I'm happy with my iPhone 5S battery life. But I've noticed it can vary greatly. I was at a show, taking credit cards with the cool Square App and Adapter and was consciously trying to preserve power. That is, I was only using my phone to take credit cards. No phone calls or texts or anything else. I started at 100% and 6 hours later, was down to about 10%.
I was surprised at the power suck though not sure what I was doing, exactly, to cause it. I imagine the ballroom location inside a hotel forced the radio to amp up to full power every time I turned the phone on, in an attempt to get a clear signal.
The way I use my phone typically results in a full day of usage and I charge it every night. I'd say that was fairly impressive.
"Samsung just makes me sick when they do things like this."
"Samsung gets more and more disgusting and desperate everyday !"
"Samsung is just putting into practice their "Big Lie"."
Don't be ridiculous. Its called marketing and Apple have run this type of negative campaign exaggerating a perceived flaw in their competitors products many times - for example the PC/Mac ads?
If you're happy with the battery life that's fine, if not maybe the ad has a point and Apple could put a bigger battery in instead of chasing a pointless metric like 'thinness'.
Spare battery! Yes, now if only I had a place to charge the dead battery while I'm using the fresh battery in the phone. Hmmm, ok I'll use the new battery until I get home and then I'll swap out the dead one when I go to bed to charge it. And then I'll have a half used battery for tomorrow and use it when the fully charged battery does and then I'll have two dead batteries tomorrow night. Oh heck I'll just set my alarm for 4am and swap batteries every other day. Problem solved! Thank god for power saving mode that tells me I'll get through the rest of the day by NOT USING MY PHONE.
Yes, yes they do, buy one thing they can't test for in their thorough review is how the OS, the vendor's bolted-on services, and even the quality of the HW battery hold up after months or even years of use.
I mention this for two reasons. First, I've heard of Android users saying they had to restore their device because it was getting lag and having poor battery life (something that has also been common with WinPCs). Second, not all Lithium Poly Ion batteries are the same. I've heard of external battery packs from no-name vendors take an incredible dive on their duration after just one use.
Of course.
I only mentioned it because the other guy demanded proof
Samstank really have nowhere else to go with their anti-Apple advertising campaign.
They take themselves way too seriously.
Had they an ounce of imagination and maybe put a humourous twist into it, ala Apples's legendary "I'm A Mac" series of ads, then even I (a reasonable follower of all things Apple) might find some appreciation and give them some time.
Those pictures of the samsung charging stations in airports are hilarious after watching their ad!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There shouldn't be any need for these then Samsung:
I wonder where the Apple charging stations are. This seems like another bout of insecurity from Samsung. Their S5 has flopped, they have no inspiration for future designs. Expect more cheap shots as they head downhill.
They did this with previous ads suggesting the iPhone was for older people and stats don't back that up either. When does it become libellous?
LOL That's a good one.
I guess these are not paid actors but real samsung users.
Performs the same functions as well as a Mac does if you want to be so technical,and for a cheaper price.
You would have to support an assertion like that around here. Please give us details of how your "500" beats (or equals) an Apple "1000" out of the box. Discuss things such as Pages, iMovie, Keynote, Numbers, iPhoto, iTunes, Garageband, which are all included with the Mac. Also please address the issue of viruses. Lastly, the appearance of the machine and the display; yeah, aesthetics. And how about having to decide which edition of Windows to install? How long do those machines last? I had a Mac that kept running for 25 years (bought it in the late 1980's, just retired it a few years ago); I will admit it was a 2200 dollar machine, but it was also available long before Windows was available.
And another very important element: learning curve. If you take two people who are beginners at computers, say, in their 50's, and try to teach them how to perform tasks with each machine, which comes out ahead? I know friends who went to computer schools several times a week for several months to learn Windows. I have personally trained people to do the same tasks with their Macs in under two days. The tasks: take photos and video, bring media into the computer, organise it, edit it, create a 4-page newsletter complete with images and charts and graphs, make a presentation that includes video and animation and a jingle of your own creation, along with recorded narration.
