Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #55318 > unrolled thread

Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 15:43 +0000
    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 09:15 -0700
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 12:30 -0400
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 19:49 +0000
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-08-31 14:28 -0400
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 14:39 -0400
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 12:15 -0700
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 15:49 -0400
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 06:08 +1000
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 16:49 -0400
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 10:21 +1000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 05:49 +1000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 21:19 +0000
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-08-31 12:21 -0700
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 19:49 +0000

#55318 — Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy

On 31 Aug 2018 06:03:57 GMT, sms wrote:

>  There 
> was nothing defective about the batteries in the iPhone 6, 6s, and 7, 
> they operated exactly as Li-Ion batteries are supposed to operate.

Since we are expected to act like adults, I only wish to point out that 
adults can reasonably argue that the *size* of the batteries would almost 
certainly have made a huge difference.

So while the *internals* of the battery are almost certainly just like all 
other similar batteries, the design flaw isn't in the internals of the 
battery (which Apple & nospam so very much love to point out).

The design flaw is most likely in the *pairing* of the electrical 
capabilities of the battery to the needs of the device, where those 
"electrical capabilities" are hugely influenced by sheer size and density 
(although there is a lot that goes on chemically inside a battery, such as 
impedance changes due to a variety of manufacturing & chemical factors).

In short, the *size* of the battery is, IMHO, the most likely flaw, and not 
so much the actual size, but the *pairing* of the size to the needs of the 
device.

This fact is clear: 
*Apple never fully _tested_ their devices in the real world.*
[Apple let's the _user_ run their real-world tests for them!]

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#55320

On 8/31/2018 8:43 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

<snip>

> The design flaw is most likely in the *pairing* of the electrical
> capabilities of the battery to the needs of the device, where those
> "electrical capabilities" are hugely influenced by sheer size and density
> (although there is a lot that goes on chemically inside a battery, such as
> impedance changes due to a variety of manufacturing & chemical factors).

No. The only implication of the battery capacity is that it affects the 
run time. A larger capacity battery would also have had the same 
degradation over time.

There was NOTHING wrong with the batteries that they chose. A new 
battery mitigates the shutdown issue because it has higher voltage and 
lower internal resistance so it can provide more power (P=V x I). But 
there is no reason a properly designed DC-DC regulator cannot work at 
lower voltage and current, it would just drain the battery faster.

Replacing the battery didn't fix the root cause of the problem, but it 
was sufficient to mitigate the problem for at least another year or two.

As someone else pointed out, the fact that users are keeping their 
phones longer than in the past, for multiple reasons, including the 
changes in the subsidy model from carriers, contributed to this issue.

You and I differ as to the mitigation. I think what Apple did is 
sufficient, with the discounted battery replacement. At three to four 
years the owner that keeps a phone that long would have to pay full 
price to Apple or to a third party for another replacement, but that's a 
small price to pay.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55324

In article <pmbpje$ooj$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> No. The only implication of the battery capacity is that it affects the 
> run time. 

nope. a larger capacity battery has a longer run time for the same
current draw, but the issue here is that the ability to provide peak
demands is also lower.

> A larger capacity battery would also have had the same 
> degradation over time. 

true, except that it would be able to handle higher demands than a
lower capacity battery, which is why the ipads don't have this issue.

> There was NOTHING wrong with the batteries that they chose. 

correct. it's normal degradation inherent in all batteries.

> A new 
> battery mitigates the shutdown issue because it has higher voltage and 
> lower internal resistance so it can provide more power (P=V x I).

nope. voltage depends on soc. internal resistance increases as the
battery ages, which is one way to determine battery health.

> But 
> there is no reason a properly designed DC-DC regulator cannot work at 
> lower voltage and current, it would just drain the battery faster.

it doesn't work that way.

ipads, some of which have the same internal power components are not
affected, the reason being that they have a higher capacity battery
which can provide peak demands without issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55338

On 31 Aug 2018 09:30:17 GMT, nospam wrote:

> it's normal degradation inherent in all batteries.

Except that only Apple had to *secretly*, *drastically*, and *permanently*
throttle people's CPUs (without even telling their own Genius Bar support
people) to "solve" the problems the loyal Apple customers were reporting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55329

On 2018-08-31 12:15, sms wrote:

> No. The only implication of the battery capacity is that it affects the 
> run time. A larger capacity battery would also have had the same 
> degradation over time.

Same % degradation. But after a year, the degraded bigger battery would
still be able to supply enough current to meet peak demands by phone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55330

In article <WMfiD.16489$Vl2.7828@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:


> Same % degradation. But after a year, the degraded bigger battery would
> still be able to supply enough current to meet peak demands by phone.

yep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55332

On 8/31/2018 11:28 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-08-31 12:15, sms wrote:
> 
>> No. The only implication of the battery capacity is that it affects the
>> run time. A larger capacity battery would also have had the same
>> degradation over time.
> 
> Same % degradation. But after a year, the degraded bigger battery would
> still be able to supply enough current to meet peak demands by phone.

