TIME SINCE LAST FULL CHARGE

[iFormOfApple]

TIME SINCE LAST FULL CHARGE
New insight about Apple's Battery Algorithm

In iOS 10.2 Dev/Public Beta 1, TIME SINCE LAST FULL CHARGE populated at 90%. Next 10% is actually not required or its the reserved charge? If its not required, then why there's still the capacity to be charged? If its reserved capacity (for development purposes to check some new possibility which is not yet substantially precedent) then for what purpose, if its not "user accessible" in emergency, instead it still relies upon 20% and 10% Low Battery Pop Up Alert?

Apple's new pre-emptive measure against Samsung's Note 7 battery explode incidents. In my opinion so far as my best knowledge is concerned, Samsung goes full throttle as far as the hardware's maximum with its incremental software optimisations. Apple in general advertises the hardware capacity (no matter what it is) as it is, but its software drives the 90% of it at maximum. Might be to protect its manufacturing costs for the replacement/RMS.

Benchmarking is psychological console for the users. Here's a great deal of multiple factors plea. In realtime its on individual ground but how much difference is acceptable and should be considered as unified absolute?

P.S: iOS 4 to current public release iOS 10.1.1 is not concerned here although the same algorithm is available there. In contrast to contemporary rival flagships.

 

[C DM]

What is this conspiracy theory about again?

 

[iFormOfApple]

What is this conspiracy theory about again?

Well, i'm afraid to write it "a conspiracy of silence". Its self explanatory, if we ponder for a while.

Please be specific to the matter of mutual interest (in favor of invester in form of buyer) rather than being an only-diplomatic of Apple Inc.

 

[997440]

I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make. I tried. Rather than accuse someone of being an "only-diplomatic of Apple Inc", clarify.

 

[Mlrollin91]

I'm so confused. What in the world are you talking about.

 

[iFormOfApple]

I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make. I tried. Rather than accuse someone of being an "only-diplomatic of Apple Inc", clarify.

Of course dear, my only point is the reference of history of the apple products. They advertise their product's features in details as, its 25% more faster than the previous generation. But actually does it complies with the realtime scenario? They always take the plea of "multiple factors involved". Besides they never accepted it that contemporary products are better in this way or that way while having the same specifications of CPU/RAM. Do you find any speed improvement for Facebook App in iPhone 7 Plus in comparison of iPhone 6s Plus? If you would try to get what i mean to say then you'll be astonished by the technical barriers enforced by apple software to keep lessen its score for RMA. They will proactively claim its software app's issue rather than iOS or hardware at all. While having the same specification of samsung/htc smartphones, for the same ground you'll actively feel the difference.

And for your second concern, i'm afraid to disappoint you that if you could discern then you would not wont be so.

 

[Mlrollin91]

Of course dear, my only point is the reference of history of the apple products. They advertise their product's features in details as, its 25% more faster than the previous generation. But actually does it complies with the realtime scenario? They always take the plea of "multiple factors involved". Besides they never accepted it that contemporary products are better in this way or that way while having the same specifications of CPU/RAM. Do you find any speed improvement for Facebook App in iPhone 7 Plus in comparison of iPhone 6s Plus? If you would try to get what i mean to say then you'll be astonished by the technical barriers enforced by apple software to keep lessen its score for RMA. They will proactively claim its software app's issue rather than iOS or hardware at all. While having the same specification of samsung/htc smartphones, for the same ground you'll actively feel the difference.

And for your second concern, i'm afraid to disappoint you that if you could discern then you would not wont be so.

What in the world are you talking about here? Seriously, you are on a conspiracy theory roll. Take an iPhone 7Plus and an iPhone 6Plus. Launch Facebook, or any other app on both of them next to each other, the 7Plus is way faster.

I remember the the 3GS came out. I opened Facebook on my 3G and 3GS side by side. 3GS was over 2 seconds faster, almost 3x faster.

Are you seriously saying that a Samsung device with the same specs of an iPhone is faster? Because I have news for you, iPhones with 1/5th of the specs of a Samsung are faster.

Lastly, how does this post clarify your original post at all? I'm even more confused.

 

[iFormOfApple]

I'm so confused. What in the world are you talking about.

With regards Mirollin91, i've elaborated my perspective. I think i would love to re-read the post if i were you after having such reflection.