I love the "Windows boxes are cheaper" arguments. I especially love them when it comes to the Mac Pro, where many sites have determined the Mac is actually 10 to 20 percent cheaper than a comparable Windoze box, even before considering the form factor and size.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/181120/samsungs-latest-apple-targeting-ad-slams-battery-life-calls-iphone-users-wall-huggers/160#post_2559595" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>mistercow</strong> <a href="/t/181120/samsungs-latest-apple-targeting-ad-slams-battery-life-calls-iphone-users-wall-huggers/160#post_2559595"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />Performs the same functions as well as a Mac does if you want to be so technical,and for a cheaper price.</div></div><p> </p><p> </p><p>You would have to support an assertion like that around here. Please give us details of how your "500" beats (or equals) an Apple "1000" out of the box. Discuss things such as Pages, iMovie, Keynote, Numbers, iPhoto, iTunes, Garageband, which are all included with the Mac. Also please address the issue of viruses. Lastly, the appearance of the machine and the display; yeah, aesthetics. And how about having to decide which edition of Windows to install? How long do those machines last? I had a Mac that kept running for 25 years (bought it in the late 1980's, just retired it a few years ago); I will admit it was a 2200 dollar machine, but it was also available long before Windows was available.</p><p> </p><p>And another very important element: learning curve. If you take two people who are beginners at computers, say, in their 50's, and try to teach them how to perform tasks with each machine, which comes out ahead? I know friends who went to computer schools several times a week for several months to learn Windows. I have personally trained people to do the same tasks with their Macs in under two days. The tasks: take photos and video, bring media into the computer, organise it, edit it, create a 4-page newsletter complete with images and charts and graphs, make a presentation that includes video and animation and a jingle of your own creation, along with recorded narration.</p><p> </p><p>I love the "Windows boxes are cheaper" arguments. I especially love them when it comes to the Mac Pro, where many sites have determined the Mac is actually 10 to 20 percent cheaper than a comparable Windoze box, even before considering the form factor and size.</p><p> </p><p>http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173695-apples-new-overpriced-10000-mac-pro-is-2000-cheaper-than-the-equivalent-windows-pc</p>
It would be futile for anyone to write any amount if words here about how a 500 vs 1000 cost out of the box. As the audience have all ready decided that the Apple machine has won. No one is going to be persuaded and anyone attempting to do just that will be vilified as a troll.
The only thing I will say if a £500 machine fits your requirements it's a better buy than a £1000 machine regardless of who is the maker. Though if your scrimping on the cost and you need the better spec but choose the cheaper/lower spec then your a numpty and deserve everything you get.
You would have to support an assertion like that around here. Please give us details of how your "500" beats (or equals) an Apple "1000" out of the box. Discuss things such as Pages, iMovie, Keynote, Numbers, iPhoto, iTunes, Garageband, which are all included with the Mac. Also please address the issue of viruses. Lastly, the appearance of the machine and the display; yeah, aesthetics. And how about having to decide which edition of Windows to install? How long do those machines last? I had a Mac that kept running for 25 years (bought it in the late 1980's, just retired it a few years ago); I will admit it was a 2200 dollar machine, but it was also available long before Windows was available.
And another very important element: learning curve. If you take two people who are beginners at computers, say, in their 50's, and try to teach them how to perform tasks with each machine, which comes out ahead? I know friends who went to computer schools several times a week for several months to learn Windows. I have personally trained people to do the same tasks with their Macs in under two days. The tasks: take photos and video, bring media into the computer, organise it, edit it, create a 4-page newsletter complete with images and charts and graphs, make a presentation that includes video and animation and a jingle of your own creation, along with recorded narration.
I love the "Windows boxes are cheaper" arguments. I especially love them when it comes to the Mac Pro, where many sites have determined the Mac is actually 10 to 20 percent cheaper than a comparable Windoze box, even before considering the form factor and size.
Your arguments are irrelevant to data entry Windows nerds. They are all about MS Office by day and porn and video games by night.
Fascinating. I once had a Samsung Blackjack. Unlike any phone I ever had before, I found TWO batteries inside the box. Wow! a spare battery. How thoughtful. Within two days I found out why the box had two batteries and I created these rules for myself and my Blackjack:
1. Don't EVER leave the house without a fully charged spare battery.
2. Don't EVER leave the house without the wall charger so you can use it to charge up the first battery after replacing it at lunch with the spare.
That way I could almost always get all the way home and still have a working phone.
That phone is over 7 years old, battery conservation technology has changed a lot since then
I charge my iPhone 5S once every night and it lasts all day long, even after streaming music and watching videos. Once you know how to adjust the settings it's battery power is more than adequate for the average consumer. Once again Samsung is praying on the uneducated iPhone user.
