Originally Posted by TenoBell
I'm just really curious as to what exactly do you expect to gain.
I'm just really curious as to why you continue to read posts that upset you so. Doesn't seem like that would be great for one's health and peace of mind.
Actually looking at these tests I'm more confused as to why you keep pointing out the Black Jack 2 as such an outstanding phone for battery life. Its an improvement on than the original Black Jack, but is about average from the phones they've tested. The BlackBerry Pearl and the iPhone outlasted every other phone in every category.
What you forget is that the iPhone and BB Pearl are both EDGE. The 'Jack II is 3G. And yet, its pretty close to the EDGE phones in talk time, and is close to the iPhone in web-browsing time... plus is WAY better than the 'Jack I in battery life.
Hmm... looks like 3G chipsets really have gotten lots better on power consumption, even 3G chipsets from a few months ago.
I'm sure Apple is at least looking for 3G chips that will equal its current battery life specs.
No... I recall Jobs commenting that he wanted to get at least "5 hours" of battery life from a 3G iPhone. So it seems like he's willing to take a bit of a hit there, just not an enormous one. Far as web browsing batt life goes, I almost wonder if it'd be a wash in practice between an EDGE iPhone and a 3G iPhone, since you'd be done browsing quite a bit more quickly with 3G.
Going back to taking a batt life hit for 3G, all else being equal, the iPhone would take less of a batt life hit if Jobs were to allow a 3G iPhone to get even a tiny bit thicker (like 1-2mm), to accommodate a higher-cap battery. But of course, the second you point that out, some dunce yells, "WHAT?!? You want the iPhone to be a 1" thick BRICK!". As if there weren't a sane middle-ground. Does anyone much CARE if their phone is 0.46" thick vs 0.50" or 0.55" or so? You'd never notice the difference.
Even with a smaller screen, slower processor, less internal storage the BlackJack 2 still falls short.
Meh. It's pretty close to the iPhone's batt life, and that's with 3G, not EDGE. It does beat Jobs "5 hour" specification on talk time.
Of course, there are the other differences you mention, but they may not be as dramatic as you'd think. For example, the iPhone's screen isn't even on while you're talking, thanks to the nifty sensor... so that particular difference is largely moot in terms of talk time. Yeah, the ARM cpu on the iPhone is faster, but ARM cpus are aggressively power-efficient. And I'm not sure how much more juice the internal storage would actually use. But if you can quantify those things with the same exactitude you've demanded of me on every occasion, and the differences are fairly dramatic, I will then agree with you.
For myself, I'm sure an iPhone using a recent 3G chipset wouldn't get quite the batt life of the 'Jack II, but it may be 'close enough'. Well, depending on how much Jobs wants to sacrifice batt life for ultimate thinness, that is. He seems highly obsessed with the latter.
I just like Samsung's approach, which was to allow the phone to get a millimeter or so thicker in the name of getting a significantly bigger battery, and to use the new, power-efficient 3G chipsets in a timely way. But Apple prefers to sacrifice all else for thinness, and they want to wait for the Broadcom chipset, so here we are.