Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 12 Pro iPhone 12 Pro battery health
- Thread starter gbf
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A little update: I replaced my battery today as I was quite unhappy with the battery life. The phone started warming up significantly more than before while charging and I couldn't get through they day with a single charge. I suspect that Apple "slows down" the reported aging info so that the phone doesn't reach the 80% threshold within the 2 year warranty period (EU). I was getting about 1% drop per month before and all of the sudden - the health percentage doesn't move at all for months while the battery is clearly not holding a proper charge. Not to mention that below 30% the battery drained significantly faster with sudden non-linear drops (e.g. from 25% to 17%).
I got charged 85 EUR and the whole procedure took about 2 and a half hours at a local Apple Authorised Dealer. The new battery currently reports 104% health in Coconut battery and my first impressions are that it charges slower than before (the capacity is higher) and produces way less heat.
To sum it up - it seems that after two years no matter how careful you are with the charging process - the battery is going to degrade significantly. I have a friend that bought the same phone 2 months after me - I have been charging mine from 20% to 80% most of the time, not leaving it on a charger for a prolonged period of time, etc - basically using every rule in the "how not to destroy your battery" book. On the contrary - my friend has been leaving his phone every night on the charger, charging it in the car at high temperatures, etc. His battery health is 87% now, mine was 88%. So basically the difference is negligible, it seems that the "optimised charging" feature that Apple introduced is working as it should.
I got charged 85 EUR and the whole procedure took about 2 and a half hours at a local Apple Authorised Dealer. The new battery currently reports 104% health in Coconut battery and my first impressions are that it charges slower than before (the capacity is higher) and produces way less heat.
To sum it up - it seems that after two years no matter how careful you are with the charging process - the battery is going to degrade significantly. I have a friend that bought the same phone 2 months after me - I have been charging mine from 20% to 80% most of the time, not leaving it on a charger for a prolonged period of time, etc - basically using every rule in the "how not to destroy your battery" book. On the contrary - my friend has been leaving his phone every night on the charger, charging it in the car at high temperatures, etc. His battery health is 87% now, mine was 88%. So basically the difference is negligible, it seems that the "optimised charging" feature that Apple introduced is working as it should.
A repeated pattern I’m seeing both in phones that I’ve personally seen the results of and here, is that the heavier a user is, the better battery health is. 500 cycles equals 80% is almost never true, with users far surpassing that. I’ve personally seen an iPhone 8 with over 1700 cycles and 80% health, which is not only over three times Apple’s rating, but it would also surpass the iPad and MacBook rating (and any iPad or Mac I’ve ever seen).
Interestingly, the same pattern holds true: those devices are cycled a lot less, because people constantly have their phones with them, so the ratio is often significantly worse. That leads credence to the “time also degrades batteries” phrase that is often repeated. However unlikely that may be, it would be interesting to see the results on iPads: what would the health of an iPad be after a massively heavy cycle count in a short time-frame? It’s unrealistic though, that generally doesn’t happen.
Interestingly, the same pattern holds true: those devices are cycled a lot less, because people constantly have their phones with them, so the ratio is often significantly worse. That leads credence to the “time also degrades batteries” phrase that is often repeated. However unlikely that may be, it would be interesting to see the results on iPads: what would the health of an iPad be after a massively heavy cycle count in a short time-frame? It’s unrealistic though, that generally doesn’t happen.
Extremely improbable. As usual, what you see on forums, YouTube, and other social media is deceptive. Most people don’t replace their device’s battery (themselves or via an authorized service provider), or ever check the battery health. Either they replace err upgrade the device because 1) they want something newer, better, etc or, 2) it has been damaged (e.g., dropped), or 3) just isn’t overall performing to their satisfaction — which, essentially, jumps back to (justifying) point 1. Basically, Apple (or any company) doesn’t need to manipulate that aspect to get sales.
That’s how current battery tech behaves — more obvious in high-power draw devices such as e-bikes, radio/remote controlled cars/trucks). When charged to full, the initial/top 10% or so of charge will provide a surprising amount of performance, perhaps even describable as a boost or burst. Then performance will dip a little and level off. As the battery cells near depletion, about the last 10-25% of charge, there will be another noticeable drop in performance. When at the final 1-2%, the device will be practically unusable (e.g., stuttering or unexpected behavior). However, small/tiny signs of life will seemingly hang on forever. Health is similar, performance will be superb initially but that peak won’t be maintainable for long. As the cells stabilize, level off, reach their efficiency stride (so to speak), endurance will plateau. At some point, the element breakdown prevents any level of stable operation — this is when you’ll witness unbelievably quick complete cycle charge and that supposedly full charge power a device for only a few seconds.
Exactly, the harmful “extremes” do exist, that’s not a fallacy. Although, how they affect battery cells is often wrongfully understood and communicated. For example, charging a battery to 100% (regularly) is indeed (typically) negligibly harmful. What can be significantly and permanently damaging is sustaining that charge level for weeks or months. Similar problem with very low charge. Ultimately/Basically, as long as the battery is frequently being used (charged or discharged), the rate of degradation is (mostly) a luck of the draw — based on quality control/selection factors realistically beyond our control.
This is when (again) social media and “news” outlets get it wrong, regardless of intentionally for clickbait or poor understanding. That is, battery calibration is still useful. Once while searching, I cam across a video with a great analogy for battery health -- I can’t find the video now to reference/cite it. I will try to re-use that comparison for calibration. Think of a battery like a pail/bucket and filling it is like charging a battery. Now also imagine you’re filling this bucket with water from a beach area. As you pour out the water, akin to using/discharging a battery, some sand remains in the pail. As you repeat the process the sediments accumulate, reducing the amount of water capacity. Now assume the only way to measure is by a stick from the top of the sediment to water level, which should be accurate enough to calculate the current volume (i.e., ‘power’ stored). However, to determine the percentage of filled, we need the maximum capacity, and in order to do that we need to fill the bucket to the brim — again, remember to assume we can’t measure anything above the water line/level/surface. So, when you don’t fill the pail to the top, the calculation will be based on the previous complete fill, but there could be more sediment (i.e., less capacity) since then. By inserting more past data to get an average rate of capacity loss, we can calculate an estimate, but that’s the problem: it is an estimate. Whereas if you allow the charge to actually reach those extreme levels, you can log the true min and max.