Yes, but I'm talking about scaling both the power consumption and the 
battery size, not just building a thicker phone with a bigger battery. 
What I don't get is this emphasis on thinness. How many people base 
their buying decision on a difference of a a few mm?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55341

In article <pmc440$ufp$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> What I don't get is this emphasis on thinness. How many people base 
> their buying decision on a difference of a a few mm?

a lot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55345

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
 
>> What I don't get is this emphasis on thinness. How many people 
>> base their buying decision on a difference of a a few mm?
 
> a lot.

Bullshit. And I bet if you gave them a choice of a very thin
phone and a thicker one that only had to be charged once
a week, most would choose the thicker phone.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55351

In article <futlhrF189U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> What I don't get is this emphasis on thinness. How many people 
> >> base their buying decision on a difference of a a few mm?
>  
> > a lot.
> 
> Bullshit. And I bet if you gave them a choice of a very thin
> phone and a thicker one that only had to be charged once
> a week, most would choose the thicker phone.  

you'd lose.

phones get thinner and sales go up.

as for run time, it only needs to last a day in normal use because
people charge it overnight. lasting two days gives a safety cushion
should they happen to have a busy day.

not being near power to recharge for a week is an extremely unlikely
event, so much so that few people, if any, will want to carry the extra
weight and size of a larger battery just in case. they can always carry
a usb battery and charge overnight from that, if they're really away
from mains power.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55378

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> What I don't get is this emphasis on thinness. How many people 
>>>> base their buying decision on a difference of a a few mm?
  
>>> a lot.
 
>> Bullshit. And I bet if you gave them a choice of a very thin
>> phone and a thicker one that only had to be charged once
>> a week, most would choose the thicker phone.  
 
> you'd lose.

We'll see...
 
> phones get thinner and sales go up.

Sales have in fact plateaued for other reasons. 
 
> as for run time, it only needs to last a day in 
> normal use because people charge it overnight. 

Plenty don't. 

> lasting two days gives a safety cushion
> should they happen to have a busy day.
 
> not being near power to recharge for 
> a week is an extremely unlikely event, 

Irrelevant to how convenient that would be. 

> so much so that few people, if any, will want to carry the 
> extra weight and size of a larger battery just in case. they 
> can always carry a usb battery and charge overnight 
> from that, if they're really away from mains power.

Irrelevant to how much more convenient it 
would be if you only had to charge it weekly. 

And thinness gains you nothing. In fact the phone 
has to be made stronger so it doesn't bend. Its 
just another stupid fad/fashion thing.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55344

"sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message 
news:pmc440$ufp$2@dont-email.me...
> On 8/31/2018 11:28 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 2018-08-31 12:15, sms wrote:
>>
>>> No. The only implication of the battery capacity is that it affects the
>>> run time. A larger capacity battery would also have had the same
>>> degradation over time.
>>
>> Same % degradation. But after a year, the degraded bigger battery would
>> still be able to supply enough current to meet peak demands by phone.
>
> Yes, but I'm talking about scaling both the power consumption and the 
> battery size, not just building a thicker phone with a bigger battery.

> What I don't get is this emphasis on thinness. How many people base their 
> buying decision on a difference of a a few mm?

Yeah, its just another fashion/fad thing. You see it with laptops and 
tablets too. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55357

On 31 Aug 2018 12:15:12 GMT, sms wrote:

> Yes, but I'm talking about scaling both the power consumption and the 
> battery size, not just building a thicker phone with a bigger battery. 
> What I don't get is this emphasis on thinness. How many people base 
> their buying decision on a difference of a a few mm?

While nospam may decry what I'm about to say, I put a 7,200mAh battery in
my S3 to replace the original 2,100mAh battery, where the thickness never
once caused any concern to me.

On my current LG Stylo 3 Plus, I have a thick case (since my prior two
phones that replaced the S3, the Moto and the Nexus, both met untimely
physically catastrophic deaths within months of each other). 

Twiggy may be in style, but I prefer a phone that works almost as well in a
few years as it did when it was brand new. My current plans are to keep the
LG Stylo 3 Plus until it literally is physically broken to death (just like
I did on *all* my phones over the years).

NOTE: The Blackberry clitoris did it in. The RAZRs died mostly due to
battery bloating (they heated up immensely). etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55334

On 8/31/2018 9:15 AM, sms wrote:

> At three to four years the owner that keeps a phone that long would
> have to pay full price to Apple or to a third party for another
> replacement, but that's a small price to pay.

My wife's iPhone 6+ had a swollen battery at around the 2 year mark. I
replaced it for US$30 (included tools). Only took about 30 minutes. I'm
not sure how good the new battery is at that price but a grandkid is
still using the phone after 6 months. Time will tell...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55339

On 31 Aug 2018 09:15:40 GMT, sms wrote:

> No. The only implication of the battery capacity is that it affects the 
> run time. A larger capacity battery would also have had the same 
> degradation over time.

Reasonable adults can disagree when their arguments are based on fact.

I agree with you that "internal aging" (i.e., normal chemical processes
inherent in all similar batteries) would be the same no matter what the
size of the battery way.

