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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #55306 > 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 12:45 +0000
    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 09:05 -0700
    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-08-31 14:18 -0400
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 12:12 -0700
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 15:49 -0400
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 21:19 +0000
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-03 23:16 +0000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 01:14 +0000
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 05:42 +1000
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:27 -0700
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 18:32 -0400
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 23:32 +0000
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 19:40 -0400
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 00:44 +0000
                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 21:11 -0400
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 15:22 +0000
                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 14:10 +1000
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-01 06:52 -0700
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400
                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:50 +0000
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:08 +1000
                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:55 +0000
                          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 05:27 +1000
                            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 05:44 +0000
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-09-03 08:21 -0700
                                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 23:04 +0000
                              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:23 +1000
                                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-03 22:52 +0000
                                  Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 10:32 +1000
                                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 01:27 +0000
                                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 11:41 +1000
                                        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 01:49 +0000
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 19:37 +0000
                    Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 15:28 +0000
                      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 15:33 +0000
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 18:06 -0700
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 20:27 +0000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 10:37 +1000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-03 23:20 +0000
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-04 01:35 +0000
      Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 19:49 +0000
        Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:08 -0700
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 18:25 -0400
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 23:32 +0000
          Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-31 23:32 +0000
            Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 16:58 -0700
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 20:03 -0400
                Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 00:44 +0000
              Re: iPhone upgrade timing/strategy Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-01 00:44 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#55418

"sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message 
news:pme5ii$ntl$1@dont-email.me...
> On 8/31/2018 9:10 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote
>>> nospam wrote
>>
>>>>> The *secret* throttling was *permanent*.
>>
>>>> it's dynamic, based on momentary power demands and the ability of the 
>>>> battery to provide it.
>>
>>> The battery is never going to get better without replacing it.
>>
>> But slowing the cpu at the time of peak demand for power
>> from the battery does avoid the phone shutting down.
>
> The throttling was the best option to stop the unexpected shutdowns (until 
> battery replacement).
>
> Only apps that need a lot of CPU cycles will experience a performance hit. 
> Once a need for throttling is established, due to an aging battery, the 
> throttling doesn't go away until battery replacement.
>
> I don't think many customers would have been upset if their phone simply 
> displayed a message, "Battery needs replacement to restore peak 
> performance," as long as it was at least two years from the date of 
> purchase.\

I'd prefer it to slow the cpu in the unusual
situation where the phone is very cold. 

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

#55427

On 1 Sep 2018 12:08:58 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:

> I'd prefer it to slow the cpu in the unusual
> situation where the phone is very cold.

Clearly Apple had *many* ethical options to choose from.
Yet, they chose the super *secret* option of throttling CPUs at iOS update.

HINT: Ever wonder why I *never* update iOS until I absolutely must?

I think the fact that the option was super *secret* is simply that it was
too good to be true, even for Apple - that it was so *easy* to solve their
design problems!

Apple didn't want the other mobile device manufacturers in on their secret.
This little secret was a *fantastic* way to screw the customer royally.

It's such a *great option* that Apple didn't want the competition to know
about it, otherwise everyone would be tempted to screw the bejeesus out of
the loyal customer simply by having people benchmark the phone when new,
and then halving the performance after only about a year.

*It's such a *great* idea, that Apple kept it their little secret.*

Apple is so clever!

They had *many* ethical options.
Yet, they chose the unethical secret permanent halving of CPU speeds!

*Apple *proved* (yet again) they don't give a shit about the customer!*

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

#55468

Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> I'd prefer it to slow the cpu in the unusual
>> situation where the phone is very cold.

> Clearly Apple had *many* ethical options to choose from.

And they chose the one that works best.

> HINT: Ever wonder why I *never* update iOS until I absolutely must?

Then you don’t get the fixes for what gets fixed.
 

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

#55484

On 2 Sep 2018 12:27:01 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:

>> Clearly Apple had *many* ethical options to choose from.
> 
> And they chose the one that works best.

