[HN Gopher] Video streaming battery life improved from 12h (12 P...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Video streaming battery life improved from 12h (12 Pro Max) to 25h
       (13 Pro Max)
        
       Author : retskrad
       Score  : 119 points
       Date   : 2021-09-16 17:54 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
        
       | sairahul82 wrote:
       | It may be a combination of things like dynamic refresh rate +
       | more battery + modem improvements + h/w decoder improvement. Its
       | impressive overall.
        
       | threshold wrote:
       | I'm sorry but who watches video on a 6 inch phone today?
        
         | runT1ME wrote:
         | When I would commute from Orange County so Santa Clara the
         | flight was often ~40 minutes. Combine with takeoff and landing
         | it didn't make a lot of sense to pull out an addition device
         | but it was easy enough to watch a short TV show on my phone.
        
         | KVFinn wrote:
         | My phone's OLED HDR screen (S21 Ultra) completely blows away my
         | TV screen. Lying on the couch with the phone right up against
         | my face is actually the closest thing to a cinematic experience
         | I get.
         | 
         | Honestly it's almost better. The black levels in real cinemas
         | are terrible.
        
         | dmart wrote:
         | I mean, TikTok is currently the most popular social media app
         | in the world...
        
           | threshold wrote:
           | I don't think that's the type of streaming video they
           | optimized the IP on the SoC for. It's clever, but not really
           | useful. And who does it help exactly? Because the implication
           | if you're reduced to watching on a small screen is that
           | you're mobile, and on 5G. So the addicted user is now paying
           | big $ for high speed data. Like giving a gambler a new line
           | of credit.
        
             | spiderice wrote:
             | The real question is, who interprets "You can stream 20
             | hours of video on one iPhone charge" as "you should watch
             | 20 hours of video on one iPhone charge". The metric is
             | clearly about battery life, not watching video.
             | 
             | Also,
             | 
             | > who watches video on a 6 inch phone today
             | 
             | Millions of people
        
         | asdff wrote:
         | People riding the bus or on their lunch break
        
         | jedberg wrote:
         | People with kids. I probably watch an equal amount of video on
         | my phone and my 80in+ TV.
        
           | threshold wrote:
           | I don't understand how you came to that compromise.
        
             | mplewis wrote:
             | Sometimes you want to watch video, but you don't want to
             | lug an 80-inch TV into your room.
        
             | jedberg wrote:
             | When I'm watching the kids or doing chores I am often
             | watching some "background noise" TV at the same time. If
             | I'm not at home, the phone is the obvious choice. If I am
             | at home, I'm often moving from room to room and it's a lot
             | easier to just take the phone with me than constantly
             | switch devices. And when I'm laying in bed at night feeling
             | lazy, I just watch on my phone instead of moving out to the
             | couch in the living room (sometimes, and sometimes I say in
             | the living room and enjoy my big TV).
        
               | ed_elliott_asc wrote:
               | I watch more on my phone than on tv - sitting on a train,
               | in bed at night etc
        
         | hbn wrote:
         | Most young people
        
           | threshold wrote:
           | No
        
             | moooo99 wrote:
             | Uhmm, yes?
             | 
             | Mobile is the main format for content consumption on
             | YouTube, Instagram and YouTube, all platforms which are
             | predominantly used by young(er) audiences.
             | 
             | I barely ever watch YouTube (for entertainment purposes) on
             | my notebook or desktop, but primarily on my phone. Many of
             | my friends don't even own a TV or a monitor setup.
        
         | Order wrote:
         | I would wager the majority of the world's population consumes
         | most of their video content on a mobile device.
        
         | abc_lisper wrote:
         | Most people outside US use public transportation. It is good
         | way to kill time on commute. This is why bigger screens became
         | hugely popular over time. Even in US, the subways are full of
         | people looking at their phones with earbuds
        
         | r0m4n0 wrote:
         | Me on an airplane! Spent maybe 12 hours on my phone last
         | weekend flying across the country and back. Some planes still
         | don't have chargers so this will be awesome
        
         | bborud wrote:
         | My wife at this very moment. In a room that has a high quality
         | 65" display one the wall.
        
