Apple Adds Energy and Battery Labels to iPhone and iPad Pages in EU

[retroneo]

What’s the point of printing a physical copy of the label? I’ve always wondered what that’s going to help.

The packaging and point of sale marketing material from Apple are all physical too. How else can you ensure a customer sees it before they purchase the item?

We have the same requirement in our non-EU country on appliances and cars. They must have a sticker on them in the showroom by law. Children's pyjamas have their combustible death rating in-store here too. That has led manufacturers to make so few kid incinerators as they just don't sell as well with the label.

 

[con2apple]

Sometimes EU is just dumb. What’s the point of printing a physical copy of the label? I’ve always wondered what that’s going to help. I do live in the EU.

Let me guess:
If a customer visits the website “enargylebells.subbercheeepphones.cn” and catches a virus there, you'll be the first to blame them
.
Paper is still the safest method. It guarantees that the label is reached and cannot be secretly changed.

As you know, Apple is also known for changing information on its website without notice in order to “avoid confusing customers.”

 

[porkflyingfish]

Why the EU's New Phone Energy Labels Miss the Mark

The EU just started requiring energy efficiency labels on phones and tablets - like the ones you see on refrigerators. But here's the problem: this approach doesn't make sense for smart devices.

Think about it - a toothbrush can't magically become "better" by spinning 1 million times per minute. A refrigerator pretty much does one job the same way every time. But phones and computers are completely different beasts.

Your phone's energy use depends on countless variables: Are you watching HDR videos on that bright OLED screen? Gaming with max graphics? Or just texting with the screen dimmed? A phone running basic apps uses drastically less power than one streaming 4K video. These devices have different configurations for different needs.

The real issue? The EU is trying to regulate something they don't fully understand. Even Apple - who knows their own products inside and out - had to voluntarily downgrade their phones from an "A" rating to "B" because the EU's testing methods are "ambiguous."

Speaking of overreach - look at their USB-C mandate. The EU mandated USB-C connectors but here's the kicker: they only enforced the physical standard, not the electronic one. While they require USB Power Delivery compatibility, different manufacturers still use proprietary charging protocols that don't play nice together. First, competing manufacturers historically fought against universal solutions because it hurt their competitive advantages. Second, even with USB-C, you still get suboptimal charging when using a charger from manufacturer A with a device from manufacturer B because of different proprietary protocols. So much for "universal" charging!

And if we're labeling energy efficiency, why stop at phones? Where's the energy label for ChatGPT and other AI services? Those data centers are absolute power hogs, but apparently the EU only cares about regulating hardware they can see, not the cloud services burning through electricity 24/7. At least then EU citizens could "enjoy the best energy efficient AI" by their own logic.

Here's my real concern: is the EU curbing innovation by doing too much? Think about the Concorde - love it or hate it, it used massive amounts of fuel but pushed the boundaries of what was possible. Sometimes breakthrough innovation requires accepting trade-offs. When regulators micromanage every aspect of product design instead of letting engineers innovate, we risk stifling the next big leap forward.

This is like having phone carriers tell Nokia how to design phones. Remember those awful early smartphone interfaces where everything was buried in confusing menu systems? That's what happens when regulators try to dictate product design instead of letting engineers do what they do best.

Cars, fridges, and toothbrushes are predictable. Smartphones are mini-computers with infinite use cases. One-size-fits-all energy labels just don't work here, and this regulation shows the EU overstepping into areas where they lack the technical expertise to make meaningful rules.

Sometimes the best regulation is knowing when not to regulate. 🤷‍♂️

 

[con2apple]

I doubt it, does this label show the difference in charging cost between an A and a C? Cause in actual cost difference over a year it’s probably less than 5 Euros if even that. And I am lead to believe that modem performance, 120Hz screens etc are the real differentiators and buying decisions…

If the EU really wants to highlight efficiency, they should start a campaign against wireless charging as that is the most inefficient charging method, only beaten by “reverse charging” (eg charge watch or AirPods on the back of the phone) which so many posters here in MR

These labels have been around for decades. And what has that led to? Ever more efficient devices. Because manufacturers can no longer lie, but have to deliver objectively comparable results.
These labels are also updated every few years and become increasingly stringent.

As a customer, I know that device “A” demonstrably consumes less energy. That is sustainable.
And not “The most sustainable watch we have ever developed.” That's a meaningless statement.

And you want an advertising campaign? So basically bias against a technology like in a dictatorship? Very interesting.
What will you do when progress makes wireless charging almost as efficient as cable charging? Or worse, when it never develops because your smear campaign has stifled all research?

 

[con2apple]

Why the EU's New Phone Energy Labels Miss the Mark

The EU just started requiring energy efficiency labels on phones and tablets - like the ones you see on refrigerators. But here's the problem: this approach doesn't make sense for smart devices.

