What 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.
That 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.
Which 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.
many 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.
Doubtful 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.
i'd say it really depends on the website you're building and what you define as "using javascript"
are you comparing fully client rendering vs SSR without client JS at all? are you building a marketing site or a dashboard type tool?
there is subtly to why each decision would be made based on these.
i think HN tends to demonize JS because we're all well aware of how bad the state of a lot of web apps have become with developers only knowing react and having no background in web fundamentals or accessibility.
i see no reason to completely shun JS, just use it intentionally and not reflexively.
Thank you so much for having one of the few measured takes in this thread. I'm not advocating for throwing React and NPM at every problem, but a little bit of hand-written JS is rarely an issue.
But you don't need JS to make a search engine work. I'm pretty sure I've used links2 in the past to google things just fine. Google Search would work fine without JS, Google just wants to track people
this is such a classic, well trodden propaganda tool i'm surprised anyone here falls for it.
tell the public about an incredibly advanced piece of tech that simultaneously justifies the $1 trillion+ military budget, makes people fear the sophistication of our government (prevent dissidence internally) and distract from otherwise embarrassing flaws in the war so far.
it's like how trump releases "proof" of aliens ever time he wants to distract from a new epstein files bombshell.
if you believe this i've got a bridge to sell you.
reply