           | jedberg wrote:
           | Hah good point! My wife will often watch on her phone or iPad
           | while sitting in from of a large screen that is off. When I
           | ask her why, she says it's just easier to use the device and
           | then if she has to get up she can just take it with her
           | without switching devices.
        
       | nicoburns wrote:
       | 25h (pro max) or 20h (pro) streamed video playback is extremely
       | impressive, as that means both screen and some kind of wireless
       | data connection must be enabled, and those are usually the most
       | power hungry components. I'm guessing this is at low display
       | brightness, but still...
        
       | gordon_freeman wrote:
       | In general, I moved from Android to iPhone a couple of years ago
       | and must say the battery on iPhone lasts so long compared to my
       | old Android phone that there's no comparison really. Apple's work
       | on iPhone battery management is impressive!
        
         | megablast wrote:
         | Sure, but there are a 1000 android phones, some that cost $20.
        
         | masonjson wrote:
         | I don't want to question wether Apple's work on battery
         | management is better than Google's, but want to outline the
         | meta of such statements. In general, I don't think it's good to
         | compare a new bought device with the device you are replacing,
         | since the old device is probably a couple of years old. So the
         | specs of the old one must be worse than the specs of the new
         | one. Another example would be Tesla buyers who are replacing
         | their old car and comparing the new car to their old.
        
           | mulderc wrote:
           | I had a similar experience and what it seems like is that
           | Apple devices have pretty amazing standby time as compared to
           | most android devices I have used. This has probably gotten
           | better over the years but when I got my first iPhone it
           | seemed like the battery didn't budge at all if it was in
           | standby, such as leaving it unplugged overnight. I never had
           | the experience with an android device.
        
             | ASalazarMX wrote:
             | > when I got my first iPhone it seemed like the battery
             | didn't budge at all if it was in standby, such as leaving
             | it unplugged overnight
             | 
             | Apple has very stringent limits on how long apps can run in
             | the background, while Android is more lenient. That is
             | great for battery life and privacy, but not giving the user
             | a way to whitelist apps from these optimizations means apps
             | like SyncThing (which only exists for Android) or WhatsApp
             | Web are harder to develop.
        
           | usui wrote:
           | This is a little presumptuous or possibly a misunderstanding
           | of the parent's comment mentioning "old Android phone". It's
           | entirely possible that the person did a lateral generational
           | phone switch, but you've assumed that they upgraded to a
           | newer phone.
           | 
           | I love older generation phones because they're so cheap and
           | your car comparison is perfect because buying a phone new IMO
           | is one of the worst financial decisions you can make unless
           | it has functionality you really need. Phone value drops
           | sharply after the first 1-2 years and so I have a lot of fun
           | buying last generation's phones (Android and iPhone) and
           | comparing them to each other. Holding off on the newest
           | phones really shows me how imaginary the price of an absolute
           | brand new phone is.
        
             | tommymachine wrote:
             | It's not really an imaginary price. Many people rely on
             | their phones more than anything else they own, and many are
             | willing to pay more to have the latest advancements on that
             | frequently used device. The price difference is nominally
             | much smaller than say a new car vs a used one, and arguably
             | offers more of an improvement to their lifestyles.
        
             | turtlebits wrote:
             | iPhone resale value is very good. Many carriers also give
             | you significant discounts on new phones.
             | 
             | I got two iPhone 12's for free + free line and did not sign
             | a contract.
        