The last bit of your post can be read in two ways, are you saying all iphone users are uneducated
PS - any idea what gives with the random code type line?
Spare battery! Yes, now if only I had a place to charge the dead battery while I'm using the fresh battery in the phone. Hmmm, ok I'll use the new battery until I get home and then I'll swap out the dead one when I go to bed to charge it. And then I'll have a half used battery for tomorrow and use it when the fully charged battery does and then I'll have two dead batteries tomorrow night. Oh heck I'll just set my alarm for 4am and swap batteries every other day. Problem solved! Thank god for power saving mode that tells me I'll get through the rest of the day by NOT USING MY PHONE.
You know, the dilemma you described is pretty silly as Samsung includes a separate charger when you purchase the extra battery. It's been this way for a while, I got one with my old Note 2's extra battery. Though you can purchase a battery without the charger, why bother as the price is the same.
You know, the dilemma you described is pretty silly as Samsung includes a separate charger when you purchase the extra battery. It's been this way for a while, I got one with my old Note 2's extra battery. Though you can purchase a battery without the charger, why bother as the price is the same.
[image]
The thing about swapping out batteries is that you have to turn off and reboot the phone. I'm not sure what happens when you power down an iPhone, if it is still using the battery in some capacity or not, but removing the battery from a device that has valuable data on it would make me a little nervous.
I forgot to plug in my phone last night and it had about 20% charge this morning. After about 15 minutes plugged in it was mostly charged back up, at least to the level where I would be able to make it through the day. The point is that if it charges so quickly, battery management is not so daunting of an issue in my opinion, especially on a routine day. Traveling is always a different situation. Then you need to be more conservative and attentive to conserving your battery. I always have a MBP and an iPad in addition to my iPhone when traveling so I can balance my usage among the various devices during the day.
That phone is over 7 years old, battery conservation technology has changed a lot since then
Thanks for writing. You may have missed my point. Allow me to respond:
1. If battery technology has progressed that much in 7 years, then a phone should last at least a month between charges.
2. The attitude toward paying customers has not changed. Samsung still ships spare batteries and makes their phones so that you must carry a spare charged battery to make it through the day.
My observation, from my own use, and reading the posts here, is that a fully charged iPhone will make it from wake up in the morning until bedtime at night on a single charge for most people. Likewise, from my own use (yes, 7 years ago), and reading posts here, a Samsung Smartphone acts just the way it did 7 years ago. And, for that matter, so does an iPhone. I purchased the very first iPhone model and I do not recall the need to carry the charger around all day. But, then, I like iPhones so much my memory may be a bit rosy tainted.
OK guys - let's be a bit more rational and objective please (didn't read all the comments posted, so sorry for those who already tried to bring "order" to the conversation...
If I do whatsapp or read Facebook at full brightness for 1 hour, my phone is dead in 3 hrs. Ok maybe 4. Regardless of brand. I.e.: oh my! my iPhone is crap! I am a wall hugger!
If I turn data off on my 5S and drive across the Alps for 8hrs with only BT active to make/receive calls handsfree and start with 100%, I arrive with 95% battery at destination, 640km/410mi, 3 countries, a couple of short calls, several hundreds of cell handovers and 3 mobile phone operators later. I.e.: Wow my iPhone works really great!
So that is the subjective way to judge one's mobile phone battery performance.
Let's see instead what all these phones really do, with which battery, in a standardised fashion and try to be objective.
Unfortunately they don't normalise the results by battery capacity. So it seems that the iPhone(s) are just quite average in performance, which they measure with a so-called "endurance rating". I assume they use the same procedure of testing (some phones are old), by checking Talk time, Web Browsing time and Video Playback - all operations that are closely related to the screen type, processor power efficiency, code efficiency and overall radio/baseband efficiency and implementation in hardware and software. These are all things that make a difference between a good *phone* and a bad one - not how many megapixels the camera has, or how many applications their respective store has - they are phones after all and connect to a network or a Wifi. And they need to be efficient in this basic, yet fundamental operation.
The top phone in the list, the Nokia Lumia 1520, with an "endurance rating" of 107h, has a (non removable!!!) battery of 3400mAh which is a bit more than twice the size (2.2x to be precise) of the iPhone 5S (1560mAH), standing at 54h. I.e. the Nokia is 2x long lasting with a 2x bigger battery, or otherwise said, the Nokia 1520 is as power efficient as Apple.