Hi Rod Speed,
Think about what you said.
Assuming you're not just playing silly games like nospam does, think.
Think what you just said. 

Act like an adult.

What works best for Apple?
What works best for the consumer?

What would be wrong with Apple providing free batteries for the next, oh,
say, five years, to all the affected Apple owners?

*Why wouldn't _that_ work best for the consumer?*

REQUEST: In your answer, please attempt to be "intelligent".
No stupid childish jokes please. They are beneath you.


>> HINT: Ever wonder why I *never* update iOS until I absolutely must?
> 
> Then you don┤ get the fixes for what gets fixed.

While I appreciate your assumption, and while I completely understand why
you make such an assumption, I'll wager that you can't name a single item
that is in the newer release that I want, or need.

My $300 Costco Wi-Fi-only 128GB iPad is, oh, I think, on 11.2.6 (which is
how it came from Costco).

Name *one thing* in the newer relesae that I want or need.
Just one.

C'mon. Rod Speed.
I expect you to be intelligent.

If you can't name one thing, then that alone falsifies your statement.
I expect you, of all people, to have a modicum of intelligence.

I can't expect intelligence from the likes of Savageduck.
But from you, I expect an *adult* answer to that simple logical question.

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

#55487

On 9/2/2018 10:44 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

> Name *one thing* in the newer [iOS]   relesae    that I want or
> need. Just one.

A spell checker?   :)

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

#55506

On 3 Sep 2018 08:21:05 GMT, 123456789 wrote:

>> Name *one thing* in the newer [iOS] *relesae* that I want or
>> need. Just one.
> 
> A spell checker?   :)

That was good repartee!

HINT: Your repartee was witty & more importantly, it was meant in good
natured humor (unlike the manchild retorts from the Apple Apologists).

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

#55492

Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote

>>> Clearly Apple had *many* ethical options to choose from.

>> And they chose the one that works best.

> Hi Rod Speed,
> Think about what you said.
> Assuming you're not just playing silly games like nospam does, think.
> Think what you just said.

I always do.

> Act like an adult.

I always do. Unlike you.

> What works best for Apple?

Producing the best result for the phone owner
without needing to have the phone modified.

> What works best for the consumer?

Having the cpu run slower for the very short
time when the camera is used when very cold
so the phone still takes the photo properly.

> What would be wrong with Apple providing free batteries for
> the next, oh, say, five years, to all the affected Apple owners?

Much more hassle for the phone owner than having the
phone continue to take photos fine when very cold.

> *Why wouldn't _that_ work best for the consumer?*

Nope, because the phone would stop working when
the owner is trying to take a photo when very cold
and it would take weeks to get the new battery fitted.

> REQUEST: In your answer, please attempt to be "intelligent".
> No stupid childish jokes please. They are beneath you.

Request denied. You have had a SoH bypass ?  Your problem, as always.

>>> HINT: Ever wonder why I *never* update iOS until I absolutely must?

>> Then you don¢t get the fixes for what gets fixed.

> While I appreciate your assumption,

It isnt an assumption, it’s a fact.

> and while I completely understand
> why you make such an assumption,

It isnt an assumption, it’s a fact.

> I'll wager that you can't name a single item that
> is in the newer release that I want, or need.

You have always been, and always will
be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

And you have in fact provided at least one example
of what you want or need in the last few weeks with
navigation using an ipad with just wifi.

> My $300 Costco Wi-Fi-only 128GB iPad is, oh, I think,
> on 11.2.6 (which is> how it came from Costco).

So you miss out on the improvements
with navigation with just wifi.

> Name *one thing* in the newer relesae that I want or need.
> Just one.

Just did. And there have been plenty of others since then too.

<reams of your even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>
 

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

#55502

On 3 Sep 2018 12:23:55 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:

>> Act like an adult.
> 
> I always do. Unlike you.

I assume you, Rod Speed, can comprehend adult logic.
Hence, I'll let you in on a little adult secret.