Think about it - a toothbrush can't magically become "better" by spinning 1 million times per minute. A refrigerator pretty much does one job the same way every time. But phones and computers are completely different beasts.

That's just a claim.
And you know it: manufacturers have said the same thing about vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, and everything else.
With excuses like “But some have a large freezer compartment, others have a small one” or “But 200 horsepower is much more than 50 horsepower.”

Excuses to avoid investing in further development and progress. Just claim something and the “smart customers” will believe it.

Question:
How does Apple manage to make its devices more efficient every year and offer longer battery life despite smaller batteries? According to your argument, that should be completely impossible, right?

A more efficient motor in a toothbrush or a more modern chip in a smartphone and you're already saving energy. As an Macrumors reader, you should know that.

 

[mjs916]

Access. For all that we love to believe we live in the future, the only way to make sure something is 100% accessible is to take it out of the virtual and print it. People pooh poohing it for environmental reasons are being obstinate—this is not the piece of paper that will destroy the earth. That is more likely to be billions of smartphones.

Access? But you’ve got to purchase the device to get this included sheet of paper.

Retail and web aren’t sufficient?

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The EU energy labels have some serious flaws. For example it compares ALL televisions regardless of their size. So a big television will always get a bad energy label because it needs more energy than a small television. I would prefer an energy label that takes screen size into account.

With food labels the EU does the opposite. It compares the calories per 100 grams, although some food is only eaten in small doses anyway. That gives the impression that basically everything delicious that you can put on your bread is very unhealthy, although you typical only use 10 grams or so per bread. Maybe 20, while the brad itself has way more calories, but is considered healthy.

 

[JohannesO]

We've been seeing these stickers for decades now, from washing machines to buildings, and nobody knows what they really say, except when two new appliances are standing next to each other in the store, that the greener one is supposed to be better at something. The standards also change regularly. What is A+++ today is B tomorrow.

 

[byebyeapple]

This once again shows that Apple is no longer a straight-A student when it comes to environmental protection. After resting on its supposed laurels for years, it has been overtaken multiple times by the competition.

Apple comes across like a defiant child, trying to resist its guardian — the EU — with a sulky expression. Unfortunately, this little child has neither the means nor the foresight to carry out this resistance in a sensible way.

It’s sad to watch a once highly successful company slowly go under before our very eyes. I can almost hear Steve Jobs groaning from the heavens…

 

[NightFox]

Is anybody going to make a purchasing decision based on that rating?

Not everyone is buying an iPhone or a Galaxy. There’s thousands of people who buy cheaper generic Android phones with very little to differentiate between them. That’s where stuff like this is going to influence buying decisions.

 

[Omega Mac]

EU is ******** and that is from a EU point of view geographically speaking.

Hey let's talk about the warm and fuzzy save the world labels. Total ********. 100%

This labelling is a con.

Initially when LED's bulbs were hitting the market at the start and being new to the consumer but incredibly more expensive compared to the traditional bubble, the labels came in to save the day with some good old fashioned government fear mongering too.

So the LED's got top grade marks As & Bs and the tradition incandescent bulbs got bottom of the class with E & F's.

With promise of longer life and feel good higher grade (marketing!) consumers began to buy these thinking the longer life would offset the cost also and also their was a lot of government sponsored noise and promises to ban the old bulbs (also CFLs were the riding tech which was horrible light)

First these bulbs never lasted anywhere near as long and failed more than you would think so a totally false economy (and that's leaving gout quality of light and eye health issues), these things were approx 8 bucks to replace give or take.

Then a few years ago as there was virtually no traditional bulbs on the market, the LED's suddenly dropped down to a much lowered energy. Very close if not the same as the old incandescent bulbs were.

These some pure Year Zero reseting going on right there thank you very much EUSSR

Today LEDS Bulbs that consume less than 5 watts are now rated E

Beyond a Joke and don't be surprised if some USAID etc. money helped create this monstrous ********.

It doesn't stop at labels. This is pure techno communism. Another example, limiting the power of a vacuum cleaner. See how they spin it:

Sales of inefficient vacuum cleaners banned

Powerful vacuum cleaners are to be banned from today after the European Union introduced new rules which aim to improve energy efficiency across the continent.

www.euronews.com

It is all derivative os social credit living think "carbon credit" i.e total bolloxology.

 

[Dr McKay]

Sometimes EU is just dumb. What’s the point of printing a physical copy of the label? I’ve always wondered what that’s going to help. I do live in the EU.

I deliberately pollute so that the Netherlands sinks into the Ocean faster, perhaps Apple feels the same way?

 

[Omega Mac]

Love the word censor. Feels just like Mother EU.