             | vmception wrote:
             | eh, I have the 12 pro, 256gb. did not see much in the 13
             | pro that was interesting and most improvements will come
             | with iOS 15 but between my ~$700 trade in value and
             | subsidizing the rest of the device with some accrued points
             | from my credit card company, might as well. I definitely
             | have wanted the portrait video mode, since apps have been
             | doing it for a very long time, Instagram at one point had
             | the focus filter that did that.
             | 
             | from my experience, buying the expensive electronic ONCE
             | gives a lot of benefits and choices, because the future
             | purchases aren't that expensive.
             | 
             | sure, I'm still likely paying more than the person that
             | brags about how they wouldn't imagine spending even $200 on
             | a phone, so there is no real need to have that conversation
             | and spreadsheet analysis
             | 
             | but between starting with up to date technology, instead of
             | starting with 3-6 year old technology, and having a store
             | of value, versus a decrepit paperweight, I'm into keeping
             | my mobile devices refreshed. Specifically my iphone.
        
             | gordon_freeman wrote:
             | Talking about how expensive the phones have become lately,
             | the max out specs on new iPhone 13 Pro Max costs $1,600 and
             | if you add taxes it would be $1,760!
        
         | etaioinshrdlu wrote:
         | I switched from Pixel 3 XL to iPhone 11 Pro and the battery
         | life was way worse on iPhone. It's about half as good as the
         | Pixel was.
        
         | mkl wrote:
         | I've never had an iPhone, but I could say the same thing about
         | my old and current Android phones. I had a Galaxy Note 4 for a
         | few years, the last Note with a replaceable battery, and I had
         | spare batteries that I occasionally swapped in. When I upgraded
         | to a Note 20 I thought "oh no I can't swap batteries" and
         | bought a power bank along with it. I've never needed it, even
         | when travelling. At the end of each day I usually have mid 80s
         | percent battery left. The battery's only slightly bigger, but
         | the power management is way better.
        
       | spuz wrote:
       | There is a big difference between the local video playback and
       | the streamed video playback on the older model. The new model
       | seems to bring the two in line.                   iPhone 12 Pro
       | Max Video Playback: 20         iPhone 12 Pro Max Video Playback
       | (streamed): 12         iPhone 13 Pro Max Video Playback: 28
       | iPhone 13 Pro Max Video Playback (streamed): 25
       | 
       | As far as I know, the new models are slightly thicker and have a
       | higher capacity battery which would explain the increase from 20
       | to 28. However, I can't explain why streamed video playback has
       | more than doubled. Perhaps they simply fixed a bug?
        
         | me_me_me wrote:
         | Or maybe it was a random hardcoded performance target.
         | 
         | Next version improve it artificially by x% by simply changing
         | the hardcoded var. And boast you device is so much better
         | 
         | It might sound like a tinfoil comment but apple was already
         | caught underclocking older devices 'for the good of users'
        
           | KoftaBob wrote:
           | There's a big difference between under-clocking phones with
           | older batteries to prevent random shutoff, and what you're
           | claiming.
        
             | azinman2 wrote:
             | And this is exactly where I feel HN had really gone
             | downhill. The quality of the comments keeps decreasing.
             | There's plenty of technical information out there on the
             | underclocking to prevent reboot issue, and years ago I
             | would have expected this audience to be well versed in it
             | before commenting.
             | 
             | All good things just come to an end, I suppose. The
             | question is where to go instead?
        
               | daveilers wrote:
               | I find that https://lobste.rs has similar technical
               | stories I enjoy.
               | 
               | Their account/comment system (a tree of trust based who
               | invited whom to the site) does a good job of limiting
               | drive-by negativity and other unpleasantries.
               | 
               | I don't have an account there yet due to being shy and
               | not knowing many techy persons IRL I might get an invite
               | from. (If anyone wants to invite me I'd appreciate it)
        
               | adar wrote:
               | The comment was quickly flagged by other users and is now
               | dead. I'm not sure the hysteria is warranted, you're
               | never going to find a public site where nobody ever posts
               | anything dumb.
        