 

[Mlrollin91]

With regards Mirollin91, i've elaborated my perspective. I think i would love to re-read the post if i were you after having such reflection.

No, you are talking non-sense. You have not made a single point that is even remotely clear.

 

[iFormOfApple]

I'm so confused. What in the world are you talking about.

With regards Mirollin91, i've elaborated my perspective. I think i would love to re-read the post if i were you after having such reflection.

No, you are talking non-sense. You have not made a single point that is even remotely clear.

Well.. Mirollin91, with regards, i'm politely expressing my concerns being a civilized person and expecting the same level of realization. As you wrote my dear, 1/5, seriously saying may be you know the hardware errata consortium more than the genuine ones. For your technical upgrade, if in a given environment the CPU/RAM specs are same for the two contestants then the results would be favouring fractionally, due to manufacturing splits only. It would never be as you mention in this regard. If a CPU is clocked at 2Ghz then every CPU having 2Ghz is of same excellence as far as the clock at 2Ghz is concerned. Here's no point of getting less in form of other instruction sets. Again the same 2Ghz could be less in speed if driving software implies its own restrictions for the instruction set of executing and computing on CPU end. So by this simple example i made correct your instance of 1/5.

And for "conspiracy theory", do you really realize its authorship and intellectuals? Its applicable scenario is rather opposite. I did write "a conspiracy of silence" in response of "conspiracy theory", did you get it? You didn't.

 

[997440]

Of course dear, my only point is the reference of history of the apple products. [...]

I don't think you've explained your reasoning much better but I think I now understand your aim. Thank you. Have a good weekend; I hope you find a mechanism for personal stabilization.

 

[C DM]

All the attempts at some sort of "sophisticated" sounding vocabulary and sentence structure (along with uses of "my dear" and the like) just really only further obfuscate an already fairly perplexing and peculiar thread.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

I really hope English isn't your first language.

 

[iFormOfApple]

All the attempts at some sort of "sophisticated" vocabulary and sentence structure, along with uses of "my dear" and the like, just further obfuscate an already fairly perplexing and peculiar thread.

Grateful to you Mr. C DM, well for at least your grasp. I'm not to make my own words obfuscatory but you mention it, so its my err if my words could not reflect the true spirit of their letters.

Thread initial is, 90% of battery getting as fully charged title in the software algorithm. Simple to realise the matter that why it should be so in first place if we take it as a bug? And that bug's life starts from iOS 4.. 5.. 6.. 7.. 8.. 9.. 10.. .1.1 yet not realised? If its a pre-emptive measure then why should not try first to activate previous year product's full potential before advertising new year's hardware upgrade?
Taking it as granted, now we can accomodate second thought, if battery at 90% is pre-emptive then surely LOW POWER MODE at 20% is an indication that its second in stance. Why should it happen in first place while the provider is liable for its product's advertised potential? Now would a sensible mind spend more bucks for two seconds faster device? (You sense it well.. what i'm referring.. no offence here..)

 

[Mabus51]

Grateful to you Mr. C DM, well for at least your grasp. I'm not to make my own words obfuscatory but you mention it, so its my err if my words could not reflect the true spirit of their letters.

Thread initial is, 90% of battery getting as fully charged title in the software algorithm. Simple to realise the matter that why it should be so in first place if we take it as a bug? And that bug's life starts from iOS 4.. 5.. 6.. 7.. 8.. 9.. 10.. .1.1 yet not realised? If its a pre-emptive measure then why should not try first to activate previous year product's full potential before advertising new year's hardware upgrade?
Taking it as granted, now we can accomodate second thought, if battery at 90% is pre-emptive then surely LOW POWER MODE at 20% is an indication that its second in stance. Why should it happen in first place while the provider is liable for its product's advertised potential? Now would a sensible mind spend more bucks for two seconds faster device? (You sense it well.. what i'm referring.. no offence here..)

You write English but I'm not sure you actually speak it. Not one of your posts have any clarity or point. What are you talking about?

You go on about batteries but you don't seem to understand how they work. I'll try to answer. Battery at 90% trickle charges to 100% then drains to 98% and trickle charges to 100% to keep from over charging and exploding. Battery at 20% notifies you if you want to trigger low power mode to get a few extra minutes by auto turning features off. Battery flat still has some charge in it to save the battery's life span, however it's not enough to power the device in any way.

 

[Mlrollin91]

With regards Mirollin91, i've elaborated my perspective. I think i would love to re-read the post if i were you after having such reflection.