 

[pbau]

If I understand that right, the battery endurance is rated as 37 hours. The S25 Ultra for example is rated as 27 hours. Thats insane.

Nope, S25 ultra is 44hours, ip16PM 48 hours.

However Samsung wins at repairability, battery count cycle (1000 more battery cycles) and hardness of front screen

 

[pbau]

It clearly shows Apple must work harder on their hardware and software.
Only 5 years of updates (samsung and google show 7 years) worse battery cycles count, worse glass on front. Features limited in Eu…

 

[Omega Mac]

I love these labels, and the way they make it possible for people across the EU to compare like-for-like on different products.

Even if some people ignore them, it simultaneously allows others to make purchase choices which are less problematic for our shared environment, and have less of a negative impact on Earth.

There is no EU it’s only a bunch of treaties among countries and it’s looking rather USSR part two.

Sooner it breaks up the better.

Some countries had rock
bottom electricity and comms prices.

Now some European countries have the higest electric prices despite subsidising wind farms and solar and sacrificing the beauty of unspoilt scenery. Lose lose.

It’s classic communitarian hive insanity with added in extra flavour of infinity open borders. This won’t last much longer.

Best of luck Energy rating the open borders!

 

[ChromeCloud]

Energy labels… on a smartphone?

The electricity cost to charge a smartphone over a year typically less than €1 or $1 annually, depending on usage and local electricity rates

EU bureaucrats are clowns.

(Written by an EU citizen).

 

[Omega Mac]

I am genuinely baffled by how people here will invent anything to dismiss what is effectively just... more information to end users. But I guess, okay? So many instances of whataboutism it's genuinely wild. I don't applaud of all EU rules but this is about having a standard way of rating phones and tablets, what' wrong with it? And despite what some of y'all are saying here, the testing is standardized.

It’s been the experience that the goalpost do chnahe and to paraphrase on user today’s A is tomorrows F

 

[svish]

Good to know about it. Not surprised with the voluntary 'B" rating as Apple will be playing it safe. Apple might not be happy with a printed version as it moves forward to reducing its carbon footprint.

 

[emulator]

Now that’s a very environmentally solution, well done EU!

Trust me, the stupidity and arrogance of the Bruxelles bureaucrats is unmeasurable.

 

[orbital~debris]

There is no EU it’s only a bunch of treaties among countries and it’s looking rather USSR part two.

Sooner it breaks up the better.

Some countries had rock
bottom electricity and comms prices.

Now some European countries have the higest electric prices despite subsidising wind farms and solar and sacrificing the beauty of unspoilt scenery. Lose lose.

It’s classic communitarian hive insanity with added in extra flavour of infinity open borders. This won’t last much longer.

Best of luck Energy rating the open borders!

What on Earth are you on about? I used to live in the EU, and don't recognise anything you've said.

 

[Unami]

I'm for a lot of things the EU forces Apple to do, but in this case, what's the point? Smartphones don't use a significant amount of power. I look at those labels when buying something like a fridge, but I wouldn't let it influence a smartphone-buying decision. And, either way, the price difference between most phones is much much higher than anything you could save on charging over the life of the phone. That's probably something in the region of €10-20 if you chose to compare extremes.

 

[Unami]

What on Earth are you on about? I used to live in the EU, and don't recognise anything you've said.

Well, we got those open borders, and it's great. Reminds me of some other united states I've heard of.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Oof, the iPad (Pro M4) gets the lowest rating. I have noticed mine’s battery health started dropping a few months ago, and is now at 93%. iPhone 16 Pro Max is a few months younger, yet last I checked its health a week ago it was 100%.

That’s purely dependent on how you use the device. If you use it more, the battery health suffers. Isn’t that obvious?

BTW, "energy labels" exist in the US too for decades, and yes, people made purchasing decisions eg on appliances based on "$50 saving per year" on a new fridge and such.

Just because they exist means nothing. Being obliged to put them is the difference.

as I said in the post above, a smartphones uses may 10kWh per year, so that makes maybe $5 per year in charging cost, hmmm ...

Look at how many smartphones are in existence and multiply that.

"And I am lead to believe that modem performance, 120Hz screens etc are the real differentiators and buying decisions…" that was my comment - it is what MR people say, they know it all, don't they?

Re battery life/efficiency - read my other post, to charge a smartphone every day from 0-100 takes about 10kWhr per year ... yes, everyone on MR is concerned and obsessed with battery life yet even here I have never read a post complaining that it cost $5 per year to charge your phone ...

Look at how many smartphones are in existence and multiply that. It’s clear to see. If everyone saves even 5 quid a year, which is a net gain for an individual, everyone doing the same will help in the grand scheme of things.

 

[emulator]

The reality is that nobody cares... you look at this when you buy a fridge, oven or maybe a washing machine and a drier but a phone? Faking useless idiots!