The infamous Galaxy S5, lands at 72h instead, so apparently better than the iPhone, but with a battery of 2800mAh, which is 1.8x bigger than the one of Apple. Stil they achieve only 1.3x more performance, not 1.8x. So the 5S (and the 1520) is therefore more power efficient than Samsung's top phone.
If we look at phones that achieve the same endurance rating of the iPhone 5S, say a Sony Xperia M, with 54h like the 5S, this phone has a 1750mAh battery. I haven't even looked at its specs, but it needs a bigger (12% bigger to be precise) battery to achieve the same rating of the 5S...
So, before everybody here start saying how often and where they need to charge their beloved phone, Apple, Samsung or what not, look at what your phone does with what battery inside it. And then let's talk. Let's see how power efficient they really are and what features they bring with it. And see if you can have a day (or more) by doing what you need to do. If you cannot, you need a different phone that is more efficient in what you need. In the end all can end up being wall huggers, with any phone.
I believe Apple does not need to brag about its phones' features, and battery life too much (and especially compare to others), because if you look in detail what they do, with what they have available, they are top class - like a Nokia is. And there are maybe other phones surely which are even more power efficient on those 3 main tasks - but I am sure there are a lot more that are way worse. Samsung S5 is one of them. The GSM Arena list should be normalised by battery capacity to find the top performer in those 3 tasks.
But people buy a phone, not a power efficiency spec and a battery capacity. But before saying that this or that phone is a battery drainer, let's look into the (internal) details please.
Clearly Samsung needs to compare, to sell. But maybe, they should start focus more on what they do and what customers really want.
BTW: I read a review of the S5 from ArsTechnica and I was sorry for Samsung's Marketing team reading it. The guy reviewing it is not pro-Apple from what I see, and does not even mention Apple phones at all (if I remember correctly). It gives quite a miserable review, of a flagship phone of a company struggling to come out with something really "revolutionary", when it is not, not even that evolutionary compared to its predecessor (that he mentions more than once).
I would sort the list from GSM Arena, and see in which category I am really interested and get the phone that does the best job, regardless of the internals and battery capacity. For example, for web browsing the Sony Experia C seems to be a champion with "just" a 2390mAh battery.
And who is the worst in endurance rating? the HTC Titan II with a mere 23h and a battery even bigger than the 5S (1730mAh non removable battery....!).
I think everybody should really look at how they use their phones and with what network coverage and ambient light conditions before bragging about having excellent or horrible battery lifetime.
It seems to me that Apple's iPhones are quite power efficient and deserve respect, considering also that they are relatively late on the phone market, compared to a Nokia, or a Ericsson (Sony) or Alcatel. Thank goodness they are not like Samsung (which has a similar experience in Smartphones - the first "smartphone", BTW, was an Ericsson back in 2000....).
One last thing - if you sort by manufacturer, you will see that Apple's phones have a similar rating from the 4S to the 5S (45h to 54h respectively). And all this with phones with way faster and more powerful processors, bigger screens with more pixels of better quality and brightness and thinner and lighter. Not to mention, the support of possibly power hungry network connections like LTE and 802.11n. And all this with essentially the same battery (1432mAh for the 4S to the 1560mAh of the 5S).
And that is what often people out there, including investors and banks, really don't get. It is damn difficult to achieve such progress in such a small space with limited resources like space and battery. That is the silent "revolution" that these phones achieve, *each year*...
I am really interested in seeing what Apple will deliver with the iPhone 6 - that will be likely another silent revolution, seen by most as an annoying "evolution".
Comments
I'm happy with my iPhone 5S battery life. But I've noticed it can vary greatly. I was at a show, taking credit cards with the cool Square App and Adapter and was consciously trying to preserve power. That is, I was only using my phone to take credit cards. No phone calls or texts or anything else. I started at 100% and 6 hours later, was down to about 10%.
I was surprised at the power suck though not sure what I was doing, exactly, to cause it. I imagine the ballroom location inside a hotel forced the radio to amp up to full power every time I turned the phone on, in an attempt to get a clear signal.
The way I use my phone typically results in a full day of usage and I charge it every night. I'd say that was fairly impressive.
"Samsung gets more and more disgusting and desperate everyday !"
"Samsung is just putting into practice their "Big Lie"."
