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.
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.