I also agree that initial voltage is the same no matter how large a battery
- but I disagree that a battery will *hold* that voltage under peak loads
the same - since the nature of batteries is that the voltage drops when the
"electrons" in the redox reaction run out (so to speak).

The voltage of a larger battery will always fall slower under trickle loads
(depending, of course, on how large is larger).

Under peak demands? Again, everything depends on the size of that larger
battery. If it's "big enough", even teh peak demands will cause the larger
battery voltage to drop slower. 

The question of course is how large would that larger battery have to be?

If that larger battery would have to be huge, then, I would have to switch
my assessment to that of yours, which would be that the device is drawing
too much power for the battery that can be fit into it.

Everything depends on the outcome of the math where we have to keep in mind
that *only Apple* had to secretly chop CPUs in half to *solve* this
problem.

So whatever is the problem is something peculiar to Apple (even as nospam
will childishly state that Android has the same problem - the fact is that
the entire world outside of the Apple Apologists has proven otherwise).

> There was NOTHING wrong with the batteries that they chose. A new 
> battery mitigates the shutdown issue because it has higher voltage and 
> lower internal resistance so it can provide more power (P=V x I). But 
> there is no reason a properly designed DC-DC regulator cannot work at 
> lower voltage and current, it would just drain the battery faster.

I think I understand your point that it's the hardware that was flawed.

Your point is valid if even a realistically larger battery wouldn't prevent
the problems owners experienced.

One question which we probably will never know the answer of but that would
help sway the assessment is to ask *how large* of a battery would these
flawed phones have to have in order to *not* show significant problems in
the five year life span of the device (i.e., doubling the average length of
ownership for the original owner)?

Before nospam screams that five years is too long for an iPhone to last,
bear in mind, more than half of the smartphone owners in the Gallop Poll I
just quoted to JF Mezei said they keep their phones until they are no
longer usable (and bear in mind my Samsung Galaxy S3 was happily used by me
for over 5 years and only was replaced when an internal battery contact
sheared off from use). 

How large would the battery have to be to prevent the problem for 5 years?

> Replacing the battery didn't fix the root cause of the problem, but it 
> was sufficient to mitigate the problem for at least another year or two.

This is a fact all sensible adults agree upon.

> As someone else pointed out, the fact that users are keeping their 
> phones longer than in the past, for multiple reasons, including the 
> changes in the subsidy model from carriers, contributed to this issue.

Yes, but not really.

While the Gallop Poll showed Apple owners try to get rid of their iPhones
as fast as they can (e.g. the moment when their contracts expire) far more
so than Android owners, the average for all smartphones was around 2-1/2
years.

As I recall from this topic in the past, that average is lengthening over
time, where Apple could not possibly have been unaware of such data.

> You and I differ as to the mitigation. I think what Apple did is 
> sufficient, with the discounted battery replacement. 

Yes. We disagree. But at least our opinions are rational.
a. I feel that making the consumer *pay* for Apple's design flaw, is bad.
b. You feel that by making them pay a realistic price, is good.
(IMHO, the "normal" Apple battery-replacement price is, IMHO, inflated.)
HINT: I have bought a handful of huge 7,200mAh & 2,100 mAh NFC
antenna-equipped S3 batteries for the price of a single Apple battery
replacement.

The only place we differ, since we both agree there is a design flaw, is
who should *pay* for that design flaw. 

You think it's OK for the loyal consumer to pay (a reduced price).
I think it's crazy that the loyal consumer puts up with this abuse.

I expect that the class action suits will force Apple to make the customer
whole in some fashion, although, we all get those class-action suit notices
in our mail telling us that we can get a nickel if we send in the form. :)

> At three to four 
> years the owner that keeps a phone that long would have to pay full 
> price to Apple or to a third party for another replacement, but that's a 
> small price to pay.

While I bought plenty of batteries (some 7,000 mAH) to replace the original
2,100 mAh batteries in my five year old S3, replacing an Apple battery is
not something the average mom and pop can easily do (yeah, I'll bet Jolly
Roger says he can do it blindfolded in less than two minutes).

I think it as JF Mezei who was wondering about tradein value of his phone,
where if he's worried about something like that (don't most people just
give their old phones away or throw them in a drawer?) then he should also
be worried about total cost of ownership, which, as you may be aware, is
utterly astronomical for iPhones overall - and even more so when you add in
the cost of a yearly or bi-yearly battery replacement.

HINT: You can buy *five* LG Stylo 3 Plus phones for the price of one
less-functional in many ways iPhone 7 Plus, and, of course, as you know,
you can buy about *two* Moto X4 phones for the price of a far less
functional in many ways iPhone 8. The sales tax alone wasted on the iPhone
is enough to buy a handful of Android batteries.

In short, an iPHone can *never* be justified in terms of price to
performance or overall costs of ownership - but that's NOT why Apple owners
buy iPhones (clearly) - so it doesn't matter except when someone brings up
the fact that iPhones will cost (far) more than equivalent hardware Android
phones (unless you're brain dead like nospam and you find the *worst*
comparisons possible, which he always does).

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web