Currently showing 2.5 hrs usage and 5.5 hrs standby and still at 80%. That would equate to 12.5 hrs usage and 27.5 hrs standby. OK, not 48 hours but enough to get me through one day and night and then all of the next day - not that I ever need to do that as I charge in the car or overnight at home just as a matter of course.

My 6+ lasts a full day most days I work 13 hours a day and I'm on about 20% by the end of the shift. No other smart phone has done this. I would always go plus

I would have agreed with my previous phones, as I have always felt that Apple pursue thinness at all costs sometimes to the detriment of features, and would have gladly had an extra mm or two on their previous models. However, since having a 6S Plus I'm not sure I agree any more. Once I know I can comfortably get through a whole long day then it becomes not important. I spent last week walking in Scotland with some long days on the hills running GPS intensive apps and other stuff and never came close to exhausting the battery, whereas previously I would have had to carry a rechargeable battery pack.

From Gsmarena we know the battery stats near enough match those of the Edge Plus, but what I am still curious about is the small nuances of having 2 different A9 Socs in the very same phone.

It sounds likely that the one with the 10% bigger Soc is worse on battery, more so if Apple needs to overclock the bigger 16nm Soc to match the speed of the smaller, likely faster 14nm Soc.

In the past Samungs phones varied more when Samsung multi sourced , but their Qualcomm models sold in a different market c/w battery benchmarks for each SOC

I suppose this gives Apple fans something else to convince themselves they've done the right thing.

Just noticed a report in the Gardian to say the iPhone 6S has a bad battery so don't know which report is correct?

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...h-battery-life

Maybe they should have increased the battery size slightly?

Strangely it also says that the screen resolution is "noticeably" worse than other phones out there ....... Do they not know you can't see the difference ????

To be honest though battery life is a very personal thing. Reliance on a couple of specific apps van mean the difference between hours of extra life. I also find in low signal areas, or where the signal keeps changing (such as on trains) my battery life is much worse.

There was quite a bit of usage throughout the day from 07:30 and the battery lasted till around 23:00, that's pretty good going for a smartphone isn't it?

I would have thought it was around average as I take my S5 off charge at 6:30am and it's still got quite a bit left at 11pm with the same sort of usage (although I must admit it's not as good since I installed the new Three firmware with voice over LTE ).

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...20151006102637

Initially my new 6s plus didn't seem to have the same battery life as my old 6 plus, but it's great now after bedding in with a few re-charge cycles.

Efficiency is important...you can always develop a larger battery that is also more efficient and lasts even longer.

Why the negativity? More efficient batteries is a good thing.

What does battery efficiency mean here? Longer lifespan?

Surely what you're interested in is how much power the SoC uses, the screen etc.

You have nn,nnn mAh to play with - how long can you make that last?

When it comes to the efficiency of a car, it's the engine not the fuel tank that you're looking at to make things more efficient.

On a phone you either make the chipset less power hungry OR use a larger battery (fuel tannk) or both. But designers think we all want phones that are 4 or 5mm thick - and I don't recall phones that were 10mm thick feeling bulky.

In 1994, my Nokia Orange 2140 felt portable and that was 25mm thick with the SLIM battery! (Oh and the slim battery was good for 18 hours)

Or in my case in a signal-less farmhouse the 2140 would last about 15 hours if you didn't use it.
About 10 if you did!

I have noticed my iPhone 6 since iOS 9.0.1/2 is now doing 2 days easily. it's a bit bonkers really.
I used to have to plug it in in the car if I was using navigation otherwise it would be too low once I got to my destination.
Now I hardly use the car charger at all.

Actually the larger 16nm is using less battery than the 14nm


http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/which-chip-does-your-6s-6s-have.1922967/

Or you could bring out a new phone with a smaller battery and spin it as more efficient . I expect more from you, really!

Apple haven't provided any spin

The true test is the 10s of millions who buy and use them.

But could your Nokia Orange 2140 talk you through your route home and give you onscreen maps, play console like games and shoot 4K videos etc? Didn't think so

So popularity is a guage of quality ? I'm sure we could both think of many, many examples where that isn't true

I think you are missing the point of the post.

Do people really crave slimmer and slimmer phones ? Especially with the issues they often bring. It seems like so much willy-waving from all sides to say we are now 8mm thick, or 7.6 mm etc. Most aren't when you add in the camera bulge anyway. Does anyone buy a new phone because its 0.5mm thinner than a previous model ?

How many of you would seriously prefer a phone to be 2mm thicker and have twice the battery life ? I certainly would. Even if my phone "usually" lasts 2 days I'd love it to "always" last 2 days regardless of what I throw at it.

A few years ago it was all about phone size. Phones ended up tiny but it was just a fashion. Phones are now getting bigger but thinner. Again I would assume this is just a fashion too.

No. Customer satisfaction is a gauge of quality.

OK. That's not what you stated though

Its a potential guage of quality. It could also be a guage of value for money (unlikely in this case), pack mentality or many other things.

I'm more than satisfied with buying bottled water from Morrison's. I'm not sure its quality stuff though, but it does the job

Improved efficiency comes from the hardware needing less power, thus lasting longer. The battery, if the same capacity, is no more or less efficient.

You can play with stats by saying that the 1,500mAh lasts as long in device X as a 2,000mAh battery lasted in device Y, but that doesn't mean the battery is more efficient. The phone is. Put a 2,000mAh battery in device X and you've just increased battery life.

What's happening now is that as power consumption falls (in SOME areas) designers feel free to make even smaller phones.

Christ, they did this in Japan in the mid 1990s. Absolutely minute phones. Virgin even released a ridiculously tiny phone in the UK (and some others) but then people began to want to do all the things that the Nokia 2140 couldn't (as mentioned above by someone who I suspect missed the point).

Now people want larger screens.

I don't feel many people really want a thinner phone and would be happy with something a bit thicker but with the same hardware performance and increased battery life, so carrying a charger or portable battery pack isn't so important.

People have little choice though. Apple, Samsung and others aren't giving a choice. I recall Motorola had the Razr and Razr Maxx and the Maxx did very well. Every now and then a phone comes along with a larger battery, but often it compromises somewhere else (like a lesser SoC, weaker camera etc).

In my opinion there's no need. Apple and Samsung should be proud of using the latest chipsets that are more efficient, but for goodness sake, still increase the battery so people can EASILY get a full day of usage from their phone. That's a full day even when you are using the device more heavily than normal.

By rights that means ending most days with over 50% less, so you've got a large margin to play with.

https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comm..._14nm_vs_tsmc/

Whilst data seemed to show the Samung one 1% faster in overall benchmarks, things rapidly swung against Samsung with claims the battery in the TSMC one lasts as much as 33% longer. (8 hours versus 6 hours))
http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/06/d...or-bad-a9-cpu/