         | dougmwne wrote:
         | I think it is about half due to variable refresh rate and less
         | than half due to hardware efficiency improvements, and maybe
         | 10% due to a larger battery. The 12 and 12 Pro got 11 hours of
         | streaming playback, the 13 gets 15 hours with it's larger
         | battery and more efficient hardware, while the 13 Pro gets 20
         | hours with it's variable refresh rate.
         | 
         | It appears that the battery on the 13 and 13 Pro are close in
         | size since they both get 75 hours of music playback. The
         | battery is slightly larger on the 13 than the 12 which got 65
         | hours of music. (I assume hardware efficiency would have very
         | little effect on AAC decoding at this point, there couldn't
         | have been much left to optimize.)
         | 
         | So all in all, looks like variable refresh will be a
         | potentially very impressive feature, both for smoother UI and
         | better battery life.
        
           | BugsJustFindMe wrote:
           | > _So all in all, looks like variable refresh will be a
           | potentially very impressive feature, both for smoother UI and
           | better battery life._
           | 
           | And I think coming soon to macOS Monterey too. If we thought
           | the M1 MBPs had impressive battery life at launch...
        
             | cr__ wrote:
             | I think you're thinking of "adaptive sync", which is more
             | of a gaming thing and only works when the app is
             | fullscreened.
        
               | BugsJustFindMe wrote:
               | > _I think you're thinking of "adaptive sync"_
               | 
               | Adaptive sync and variable refresh rate are the same
               | thing.
               | 
               | > _only works when the app is fullscreened_
               | 
               | Video of the monterey beta shows it works without being
               | fullscreened. https://www.reddit.com/r/macgaming/comments
               | /o1954n/adaptive_...
               | 
               | I don't know to what extent the display itself needs to
               | be different, but hopefully Apple planned ahead.
        
           | andy_ppp wrote:
           | We can roughly calculate the expected improvement based on
           | "non-streaming" factors (8h extra/28h*25h=7.14h of expected
           | improvements that include things like screen refresh rate,
           | decoding and better battery) so therefore 25h new streaming
           | video, minus 12h previous streaming battery, minus 7h
           | expected improvement leaves about 5 hours of streaming
           | performance improvements (WiFi/Network/bug fixes/???). Seems
           | like a lot.
        
         | xnx wrote:
         | Aggressive pre-caching so the wireless modem isn't turned-on as
         | long?
        
         | spoonjim wrote:
         | The variable refresh rate is what enables the huge battery life
         | improvement. The iPhone 12 has to update its screen 60 times
         | per second, even though movies are shot at 24 frames per
         | second. That means it's showing you the same frame 2 or 3
         | times, but initiating an entire redraw operation to do so.
         | 
         | The new screen can just leave the image up for 1/24th of a
         | second and then draw the next frame.
        
           | rektide wrote:
           | the numbers shown compare video, streamed, versus video
           | downloaded. this is specifically an improvement on video
           | streaming. i don't see where this theory that variable
           | refresh rate would make a difference would come from.
           | 
           | there may be variable refresh rate differences! i just don't
           | think that's what this comparison is highlighting.
        
             | BugsJustFindMe wrote:
             | > _i don 't see where this theory that variable refresh
             | rate would make a difference would come from_
             | 
             | People are comparing between the 13 and 13 Pro which get
             | the same battery life for audio playback. There are very
             | few other stated differences between them.
        
         | LolWolf wrote:
         | Maybe a hw decoder? (These already exist, but I mean, really
         | tightly integrated with the browser.) Or some other offloading
         | to hardware?
         | 
         | That would be my best guess
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | Matthias247 wrote:
           | Sure they have hw decoders. But they are used in all cases,
           | and get fed the same input. Either some software optimization
           | how network is used or a different modem (potentially doing
           | also more TCP offload stuff) seems more likely.
        
           | bydo wrote:
           | I would think the newer 5G modem would help, too.
        
             | Steko wrote:
             | I'd have thought the streaming test is done over wi-fi.
             | Maybe the Targeted Wake Time in WiFi 6 combined with higher
             | bandwidth can account for the difference.
        
