Pro came with a 20w charger in the box (although admittedly they removed the power adapter from the 12)
The context of my original comment is the base iPhone model. Nonetheless, it's still to be noted that the default charger that came with your iPhone 11 (18 W, not 20 W) still delivers 45% less power than the default 33 W charger that came with my OnePlus Nord N20 5G.
From what I can read online, it takes one hour to go from 0 to 80% on an iPhone 11 Pro using the default charger. It takes my phone a bit over half an hour.
Remember, I am comparing an iPhone with an MSRP of $999 to a phone that I bought for $150. Refurbished iPhone 11 Pros still sell for $300.
I believe that my point that iPhones have comparatively poor chargers for their price point stands. Charging technology has not changed significantly from then to now. The effect of Apple's recalcitrance is that even the cheapest Android phones can run circles around iPhones when it comes to charging. I hope Apple with take this opportunity to deliver a better product for their users rather than making only incremental improvements to old technology.
My $200 Motorola came with a 68w charger which is quite frankly ludicrous for a phone, and I prefer to use the slow charger so I don't heat and damage my battery unless I'm in a hurry (and my phone always lasts a whole day of heavy use so I'm almost never in a hurry to charge)
Where did you get the idea that Android phones have longer battery life? iPhones usually do very good in battery life comparisons. Usually you have to go ~20% larger battery on an android device to get the same battery life as an iphone. Of course if you look at just the top charts you get a number of large Android phones with like 7000mAh batteries, which are by far not the norm.
For example by my quick sample of three reviews your one plus nord seems to roughly match iPhone13 battery life but lose to iPhone 14.
I'd say this is actually one reason people buy iPhones. With Apple they can trust that power usage has been implemented well. With Android phones some of them have good battery life and some don't. Even within one brand.
Again, I want to remind you that a $1,000 phone winning against a $150 phone is not a victory at all. The iPhone should have absolutely kerb-stomped mine. The fact that it is even competitive is the point I am trying to make.
You can visualise a sort of bell curve of battery life. My phone is probably somewhere around the 30-40th percentile (and note that a 90th percentile phone is not 2× better, it's probably only 50% better). A bit worse than average but not terrible. It's a cheap phone, after all.
But the issue is that (new) Apple phones I presume are placing consistently around the 60th percentile, which is good and better than average. The issue is that you're paying 80th-percentile prices for 60th-percentile performance. That is the point I'm trying to make. It's relative performance to price, not absolute performance. These numbers are made up but illustrate the point I'm trying to make.
If the iPhone were priced at $400-500, it'd be an excellent value and I would recommend it to a lot more people. That's what I feel a comparable Android would cost. Maybe it could go up to $550 since Apple products do have better build quality and the Apple ecosystem, but at $700 for the latest base model iPhone 14, I think it's just not delivering the value for money compared to Android phones. Of course, that's my opinion. I make decisions based on hardware. Others may make decisions based on the fact that they like the iOS experience and the ecosystem it provides, or even because they just like using Apple products. And yes, the fact that Apple products are of consistently above-average quality does count for something.
I'm not attacking you if you own an iPhone and like it, and I don't judge you for it. I will criticise Apple though, because I feel that Apple is short-changing their customers on the technical side by providing mediocre hardware for not-mediocre prices.
Battery life has nothing to do with the price of the phone because battery size is limited by physical size not price. The cheapest phones actually tend to do well in comparisons.
Apple could fix this by making the phone a few millimetres thicker but I think we both know why they don't