Don't be ridiculous. Its called marketing and Apple have run this type of negative campaign exaggerating a perceived flaw in their competitors products many times - for example the PC/Mac ads?
If you're happy with the battery life that's fine, if not maybe the ad has a point and Apple could put a bigger battery in instead of chasing a pointless metric like 'thinness'.
Of course.
I only mentioned it because the other guy demanded proof
Performs the same functions as well as a Mac does if you want to be so technical,and for a cheaper price.
Most often those outlets at airports are all used up by people with their boat-anchor laptops made by God-Knows-Who.
http://cdn.gsmarena.com/pics/14/04/galaxy-s5-battery/gsmarena_002.jpg
http://cdn.gsmarena.com/pics/13/10/iphone-5s-battery-test/gsmarena_002.jpg
Those pictures of the samsung charging stations in airports are hilarious after watching their ad!"
There shouldn't be any need for these then Samsung:
I wonder where the Apple charging stations are. This seems like another bout of insecurity from Samsung. Their S5 has flopped, they have no inspiration for future designs. Expect more cheap shots as they head downhill.
They did this with previous ads suggesting the iPhone was for older people and stats don't back that up either. When does it become libellous?
LOL That's a good one.
I guess these are not paid actors but real samsung users.
I'm surprised they didn't capitalize on the people who were electrocuted (by non-Apple chargers/cables).
because the chargers were probably made with samescum parts
Performs the same functions as well as a Mac does if you want to be so technical,and for a cheaper price.
You would have to support an assertion like that around here. Please give us details of how your "500" beats (or equals) an Apple "1000" out of the box. Discuss things such as Pages, iMovie, Keynote, Numbers, iPhoto, iTunes, Garageband, which are all included with the Mac. Also please address the issue of viruses. Lastly, the appearance of the machine and the display; yeah, aesthetics. And how about having to decide which edition of Windows to install? How long do those machines last? I had a Mac that kept running for 25 years (bought it in the late 1980's, just retired it a few years ago); I will admit it was a 2200 dollar machine, but it was also available long before Windows was available.
And another very important element: learning curve. If you take two people who are beginners at computers, say, in their 50's, and try to teach them how to perform tasks with each machine, which comes out ahead? I know friends who went to computer schools several times a week for several months to learn Windows. I have personally trained people to do the same tasks with their Macs in under two days. The tasks: take photos and video, bring media into the computer, organise it, edit it, create a 4-page newsletter complete with images and charts and graphs, make a presentation that includes video and animation and a jingle of your own creation, along with recorded narration.
I love the "Windows boxes are cheaper" arguments. I especially love them when it comes to the Mac Pro, where many sites have determined the Mac is actually 10 to 20 percent cheaper than a comparable Windoze box, even before considering the form factor and size.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173695-apples-new-overpriced-10000-mac-pro-is-2000-cheaper-than-the-equivalent-windows-pc
The only thing I will say if a £500 machine fits your requirements it's a better buy than a £1000 machine regardless of who is the maker. Though if your scrimping on the cost and you need the better spec but choose the cheaper/lower spec then your a numpty and deserve everything you get.
You would have to support an assertion like that around here. Please give us details of how your "500" beats (or equals) an Apple "1000" out of the box. Discuss things such as Pages, iMovie, Keynote, Numbers, iPhoto, iTunes, Garageband, which are all included with the Mac. Also please address the issue of viruses. Lastly, the appearance of the machine and the display; yeah, aesthetics. And how about having to decide which edition of Windows to install? How long do those machines last? I had a Mac that kept running for 25 years (bought it in the late 1980's, just retired it a few years ago); I will admit it was a 2200 dollar machine, but it was also available long before Windows was available.
And another very important element: learning curve. If you take two people who are beginners at computers, say, in their 50's, and try to teach them how to perform tasks with each machine, which comes out ahead? I know friends who went to computer schools several times a week for several months to learn Windows. I have personally trained people to do the same tasks with their Macs in under two days. The tasks: take photos and video, bring media into the computer, organise it, edit it, create a 4-page newsletter complete with images and charts and graphs, make a presentation that includes video and animation and a jingle of your own creation, along with recorded narration.
I love the "Windows boxes are cheaper" arguments. I especially love them when it comes to the Mac Pro, where many sites have determined the Mac is actually 10 to 20 percent cheaper than a comparable Windoze box, even before considering the form factor and size.