             | nicce wrote:
             | Maybe. 5G still uses more power than 4G over long duration,
             | if both are enough for streaming. 5G power usage benefits
             | come when you download something, and it simply takes less
             | time.
        
               | rodiger wrote:
               | Maybe that means it spends less time buffering so smaller
               | total power footprint?
        
               | stouset wrote:
               | Can't you achieve the same results then by pretending
               | that one long stream is just a bunch of independent
               | chunks and download them separately in bursts? No need to
               | trickle it the entire time.
        
               | KptMarchewa wrote:
               | Afaik that's how video streaming works. You can text it
               | in YouTube and look at buffer length for example.
        
               | bch wrote:
               | Edit: my objection is incorrect. We're in fact saying the
               | same thing. I misread a previous post :/
               | 
               | Not if the broadcast is (eg) HLS[0], so I think the
               | proper answer is: "it depends."
               | 
               | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming?wpr
               | ov=sfti...
        
               | bjustin wrote:
               | I am surprised to see someone saying HLS wouldn't work
               | this way. I'm not up to speed on the latest in HLS, but
               | when I used it circa ten years ago, HLS worked by
               | providing parts of a stream as individual video files, so
               | I'd expect this is more true for HLS than a single-file-
               | as-a-stream, not less. Videos were divided into fixed-
               | length files, e.g. 10 seconds each. The playlist file
               | saying what video files to use could list all of the file
               | names up front for every provided quality level.
        
               | bch wrote:
               | Indeed you're right (and this was my understanding too) -
               | I misread what a previous commenter was intending. I
               | thought they were saying most broadcasts are 1-piece
               | blobs, thus good for 5G bursting. My experience w HLS is
               | indeed some small-number-of-seconds frames at a time. I
               | guess I'm not sure here whether 5G is more battery-
               | efficient or not. "Fast-enough" is all that's required,
               | so I guess it's just the calculus of energy/bytes and how
               | long the radio can sleep between segments. Seems very
               | circumstantial to me...
        
               | 0x0 wrote:
               | If you're watching a live stream, there won't be all that
               | many seconds you can buffer.
        
           | cromka wrote:
           | They did say during the conference that the new chip had a
           | new video encoder/decider, so that sounds plausible.
        
             | judge2020 wrote:
             | Maybe just more efficient since the A14 already had AV1 and
             | HEVC support.
             | 
             | https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/igpu-apple_a14-180
        
               | cornstalks wrote:
               | > the A14 already had AV1
               | 
               | Uh, I'm gonna need to see a reputable citation for that
               | claim.
        
         | slownews45 wrote:
         | They highlighted dynamic refresh rate on screen. So screen can
         | run at 30FPS (half of normal speed) if you are streaming 30FPS
         | content (which many folks do). Or even 24FPS (which now won't
         | need to be converted - nice!).
        
           | gpt5 wrote:
           | None of these factors explain why they closed the large gap
           | between offline and online video playback
        
         | tommymachine wrote:
         | 1/4 of a millimeter increased thickness isn't exactly a ton of
         | space for battery expansion. Comes to a bit less than 3.1 cm^3
         | (less due to corners which are "safe for kids").
        
         | Kognito wrote:
         | Perhaps they're assuming a cinematic frame rate of 24fps for
         | streaming video and matching the refresh rate to that versus
         | whatever refresh rate an iPhone 12 Pro has - guessing 60hz?
         | 
         | Still seems a big increase but maybe the combination of the
         | variable refresh display, larger battery and refined 5nm node
         | (TSMC 5NP) all add up to something substantial?
         | 
         | I was wondering if this was also factoring 5G in given last
         | year's 5G modems were noted as particularly power hungry. I'm
         | guessing Apple is testing on WiFi though.
        