Well.. Mirollin91, with regards, i'm politely expressing my concerns being a civilized person and expecting the same level of realization. As you wrote my dear, 1/5, seriously saying may be you know the hardware errata consortium more than the genuine ones. For your technical upgrade, if in a given environment the CPU/RAM specs are same for the two contestants then the results would be favouring fractionally, due to manufacturing splits only. It would never be as you mention in this regard. If a CPU is clocked at 2Ghz then every CPU having 2Ghz is of same excellence as far as the clock at 2Ghz is concerned. Here's no point of getting less in form of other instruction sets. Again the same 2Ghz could be less in speed if driving software implies its own restrictions for the instruction set of executing and computing on CPU end. So by this simple example i made correct your instance of 1/5.

And for "conspiracy theory", do you really realize its authorship and intellectuals? Its applicable scenario is rather opposite. I did write "a conspiracy of silence" in response of "conspiracy theory", did you get it? You didn't.

Did you seriously just state all 2Ghz processors are the same? Good grief. I've been building computers for almost 15 years. All processors with the same Ghz are NOT equal. Not even close.

How is this thread not in wasteland yet?

 

[Shirasaki]

I am glad that I am not the only one who does not know what op is about to discuss.

And it looks like some comments are more reasonable than op itself.

Also, due to thermal constraints, manufacturers would like to do something to prevent device from overheating. No matter how their garbage marketing team promote, fact is still fact. Or I can say, those are "uncomfortable truths ".

 

[imagineadam]

I'm not sure exactly what's going on here or what OP is looking for but it's kind of entertaining.

When the battery meter hits 90% the time since last full charge stats resets. It's been this way since I've been using and iPhone 4 on iOS 4. I think apple considers 90% "close enough" to a full charge to reset the stats.

That's it. Not sure what else there is to say.

 

[simonsi]

Benchmarking is psychological console for the users. Here's a great deal of multiple factors plea. In realtime its on individual ground but how much difference is acceptable and should be considered as unified absolute?

This bit is pure "Lorem Ipsum"... http://www.lipsum.com

 

[C DM]

This bit is pure "Lorem Ipsum"... http://www.lipsum.com

That's basically what all of it comes off as.

 

[iFormOfApple]

I am glad that I am not the only one who does not know what op is about to discuss.

And it looks like some comments are more reasonable than op itself.

Also, due to thermal constraints, manufacturers would like to do something to prevent device from overheating. No matter how their garbage marketing team promote, fact is still fact. Or I can say, those are "uncomfortable truths ".

With regards Shirasaki, i'm afraid to say that english is not my first language, if its considered as street language. But i assure you its my first, if its considered as an international language with merits.

Syncing the subject, i do know how battery stuff works but my only concern is to reveal that fact of software restrictions implemented by the manufacturer to lessen the costs for RMA. Its off the topic in my opinion but to relevently express, i take it for granted. Do you see any innovation in Apple Products by its own? All the things are carefully followed by the path made by other manufacturers years ago. I'm referencing here when iOS was deficient of simple MMS, while the other low cost phones could do the task up to the mark. Now the battery is always hit in every build of iOS, and the fans of Apple club are partially advocating its hallmarks. Is it justified in the global communication ages? Is it the definition of honesty and sincerity on impartial ground? I typically use iWork for my office work, and sincerely writing these words, there's no significant difference in preformance for the iPhone 6s Plus (2GB) and iPhone 7 Plus (3GB RAM). The only difference is psychologically handicapped by advertised specifications. Now another example is iPhone 7's screen brightness factor; do you see any resolution difference in terms of pixel density? iPhone 6s and 7's screen is same 1080p but brightness is software wise enhanced to capture the market share. Wide gamut and contrast ratios are co factor for color saturation and hue/highlights. Brightness is simple to comprehend in this regard.
If Apple implements full 100% capacity to its products then its buyer's rightful justification for the sum he paid to them. Rather than psychologically trapped by the benchmarking figures and theoretically justified substances.
Users are not experiencing the product's true potential neutrally, they are somehow manipulatable by their own perceptions.

 

[Mlrollin91]

With regards Shirasaki, i'm afraid to say that english is not my first language, if its considered as street language. But i assure you its my first, if its considered as an international language with merits.