Your arguments are irrelevant to data entry Windows nerds. They are all about MS Office by day and porn and video games by night.
Fascinating. I once had a Samsung Blackjack. Unlike any phone I ever had before, I found TWO batteries inside the box. Wow! a spare battery. How thoughtful. Within two days I found out why the box had two batteries and I created these rules for myself and my Blackjack:
1. Don't EVER leave the house without a fully charged spare battery.
2. Don't EVER leave the house without the wall charger so you can use it to charge up the first battery after replacing it at lunch with the spare.
That way I could almost always get all the way home and still have a working phone.
That phone is over 7 years old, battery conservation technology has changed a lot since then
I charge my iPhone 5S once every night and it lasts all day long, even after streaming music and watching videos. Once you know how to adjust the settings it's battery power is more than adequate for the average consumer. Once again Samsung is praying on the uneducated iPhone user.
The last bit of your post can be read in two ways, are you saying all iphone users are uneducatedPS - any idea what gives with the random code type line?
Spare battery! Yes, now if only I had a place to charge the dead battery while I'm using the fresh battery in the phone. Hmmm, ok I'll use the new battery until I get home and then I'll swap out the dead one when I go to bed to charge it. And then I'll have a half used battery for tomorrow and use it when the fully charged battery does and then I'll have two dead batteries tomorrow night. Oh heck I'll just set my alarm for 4am and swap batteries every other day. Problem solved! Thank god for power saving mode that tells me I'll get through the rest of the day by NOT USING MY PHONE.
You know, the dilemma you described is pretty silly as Samsung includes a separate charger when you purchase the extra battery. It's been this way for a while, I got one with my old Note 2's extra battery. Though you can purchase a battery without the charger, why bother as the price is the same.
[image]
The thing about swapping out batteries is that you have to turn off and reboot the phone. I'm not sure what happens when you power down an iPhone, if it is still using the battery in some capacity or not, but removing the battery from a device that has valuable data on it would make me a little nervous.
I forgot to plug in my phone last night and it had about 20% charge this morning. After about 15 minutes plugged in it was mostly charged back up, at least to the level where I would be able to make it through the day. The point is that if it charges so quickly, battery management is not so daunting of an issue in my opinion, especially on a routine day. Traveling is always a different situation. Then you need to be more conservative and attentive to conserving your battery. I always have a MBP and an iPad in addition to my iPhone when traveling so I can balance my usage among the various devices during the day.
That phone is over 7 years old, battery conservation technology has changed a lot since then
Thanks for writing. You may have missed my point. Allow me to respond:
1. If battery technology has progressed that much in 7 years, then a phone should last at least a month between charges.
2. The attitude toward paying customers has not changed. Samsung still ships spare batteries and makes their phones so that you must carry a spare charged battery to make it through the day.
My observation, from my own use, and reading the posts here, is that a fully charged iPhone will make it from wake up in the morning until bedtime at night on a single charge for most people. Likewise, from my own use (yes, 7 years ago), and reading posts here, a Samsung Smartphone acts just the way it did 7 years ago. And, for that matter, so does an iPhone. I purchased the very first iPhone model and I do not recall the need to carry the charger around all day. But, then, I like iPhones so much my memory may be a bit rosy tainted.
OK guys - let's be a bit more rational and objective please (didn't read all the comments posted, so sorry for those who already tried to bring "order" to the conversation...
If I do whatsapp or read Facebook at full brightness for 1 hour, my phone is dead in 3 hrs. Ok maybe 4. Regardless of brand. I.e.: oh my! my iPhone is crap! I am a wall hugger!
If I turn data off on my 5S and drive across the Alps for 8hrs with only BT active to make/receive calls handsfree and start with 100%, I arrive with 95% battery at destination, 640km/410mi, 3 countries, a couple of short calls, several hundreds of cell handovers and 3 mobile phone operators later. I.e.: Wow my iPhone works really great!
So that is the subjective way to judge one's mobile phone battery performance.
Let's see instead what all these phones really do, with which battery, in a standardised fashion and try to be objective.