           | judge2020 wrote:
           | 5g modems are still power-hungry which is why iPhone will
           | still default to '5G Auto' which uses LTE most of the time,
           | and switches to 5g for data-hungry tasks.
        
         | cromka wrote:
         | The 8h difference would be rather attributed to the dynamic
         | refresh rate.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | maeln wrote:
       | Those numbers are meaningless if we don't have the benchmark
       | specification. And Apple really love to throw numbers like this
       | with no context (but hey, it work, so why stop).
        
         | razh wrote:
         | There's more detail in the iPhone battery information page.
         | 
         |  _Testing conducted by Apple in August 2021 using preproduction
         | iPhone 13 mini, iPhone 13, iPhone 13 Pro, and iPhone 13 Pro Max
         | units and software, subscribed to LTE and 5G carrier networks.
         | Video playback consisted of a repeated 2-hour 23-minute movie
         | purchased from the iTunes Store, tested with stereo audio
         | output. Video playback (streamed) consisted of a repeated
         | 3-hour 1-minute HDR movie purchased from the iTunes Store,
         | tested with stereo audio output. All settings were default
         | except: Bluetooth was paired with headphones; Wi-Fi was
         | associated with a network; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join
         | Networks, Auto-Brightness, and True Tone were turned off._
         | 
         | https://www.apple.com/iphone/battery.html#:~:text=Video%20Pl...
        
         | pb7 wrote:
         | Year after year, real world tests show that Apple's battery
         | estimates err on the conservative side. Enough that we should
         | stop seeing comments like this and yet here we are.
         | 
         | What _is_ meaningless is raw specs on their own. Your massive
         | phone battery is useless if you're using it to power a 1000W
         | space heater.
        
       | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
       | This is a huge qualitative difference beyond just the numbers.
       | 
       | With a battery life that is longer than 24 hours, I can just have
       | a single charger at home, and go through the entire day without
       | worrying about charging.
       | 
       | It basically removes battery level from the things you have to be
       | thinking about as you go about your day.
        
         | SketchySeaBeast wrote:
         | I would hope that your new phone lasts more than 24 hours
         | regardless. I also may not be terribly with it, but I'd also
         | hope that no one is trying to stream video 12+ hours a day.
        
           | nomel wrote:
           | I was surprised to see some of my younger relatives using
           | Youtube as their free music streaming service. You can find
           | almost any song, with static images in the video. They listen
           | with their phone in their pocket, while streaming regular
           | YouTube. One of them had an android phone that let you
           | disable the touchscreen with a switch, along with some way to
           | turn off the screen.
           | 
           | I have to admit I do the same sometimes with podcasts on
           | YouTube.
        
             | WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
             | YoutubeVanced allowed this. You could disable the video
             | stream and just stream the music.
        
             | zerocrates wrote:
             | I seem to remember that Youtube also has "keep playing
             | audio when you turn the screen off" as a premium feature
             | for their subscription?
        
               | masonjson wrote:
               | Yeah, or just download YouTube Vanced and have this
               | feature + downloading
        
               | noptd wrote:
               | They sure do.
               | 
               | For anyone interested, NewPipe and Youtube Vanced are
               | solid alternatives that allow you turn the screen off
               | during playback without a monthly charge.
        
       | warrenm wrote:
       | This is up there with the insane battery life of the M1-based
       | MBPs
       | 
       | There's no reason to carry a charger from the time you wake up
       | until you go to bed ... unless you're doing something _very_
       | "heavy"
        
         | treesknees wrote:
         | I'll be carrying my charger with me. These numbers are great on
         | paper, and sure they can reflect the overall trend of higher
         | battery life, but are not examples of real world results.
         | 
         | I wouldn't be surprised if these results are on airplane mode
         | with the brightness locked to the lowest setting and the volume
         | off with no Bluetooth accessories. The title says "video
         | streaming battery life" however the website actually says
         | "video playback."
         | 
         | If I'm navigating with Apple Maps, which is using GPS (and
         | other sensors depending on your transportation mode), along
         | with a higher screen brightness so I can see in the daylight,
         | I'm not going to get anywhere near 28 hours. And I wouldn't
         | call that a _very_ "heavy" use case.
        