I respond to each post in the presumed tone of the post I'm responding to.
Therefore.... 
- If you act like a manchild - I treat you like the manchild you act like.
- If you act like an adult - instantly - I treat you as an adult.

This is really simple logic.

I do this tactically each time you act like either an adult or a child.
I do this strategically to ensure that you act like an adult in the future.

< / End of my little secret.>

>> What works best for Apple?
> 
> Producing the best result for the phone owner
> without needing to have the phone modified.

I speak adult logic, Rod Speed.

Again, I ask the simple question of what works best for the consumer:
a. Forcing the consumer to pay for a new battery every year or so, or, 
b. Providing a battery free of charge to the consumer every year or so.
*Pick one.*

>> What works best for the consumer?
> 
> Having the cpu run slower for the very short
> time when the camera is used when very cold
> so the phone still takes the photo properly.

You need to understand adult logic, Rod Speed.
Really.

If you actually think that the CPU halving is "for a very short time", then 
you have simply proven you don't comprehend even the simplest of adult 
logic.

The CPU halving is based on a determination of the battery "chemical age", 
which, I must literally state this obvious fact to you - never gets better.

It only gets worse, in fact.
So if a CPU is halved today, later it's even worse.

Since you don't seem to comprehend even the simplest of logic, I will need 
to state the obvious fact that *there is no battery fairy*.

It's a well known fact by any adult *intelligent* enough to comprehend 
facts, that the *secret* throttling of the CPU was often *drastic*, and 
always *permanent* and it *just gets worse and worse* over time.

Nowadays, you have a simple choice:
a. Put up with the throttling and accept unacceptable performance, or, 
b. Put up with the throttling and accept unacceptable stability.
*Pick one*.

That your child-like brain can't seem to comprehend that simple adult fact 
doesn't make that simple fact not a simple fact.

>> What would be wrong with Apple providing free batteries for
>> the next, oh, say, five years, to all the affected Apple owners?
> 
> Much more hassle for the phone owner than having the
> phone continue to take photos fine when very cold.

That you have to play your silly games about the "cold" weather, which is 
completely outside the control of the user, simply means you're using the 
logic of a child now, Rod Speed.

Whenever you Apple Apologists fall to the logic of a child, I know that the 
facts that I'm communicating to you are actually sinking in.

So it's *good* that you are struggling to justify the secret drastic 
permanent and always getting worse by the day throttling as something that 
(you claim) only happens in the "cold" when you're doing something "trivial 
like taking photos.

When you act like a child to justify idiotic claims, I know that the 
reality of the actual real-world facts are slowly sinking into your brain.

That's progress for you.

>> *Why wouldn't _that_ work best for the consumer?*
> 
> Nope, because the phone would stop working when
> the owner is trying to take a photo when very cold
> and it would take weeks to get the new battery fitted.

See above. 

When you have to stoop so low as to justify your rational using the logic 
of a child, I know that the actual logic is slowly seeping into your brain.

That's progress.

>> REQUEST: In your answer, please attempt to be "intelligent".
>> No stupid childish jokes please. They are beneath you.
> 
> Request denied. You have had a SoH bypass ?  Your problem, as always.

What I find very common about you Apple Apologists is that you *think* 
you're a genius at being 'witty' with repartee - and yet - you *always* 
simply prove that you have the mindset of a child by what you write.

When your repartee climbs to the level of an adult, I'll let you know.

> You have always been, and always will
> be, completely and utterly irrelevant. 

hehhehheh... 

When you say such childish things, it proves to me that the actual facts 
are slowly sinking into your child-like brain - such that your *only* 
response is to say that the actual facts are irrelevant to you.

While I *know* that facts are irrelevant to you Apple Apologists, it's 
*you* who needs to realize that what you just said shows that you feel that 
actual facts are irrelevant to you. 

I agree with your supposition that you feel facts are irrelevant.
It's *why* you are an Apple Apologists.