GSM Arena does a series of "standardised" tests you can find here (http://www.gsmarena.com/battery-test.php3)
Unfortunately they don't normalise the results by battery capacity. So it seems that the iPhone(s) are just quite average in performance, which they measure with a so-called "endurance rating". I assume they use the same procedure of testing (some phones are old), by checking Talk time, Web Browsing time and Video Playback - all operations that are closely related to the screen type, processor power efficiency, code efficiency and overall radio/baseband efficiency and implementation in hardware and software. These are all things that make a difference between a good *phone* and a bad one - not how many megapixels the camera has, or how many applications their respective store has - they are phones after all and connect to a network or a Wifi. And they need to be efficient in this basic, yet fundamental operation.
The top phone in the list, the Nokia Lumia 1520, with an "endurance rating" of 107h, has a (non removable!!!) battery of 3400mAh which is a bit more than twice the size (2.2x to be precise) of the iPhone 5S (1560mAH), standing at 54h. I.e. the Nokia is 2x long lasting with a 2x bigger battery, or otherwise said, the Nokia 1520 is as power efficient as Apple.
The infamous Galaxy S5, lands at 72h instead, so apparently better than the iPhone, but with a battery of 2800mAh, which is 1.8x bigger than the one of Apple. Stil they achieve only 1.3x more performance, not 1.8x. So the 5S (and the 1520) is therefore more power efficient than Samsung's top phone.
If we look at phones that achieve the same endurance rating of the iPhone 5S, say a Sony Xperia M, with 54h like the 5S, this phone has a 1750mAh battery. I haven't even looked at its specs, but it needs a bigger (12% bigger to be precise) battery to achieve the same rating of the 5S...
So, before everybody here start saying how often and where they need to charge their beloved phone, Apple, Samsung or what not, look at what your phone does with what battery inside it. And then let's talk. Let's see how power efficient they really are and what features they bring with it. And see if you can have a day (or more) by doing what you need to do. If you cannot, you need a different phone that is more efficient in what you need. In the end all can end up being wall huggers, with any phone.
I believe Apple does not need to brag about its phones' features, and battery life too much (and especially compare to others), because if you look in detail what they do, with what they have available, they are top class - like a Nokia is. And there are maybe other phones surely which are even more power efficient on those 3 main tasks - but I am sure there are a lot more that are way worse. Samsung S5 is one of them. The GSM Arena list should be normalised by battery capacity to find the top performer in those 3 tasks.
But people buy a phone, not a power efficiency spec and a battery capacity. But before saying that this or that phone is a battery drainer, let's look into the (internal) details please.
Clearly Samsung needs to compare, to sell. But maybe, they should start focus more on what they do and what customers really want.
BTW: I read a review of the S5 from ArsTechnica and I was sorry for Samsung's Marketing team reading it. The guy reviewing it is not pro-Apple from what I see, and does not even mention Apple phones at all (if I remember correctly). It gives quite a miserable review, of a flagship phone of a company struggling to come out with something really "revolutionary", when it is not, not even that evolutionary compared to its predecessor (that he mentions more than once).
I would sort the list from GSM Arena, and see in which category I am really interested and get the phone that does the best job, regardless of the internals and battery capacity. For example, for web browsing the Sony Experia C seems to be a champion with "just" a 2390mAh battery.
And who is the worst in endurance rating? the HTC Titan II with a mere 23h and a battery even bigger than the 5S (1730mAh non removable battery....!).
I think everybody should really look at how they use their phones and with what network coverage and ambient light conditions before bragging about having excellent or horrible battery lifetime.
It seems to me that Apple's iPhones are quite power efficient and deserve respect, considering also that they are relatively late on the phone market, compared to a Nokia, or a Ericsson (Sony) or Alcatel. Thank goodness they are not like Samsung (which has a similar experience in Smartphones - the first "smartphone", BTW, was an Ericsson back in 2000....).
One last thing - if you sort by manufacturer, you will see that Apple's phones have a similar rating from the 4S to the 5S (45h to 54h respectively). And all this with phones with way faster and more powerful processors, bigger screens with more pixels of better quality and brightness and thinner and lighter. Not to mention, the support of possibly power hungry network connections like LTE and 802.11n. And all this with essentially the same battery (1432mAh for the 4S to the 1560mAh of the 5S).
And that is what often people out there, including investors and banks, really don't get. It is damn difficult to achieve such progress in such a small space with limited resources like space and battery. That is the silent "revolution" that these phones achieve, *each year*...
I am really interested in seeing what Apple will deliver with the iPhone 6 - that will be likely another silent revolution, seen by most as an annoying "evolution".