           | warrenm wrote:
           | I've been running my M1-based MBP since April
           | 
           | I've been able to use it for well over a full work day (on
           | the order of 12+ hours) before dropping to 30% battery (from
           | a full charge)
           | 
           | And that includes 8+ hours of using VDI, streaming video from
           | YouTube, random other web browsing, etc
           | 
           | My iPhone 11 (if I'm not running some poorly-optimized games)
           | will run for over 14 hours between charges of "constant" use
           | (streaming audio (podcasts and Pandora), YouTube, email,
           | facebook, etc)
           | 
           | I'd find it _exceptionally hard to believe_ that the two-
           | generations-newer, more-efficient (and powerful) A15 + larger
           | battery is _not_ going to be more performant and long-lasting
           | between charges
        
           | asdff wrote:
           | Yeah I think in terms of battery health you don't want to be
           | doing that either, starting the day full and having it
           | discharge all day until its mostly tapped by the end. I had a
           | 2020 intel macbook and while it wasnt the 24 hours the m1s
           | get, apple claimed it was good for 12 hours so I decided it
           | would be fine to use for my 8 hour workday without a charger.
           | 
           | After a year and like 230 battery cycles of doing that, the
           | battery was down 15% capacity and I was reaching for the
           | charger by the end of the day. I feel like if I had just kept
           | it plugged in instead of discharging it so much each day, I
           | wouldn't have lost so much capacity in so little time.
        
           | mcbutterbunz wrote:
           | From another comment:
           | 
           | Testing conducted by Apple in August 2021 using preproduction
           | iPhone 13 mini, iPhone 13, iPhone 13 Pro, and iPhone 13 Pro
           | Max units and software, subscribed to LTE and 5G carrier
           | networks. Video playback consisted of a repeated 2-hour
           | 23-minute movie purchased from the iTunes Store, tested with
           | stereo audio output. Video playback (streamed) consisted of a
           | repeated 3-hour 1-minute HDR movie purchased from the iTunes
           | Store, tested with stereo audio output. All settings were
           | default except: Bluetooth was paired with headphones; Wi-Fi
           | was associated with a network; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join
           | Networks, Auto-Brightness, and True Tone were turned off.
           | 
           | https://www.apple.com/iphone/battery.html
        
       | bserge wrote:
       | Surprised they went with 13. It still has a negative connotation
       | around the world. Especially among people willing to buy an
       | iPhone.
        
         | pineconewarrior wrote:
         | Folks are calling the 13 an "S" tier phone(ala iPhone 5 ->
         | iPhone 5S) disguised as a new device.
         | 
         | Apple decided to take the 12S design and call it the 13 for a
         | two key reasons.
         | 
         | 1.) they can get the unlucky number out of the way and save
         | their big new design paradigm for 14.
         | 
         | 2.) due to supply chain issues, it is more feasible to source
         | the iPhone 12-esque parts for the next year. Normally they
         | would release an S version mid-year and release the next
         | numbered phone later that year. This gives them more time.
        
       | junipertea wrote:
       | Maybe the variable refresh rate helps as well?
        
         | fermentation wrote:
         | Yeah surely this measurement is for 30Hz video.
        
           | SV_BubbleTime wrote:
           | Go to 24Hz video for a 20% difference right there. Keep
           | going, Apple didn't say this _wasn't_ while viewing a 15fps
           | 1900 silent video.
           | 
           |  _( I had to look it up, the first silent films were 14-26fps
           | cranked by hand. The first talkies mechanically linked the
           | projector to the phonograph at 24fps)_
        
       | wly_cdgr wrote:
       | If only the content improved instead that'd be worth something
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-09-16 23:00 UTC)