Am I the only one that thinks everyone's going too far with the instantaneous gut reactions?
It feels like everyone is going way overboard with jumping to conclusions.
Here's what I've noticed so far:
People say that the battery life on the DNA is comparable to the SGS3. (On paper, this is reasonable; 2020mAh vs 2100 mAh, all else being equal, which it isn't.)
"Battery life" numbers are all over the place, with people constantly asking for "Screen on time" whenever anyone posts that the DNA has lasted over a day of "regular" use.
The phone appears to idle extremely well, and does not consume too much power, as evidenced by screenshots showing the power line as a very light plateau downward during "sleep" times.
By the time the phone runs out, the common number that emerges appears to be around 4 hours of "Screen on time."
Support:
CNet's Review:
HTC Droid DNA Review - Watch CNET's Video Review - page 2
DNA: 8h 43m
SGS3: 9h 24m
Fairly similar battery life results. There is probably a margin of error as with all tests, but 40 minutes is not too big a difference (roughly 7.2%.)
The Verge:
DNA: 4h 25m
HTC Droid DNA review | The Verge
SGS3: 4h 12m
Samsung Galaxy S3 for Verizon: impressions and benchmarks | The Verge
Most people appear to be bashing this because it sounds ludicrously low.
However, pay attention to the points I outlined above - TheVerge appears to have reached this figure by running their benchmark on these phones. I would assume that the benchmark is the same for both phones.
By the looks of the benchmark description, the screen should be on for the entire duration of this benchmark.
AndroidPolice:
DROID DNA Battery Life Impressions: It's Not Nearly As Bad As You Think (With Stats, Methodology)
DNA: 27h 30m (4h 8m "Screen on time") [Comments section - And FYI, the phone died at 11:03AM with 4h8m screen on time 27h30m total powered on time.]
User NightAngel79:
http://forums.androidcentral.com/ve...-have-questions-fire-away-16.html#post2336190
DNA: ~4h [From post: I got 13 hour battery life with LTE on the entire time and 4+ hours screen on time.]
The big issue is that these numbers should not be compared across different sites! It is the trend that counts.
However, within the same review site, the numbers should be comparable, as they should be utilizing the same tests in as controlled a manner as possible.
The trend that I see is that the battery can and will last for over a day of moderate use, and if left idling, it will go on for even longer.
However, it appears
using the phone drains its battery! (Sarcasm, in case it's broken for anyone.)
From these sources, it appears that under heavy use, the phone lasts about 4 hours worth of "Screen on time" regardless of whether it's all at once, or spread out over the course of a couple days.
People have thus far appear to be jumping down each others' throats for posting information that disagrees with their opinions.
Can we not just deal with the facts? And by facts, it means things that have been tested, and we have sources and numbers for. Not "facts" that we make up to support our arguments.
This phone is not for everyone. If super long battery life all at once matters, get the Razr HD MAXX. There's nothing else out that can beat the physics of a larger battery. If you absolutely must have the screen on and in heavy use for 20 of the 24 hours of each day without access to a charger, you have no real choice. HTC's "reason" for the 2020mAh battery can be debated for all eternity, but that isn't going to magically change the battery this phone ships with. It's also pointless because no one can call up HTC and ask them specifically why they did this, and get a straight answer. Everything is only our opinion on the matter. You learn pretty quickly in most hobbies that everything is a compromise, and the compromise happens to fit the usage model of the majority of the consumers/userbase.
If this conflicts with our vision, or usage models, then clearly, we were not the majority.
Finally, I would like to say that efficiency can make a difference, and it's not purely down to the mAh rating. It won't be super dramatic, but it does work.
For example, back during the early 2000's, when Intel was debuting its Pentium4 CPU, they were huge on higher clockspeed, and more GHz. AMD responded with the Athlon XP CPU's, which were clocked much lower, but because of efficiencies, wound up outperforming the P4's for a long time. This is an extreme example, but I wanted to point out that one specific numerical metric is not the only way to characterize the performance of a particular item.