Otherwise, you'd act like a normal adult.

> And you have in fact provided at least one example
> of what you want or need in the last few weeks with
> navigation using an ipad with just wifi.

WTF?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, where I repeat that I have iOS 
11.2.6 where my claim is that you almost certainly can't list a single 
feature that I want or need that is in the newer releases.

Since you Apple Apologists play your silly games all day every day, I'm not 
sure what silly childish game you're playing by intimating that there is 
"something" in the newer IOS release for that Wi-Fi-only iPad with respect 
to "navigation" that I would want or need.

So I'll bite - although you likely just made it all up (which is a trait of 
all you child-like Apple Apologists since you care not about credibility).

Q: What is in newer iOS releases with respect to Wi-Fi-based navigation 
that isn't already in the iOS 11.2.6 release that my iPad is already on?


>> My $300 Costco Wi-Fi-only 128GB iPad is, oh, I think,
>> on 11.2.6 (which is> how it came from Costco).
> 
> So you miss out on the improvements
> with navigation with just wifi.

Are you, Rod Speed, simply playing your childish silly games again?

Q: What is in newer iOS releases with respect to Wi-Fi-based navigation 
that isn't already in the iOS 11.2.6 release that my iPad is already on?
> 
>> Name *one thing* in the newer relesae that I want or need.
>> Just one.
> 
> Just did. And there have been plenty of others since then too.

Are you proving that you Apple Apologists can only play silly games?

Q: What is in newer iOS releases with respect to Wi-Fi-based navigation 
that isn't already in the iOS 11.2.6 release that my iPad is already on?

> <reams of your even sillier shit flushed where it belongs>

What is interesting is that you hate *facts* so much that you call facts 
"shit", which proves to all that all you Apple Apologists *can* do, is play 
your silly games.

*You Apple Apologists, Rod Speed, are not like normal adults.*

Actual facts don't play any role in your imaginary belief system.

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

#55511

Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Act like an adult.

>> I always do. Unlike you.

> I assume you, Rod Speed, can comprehend adult logic.
> Hence, I'll let you in on a little adult secret.

No you didn’t.

> I respond to each post in the presumed
> tone of the post I'm responding to.

Only children behave like that.

> Therefore....
> - If you act like a manchild - I treat you like the manchild you act like.
> - If you act like an adult - instantly - I treat you as an adult.

That’s clearly a lie and its childish behaviour anyway.

> This is really simple logic.

It isnt logic at all, just childish behaviour.

> I do this tactically each time you act like either an adult or a child.
> I do this strategically to ensure that you act like an adult in the 
> future.

It in fact does nothing of the sort.

> < / End of my little secret.>

It is nothing even remotely like a secret.

>>> What works best for Apple?

>> Producing the best result for the phone owner
>> without needing to have the phone modified.

> I speak adult logic, Rod Speed.

Another lie.

> Again, I ask the simple question of what works
> best for the consumer: a. Forcing the consumer
> to pay for a new battery every year or so,

They do nothing of the sort.

And running slower for a moment when the phone is
very cold and there is a higher than normal demand
on the very cold battery is in fact doing the exact
opposite, avoiding any need for a new battery.

> or, b. Providing a battery free of charge
> to the consumer every year or so.
> *Pick one.*

The problem isnt the battery, it’s the DC-DC converter.

And the proof of that is that the later phones don’t have
that problem with the phone shutting down on a higher
than usual power demand when the phone is very cold.

>>> What works best for the consumer?

>> Having the cpu run slower for the very short
>> time when the camera is used when very cold
>> so the phone still takes the photo properly.

> You need to understand adult logic, Rod Speed.

I do thanks.

> Really.

> If you actually think that the CPU halving is "for a
> very short time", then you have simply proven you
> don't comprehend even the simplest of adult logic.

Nothing to do with logic, it’s a trivially provable fact.

> The CPU halving is based on a determination of the
> battery "chemical age", which, I must literally state
> this obvious fact to you - never gets better.

