based on many comments in this thread your statement is not accurate.

for example my iphone 15 pro is at 83% with 654 cycles. clearly it will drop below 80% in less than 1000 cycles

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.

▲

danaw an hour ago | parent [-]

making claims is not the same a real world outcomes. the real question will be how these claims are audited by regulators

	▲	infecto 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

drstewart 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The bar clearly won't be "any random person's phone meeting this criteria", so what your specific phone does doesn't really matter.

▲

danaw an hour ago | parent [-]

many others in the comments have this same issue (and the internet at large). my point is just that it's not obvious that apple has met this claim with real world devices.

it will be seen how the actual requirements will be validated, likely in a way that favors the "best case" scenario for apple.

	▲	infecto 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Doubtful if only because that would fall under warranty then. There is a financial incentive for that to not happen. I imagine this is a situation where the complaints seem a lot more frequent because it’s a complaint. The mass of phones that don’t have an issue will not show up in public forum data.