Syncing the subject, i do know how battery stuff works but my only concern is to reveal that fact of software restrictions implemented by the manufacturer to lessen the costs for RMA. Its off the topic in my opinion but to relevently express, i take it for granted. Do you see any innovation in Apple Products by its own? All the things are carefully followed by the path made by other manufacturers years ago. I'm referencing here when iOS was deficient of simple MMS, while the other low cost phones could do the task up to the mark. Now the battery is always hit in every build of iOS, and the fans of Apple club are partially advocating its hallmarks. Is it justified in the global communication ages? Is it the definition of honesty and sincerity on impartial ground? I typically use iWork for my office work, and sincerely writing these words, there's no significant difference in preformance for the iPhone 6s Plus (2GB) and iPhone 7 Plus (3GB RAM). The only difference is psychologically handicapped by advertised specifications. Now another example is iPhone 7's screen brightness factor; do you see any resolution difference in terms of pixel density? iPhone 6s and 7's screen is same 1080p but brightness is software wise enhanced to capture the market share. Wide gamut and contrast ratios are co factor for color saturation and hue/highlights. Brightness is simple to comprehend in this regard.
If Apple implements full 100% capacity to its products then its buyer's rightful justification for the sum he paid to them. Rather than psychologically trapped by the benchmarking figures and theoretically justified substances.
Users are not experiencing the product's true potential neutrally, they are somehow manipulatable by their own perceptions.

.........

I swear I have entered the Twilight Zone.

 

[Shirasaki]

With regards Shirasaki, i'm afraid to say that english is not my first language, if its considered as street language. But i assure you its my first, if its considered as an international language with merits.

Syncing the subject, i do know how battery stuff works but my only concern is to reveal that fact of software restrictions implemented by the manufacturer to lessen the costs for RMA. Its off the topic in my opinion but to relevently express, i take it for granted. Do you see any innovation in Apple Products by its own? All the things are carefully followed by the path made by other manufacturers years ago. I'm referencing here when iOS was deficient of simple MMS, while the other low cost phones could do the task up to the mark. Now the battery is always hit in every build of iOS, and the fans of Apple club are partially advocating its hallmarks. Is it justified in the global communication ages? Is it the definition of honesty and sincerity on impartial ground? I typically use iWork for my office work, and sincerely writing these words, there's no significant difference in preformance for the iPhone 6s Plus (2GB) and iPhone 7 Plus (3GB RAM). The only difference is psychologically handicapped by advertised specifications. Now another example is iPhone 7's screen brightness factor; do you see any resolution difference in terms of pixel density? iPhone 6s and 7's screen is same 1080p but brightness is software wise enhanced to capture the market share. Wide gamut and contrast ratios are co factor for color saturation and hue/highlights. Brightness is simple to comprehend in this regard.
If Apple implements full 100% capacity to its products then its buyer's rightful justification for the sum he paid to them. Rather than psychologically trapped by the benchmarking figures and theoretically justified substances.
Users are not experiencing the product's true potential neutrally, they are somehow manipulatable by their own perceptions.

Thanks for your long, polite, and sort of structured reply.
However, the total purpose of marketing is to promote product using whatever method market team can "extract" or utilise. Even unrealistic and heavily biased results are perfectly ok. This is what I say "uncomfortable truth".
When they say 100% performance, what they actually say may be "in condition x and y and z, product performance is defined as 100%" rather than "generally 100% if product runs in followed specifications <insert whatever specification a product should have based on industrial standard>". I can sit here all day long, and write long, dull but super aggressive posts flaming marketing garbage and question them "why my phone can only use 2000 mah power while it has a battery with capacity of 3000 mah" and suchlike. Result? You know, nothing. Those posts achieves nothing but ruining my reputation if I have any.
So...as long as actual performance is acceptable, I am okay with whatever they say and safely ignore them. MY personal experience determines whether I AM happy with a product.

 

[Manatlt]

^ Wow. You actually understood his post. There is some jumbo in it that I just couldn't understand.

....street language? English is street language? What is a street language even mean?

 

[Shirasaki]

^ Wow. You actually understood his post. There is some jumbo in it that I just couldn't understand.

....street language? English is street language? What is a street language even mean?

Perhaps it means "language used everywhere". But English is still not enough to be determined as "street language", let alone Chinese, French, Spanish etc..

And, I understand his post after a few "bouncing back and forth". Well, I assume you mention my post.