But the phone no longer shuts down when its very
cold on the short term increased power demand.

<none of the rest of your even more pig ignorant shit and
lies worth bothering with, all flushed where it belongs>
 

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

#55513

On 3 Sep 2018 17:32:35 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:

> No you didn┤.

*Rod Speed just proved that facts are well beyond his comprehension.*

What is amazingly consistent about you child-like Apple Apologists is that
you actually think these sophomoric assertions are sheer genius.

Your retorts are that of a fifth grader, Rod Speed. Really.
Seriously. 

You should not respond on a newsgroup that contains actual adults if the
only defense you have against actual facts is "no you didn't".

All you prove, yet again, is that you Apple Apologists are man children.

I am only of average intelligence, and yet, I tower over you Apple
Apologists - where I have to wonder how anyone can be as unfathomably
childish as you Apple Apologists consistently prove you are.

The Apple Apologists, like Rod Speed, can't possibly respond to facts. 
*Rod Speed just proved that facts are well beyond his comprehension.*

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

#55515

"Arlen Holder" <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:pmkn2a$b0c$1@news.mixmin.net...
> On 3 Sep 2018 17:32:35 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> No you didn¢t.
>
> *Rod Speed just proved that facts are well beyond his comprehension.*

More of your childish shit. You wouldn’t know what a real fact
was if it bit you on your lard arse, so here goes the chain on the
rest of your childish shit and lies.
 

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

#55517

On 3 Sep 2018 18:41:48 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:

> More of your childish shit. You wouldn┤ know what a real fact
> was if it bit you on your lard arse, so here goes the chain on the
> rest of your childish shit and lies.

*Each time Apple Apologist Rod Speed posts, he proves for all to see*
*that we witness the workings of his mind which is that of a child!*

The only way Apple Apologists like Rod Speed can reconcile with facts is to
deny all facts flatly, because facts don't fit into his imaginary belief
system.

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

#55425

On 1 Sep 2018 06:52:16 GMT, sms wrote:

> The throttling was the best option to stop the unexpected shutdowns 
> (until battery replacement).

We disagree but since we're rational logical adults, we know why.
I just want to be clear that *Apple* felt it was the best option.
In fact, Apple felt the option was so good, that it was *secret*.
And, it kicked in, involuntarily, at iOS update time.

So, for *Apple*, it was the best option.

But was it the best option for the user base?

My supposition is that it's a *terrible* option for the user to
a. Have to *pay* every year (or two) to replace a battery
b. Simply becuase Apple designed, shipped, & sold defective phones.

I feel the *best* option *for the consumer* would have been:
a. For Apple to make the consumer whole on the design defect
b. That means either they give them a new (non defect) phone, 
c. Or Apple gives them their money back (or a discount on a new phone)

*That* would be the "best" option for the *consumer*.

HINT: You're only saying what the best option was for Apple, while I'm 
looking at the best option from the standpoint of the *consumer*.

I agree the option Apple choice is the best for Apple.
But the best option for the consumer would be to make them whole again.
At Apple's cost - not at the consumers' cost.
 
> Only apps that need a lot of CPU cycles will experience a performance 
> hit. Once a need for throttling is established, due to an aging battery, 
> the throttling doesn't go away until battery replacement.

The mere fact that *plenty* of people brought their iPhones in to the 
Genius Bar for being unacceptably slow, and the mere fact that benchmark 
scores clearly saw a *secret*, *drastic*, and *permeanent* effect, belies 
the fact that the consumer wouldn't "feel" the slowdown.

Remember, Apple decided to do this *secretly*.
Never forget that. 
It's important.

Why was it a *secret*?
I have my ideas but only a court case can bring that out of Apple.
Even public statements from Apple were bold faced lies (as you know).

Tim Cook was caught himself telling lies publicly. 
Obviously *nothing* Apple says can *ever* be trusted ever again.
Nothing.

