lol. Manufacturer's battery life spec is objective ? Don't make me laugh so hard.
Ideal usage scenarios ? From whose perspective ? Many manufacturers' goal is to artificially boost battery life as long as possible.
Google and you're telling me that Nexus 7 is used *ideally* with screen brightness @ 40% and Wifi turned *OFF* to reach 9 hours ? Why even put a Wifi chip inside ? Why can't they be honest and say it only lasts 6 hours if you turn on Wifi like everyone else, and set screen brightness higher ?
You're clearly grasping at straw.
The 24 hour battery life paper spec is from Google's biased measurement. The long life is achieved via a small core listening for instructions. But if you use it normally, it will drain battery like everyone else.
On the manufacturer's perspective, of course.
Imagine you going to buy a car.
The manufacturer states amogst other things, the fuel consumption.
You know the car will undoubtably consume more.
But there's also the information that those values are obtain under certain circumstances - as the ones you state in your posts.
I believe that a lot of people in this forum are aware that, including me.
My first post was on that shall we say "raw" information.
I know far too well what comes after.
Apple stated that the Mac laptop's (where I'm writing this) had a 5 hour battery life.
When I started using it I roughfly got 2 hours of autonomy.
Today I have 1 minute, because of battery characteristics I mentioned before.
I love the machine, but I have to carry the all package if I go somewhere.
So not comfortable.
It's almost the same as using a Mac Mini, which costs 4 times less, provided of course that you have a monitor, mouse and keyboard - things you can by with the extra money.
Plus you can connect the Mini to a TV.
Another example.
For me, according to my criteria Microsoft Office is the best bundle of the kind.
iWork doesn't get near it and I hope the rumored revision which is due for years, makes it closer.
Even if I stick to Microsoft Office, the Windows version is much more powerfull that the Mac version - this has been discussed in other MacRumors' forums.
The criterion that I use to assess this is benefit.
On the other hand, there's price where iWork clearly wins.
To use Microsft Office, I have to pay for Microsoft Office's license + Windows' licence and use a free virtualization software.
It works perfect, but is it worth it?
The assessment criterion here is cost.
Now, I put this criteria in each side of scale and see which weights the most.
The assessment is the result of the cost/benefit outcome.
I decided to use iWork.
About biasing, that what makes unique human individuals, not just companies, which are made by individuals.
Companies statements, based on their assessment of their criteria are biased.
All my statements, in this forum or elsewhere are biased, for the same reason.
So are yours.
So are everyone elses'.
It's not rghit or wrong or grasping.
It's just the way we people work.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be the wide offer we have.
That offer exists to meet all kins of criteria, in order to target as much customers as possible.
Anyway, as I said in the beginning of this post, I was commenting in raw data, being aware of what that means and that it's mandatory information that every company must suplly to customers, which is always starting point that people deal with.
Assesments come later.
