This is completely unrelated to 10 III’s enormous power consumption. You can have Android support completely turned off, or even not installed at all (as in free unlicensed OS version) and you won’t see much improvement, if any at all.
If what you’re saying had any real impact on battery life, the XA2 Ultra with its 25% smaller battery capacity (3580 mAh) should be delivering 25% shorter battery life. Which ISN’T the case. On the contrary, despite such smaller battery and huge, more power hungry display, my XA2 Ultra actually lasts the same, if not even a bit longer, than my 10 III.
Why? Because of PROPER configuration of the CPU on the XA2. The right governors being setup on the XA2 (rather than Performance governor being set on the 10 III for the big cores making them run at max clock all the time), all cores being allowed to go down to minimum frequency when there is no load (whereas on the 10 III the little cores never go below 1.2 GHz and - as I already mentioned - the big cores always run at their max 2073 MHz clock), the XA2 switching unused cores to offline (i.e. simply turning them off) when they aren’t needed (whereas the 10 III does not do it at all), and so on.
And, actually, it is NOT the in-use power consumption that’s so problematic on the 10 III, it is its idle / sleep power consumption, i.e. when it does almost nothing. While the XA2 Ultra goes as low as 11-12 mA when sleeping, on the 10 III the lowest it reaches is some 35-40 mA. To make things even worse, while the XA2 Ultra manages to stay at such low power consumption levels much longer (much less ‘awakenings’, much lower spikes, most of them below 100 mA), the 10 III wakes up from sleep every now and then with spikes in 200-300 mA range and quite often even 500-600 mA or more.
Which all sumed up is simply horrible per se, or even worse if compared to XA2 Ultra.
No single Sailfish OS device has ever had a battery of this capacity.
And if the XA2 Ultra with its 25% smaller battery also lasts two days, does it really take a better proof that the 10 III’s power efficiency is - lets call it nicely - suboptimal?
But of course, everyone is entirely free to be satisfied with two days instead of 3-4 as it should have been with this battery capacity, 8 nm SoC and OLED display, and everyone can accept that because of having to recharge it twice more often the battery will wear out twice sooner. It’s everyone’s right and I do not intend to question it.
Call me boring but I’ll repeat it one more time: two days is the same what I get from the XA2 Ultra (with exact same SFOS on it) with its almost 25% smaller battery, less energy efficient (14 nm vs 8 nm) SoC technology and giant, more power hungry IPS LCD screen. Oh, a ~4 years old XA2 Ultra and therefore with partly worn out (albeit in perfect condition) battery, I need to add.
So I’d say that praising the 10 III for providing the same battery life as the 4 years old XA2 Ultra, while having 25% bigger battery, more power efficient SoC and display is - hmmmmm - overly optimistic.