For example, through 99% charge, the Full Charge Capacity was reported as 1985 mAh. At that point, there were no longer tenth of a percent increments. When the reported current charge finally jumped to 100%, the full capacity also nudged up a bit.
As sample data, I am, apparently, within a minority group of users, my average screen on time is about one hour on iPhone and one to five hours on iPad and Mac. Furthermore, my OCPD has me performing uninterrupted full charge cycles (use until auto power off then charge to 100% and repeat) as much as possible.
P.S. iOS reported a battery health below 80% either at 985 or 1007 charge cycles. I just noticed a drop from 76% to 75% following the installation of iOS 16.5.1.
Whilst your iPhone X’s cycle count is fairly high, it’s nothing I haven’t seen before. It is yet another data point of what I alluded to earlier, and always interesting.
Now, what’s your iPad’s coconut battery reading in terms of both health and cycles?
Just to be clear, I’m not complaining about battery life (nor in a rush to upgrade).
As can be seen by comparing the two screen shots, the available Full Charge Capacity increased by 29 mAh as it monitored even after reaching the original (i.e., initial coconutBattery launch retrieved) 100% full charge (estimated) value. No doubt this is why Apple seemingly uses an equation/algorithm (as well as some rounding) rather than simply displaying the raw values when displaying/reporting battery health and current charge.
Very interesting, thank you very much for the screenshots!
I’ve always been interested in this more as a matter of me liking these kinds of statistics rather than from a practical standpoint: I’ve frequently commented about the fact that I think battery health and cycles are both largely irrelevant in determining battery life, with user settings, usage patterns, and the iOS version being all far more prevalent. A degraded battery will (I’m confident enough not to use “may” here) be great with an efficient usage pattern, efficient settings, and an early enough iOS version. This is more like a statistics exercise for me.
That said, your iPad results are also some of the highest, but also add another data point to what I’ve long been stating: your iPad has fewer cycles AND worse health than your iPhone, with Apple claiming twice! the cycle lifespan. This has been a repeated occurrence both with results shared online and with my own devices, with iPhones far and above surpassing Apple’s rating and iPads typically falling short. Again, I will always sustain that this doesn’t matter practically speaking, but it is interesting.
There is one thing that I haven’t seen (obviously it is due to the fact that it isn’t easy and requires either an unrealistic amount of time or a massively heavy usage), and that is an iPad with many cycles in a fairly short timeframe, like I said: by this I mean, you see iPhones with 1000 cycles in 3 years having great battery health, what about an iPad with 1000 cycles within 3 years? I’ve never seen that, and I’m a light user, so none of my iPads have been anywhere close. In fact, I don’t think I’ve seen any iPad with over 1000 cycles, maybe barring extremely old iPads (with almost a decade). They still work well, which only leads credence to the fact that battery health is irrelevant.
My nearly 7-year-old 9.7-inch iPad Pro isn’t even at 700 cycles yet. Like I said, not a heavy user.
But I think this all bodes well for users: iPhones, like I said, are typically used far more heavily and users typically have more stringent battery life requirements for their iPhones, so them having better results actually benefits those who need it the most. A heavy user knows that even if they put in a lot of cycles, the phone will have a great battery life provided iOS updates don’t obliterate it and usage patterns aren’t too heavy and settings aren’t too draining. Control those three variables, and honestly I don’t think there’s anything that can go wrong, regardless of cycles and battery health.
11+ year old iPad 2:
Shelved it a couple of months ago as my iPad 6 is now my secondary/auxiliary. Leisurely trying to perhaps get the iPad 2 in a state for my mother. However, app compatibility/availability is extremely difficult for that version of iOS.
I’ve seen a Mini 1 with about 1200, too. iOS 9 isn’t too usable nowadays, I agree. But 32-bit iOS versions are pretty efficient battery life-wise, so it’s very likely that these models retain a good battery life even after all these years. I have an iPhone 5c with around the same cycle count as your iPad and battery life is still decent. It’s likely your iPad 2 will retain good battery life even many more years in.
It’s newer iPads with many more iOS updates that suffer, the 9.7-inch iPad Pro isn’t great today. Mine on iOS 12 has been spared of the worst. Which sadly makes these statistics not all too relevant to determine the most important aspect: battery life after many years and cycles. If iOS updates kill it before that, well, the number ends up being just a statistic with little real-world relevance.
I haven’t been able to determine that yet for iPads, as I haven’t had a device with many cycles on its original iOS version. Sadly, my 9.7-inch iPad Pro was forced out of iOS 9, so it doesn’t really count anymore. I can probably extrapolate current battery life on iOS 12, but I’m a light user so my numbers are too low, and they won’t get high enough soon. Then again, it’s like you said, glass half-full: iOS 9’s compatibility isn’t great, and iOS 12 is, honestly, infinitely better.
It’s the same for iPhones, but it all comes back to my first comment: people use them more, so they get to higher numbers far quicker, which means that iOS updates’ impact is more muted. This allows for more interesting conclusions.
My wife's iPhone 12 Pro broke 1000+ cycles and the Apple Health is still above 80% - 83% to be exact. What is odd, coconut is reporting over 87% health, so it is even more conservative - something we dont see that often!