Only a court of law will find out the truth.

> I don't think many customers would have been upset if their phone simply 
> displayed a message, "Battery needs replacement to restore peak 
> performance," as long as it was at least two years from the date of 
> purchase.

Yes. We agree. Apple was *never* up front with its loyal customers.
Nobody but the apologists will doubt that the act was *secret*.

Even the Genius Bar employees were not told the problem.
Hence they blithely told customers they needed a new phone.
HINT: They didn't know to tell people they just needed a battery.

The fact is that Apple can never be trusted to care about the consumer.

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

#55408

On 31 Aug 2018 21:10:39 GMT, Rod Speed wrote:

> But slowing the cpu at the time of peak demand for power
> from the battery does avoid the phone shutting down.

Hi Rod Speed,

I think you are more intelligent than, oh, say, Jolly Roger, Lewis,
Savageduck, and BK@OnRamp, so I'm going to ask you to think logically and
not just *assume* what Apple carefully crafted means what it doesn't
actually say.

This is a fact:
- The battery "aging" isn't going to get better. 
  HINT: There is no battery fairy.

This is another fact:
- The throttling process "senses" the battery aging status.
  HINT: This isn't going to get better. 

If the throttling kicks in, the throttling kicks in.
Remember, the battery isn't going to get better.

So if the throttling kicks in, to, say, throttle the CPU to less than half
the speed after about a year of use on the phone, then the throttling is
*always* going to kick in on that device with that battery.

The only way to prevent that throttling from being permanent is to change
the operating system. 

Please think *logically*.
Think like an *adult* would think.

Don't *assume* that the extremely carefully crafted Apple letter means what
you *think* it means - read the letters carefully - and *comprehend* what
they actually *say* and not what you *wish* they said.

The fact is that the original throttling was *secret*, *drastic&*, and
*permanent*, and the new throttling is not secret, but still *drastic* and
only permanent in the sense that you now have two choices from Apple:
a. Choose unacceptable CPU performance, or
b. Choose unacceptable device stability.
*Pick one*

The nice thing is that Apple, for once, is giving the users a choice!

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

#55409

On 1 Sep 2018 15:28:27 GMT, Arlen Holder wrote:

> I think you are more intelligent than, oh, say, Jolly Roger, Lewis,
> Savageduck, and BK@OnRamp, so I'm going to ask you to think logically and
> not just *assume* what Apple carefully crafted means what it doesn't
> actually say.

Actually, I apologize to Rod Speed.
He *was* speaking intelligently.

I somehow mixed up posts from Rod & nospam (who never speaks
intelligently).

So I publicly apologize to Rod Speed since all you said was this:
 "But slowing the cpu at the time of peak demand for power
  from the battery does avoid the phone shutting down."

Which is true. 
That is a fact that slowing down the CPU (let's skip the next phrase)
*does* prevent the phone from being unstable. This is true.

In fact, that truth is why Apple *finally* gives the user a choice:
a. The user can choose unacceptable CPU speeds, or, 
b. The user can choose unacceptable stability.
*Pick one*

The part I was keying off of in my prior response (which I apologize for
even as it is all fact) is the "claim" by the Apple Apologists that the CPU
slowing down isn't *permanent*.

It is. 
We proved that so long ago I don't want to have to dig up the references.

Why the *decision* to slow down the CPU may be "dynamic", the battery age
is the key factor it uses to determine that, and that will never get
better.

HINT: There is no battery fairy.

So what Apple euphemistically calls "dynamic" is, in actuality, like
Schroeder's cat. It's already dead the moment you check the CPU speeds. 

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

#55384

On 8/31/2018 4:32 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

<snip>

> So it's nice that now Apple finally allows the users two choices
> a. Loyal customers can choose *unacceptable phone stability*, or,
> b. Loyal customers can choose *unacceptable CPU performance*.
> *Pick one.*

No, the third option is to periodically replace the battery. It's not 
going to be $29, at least not from Apple, but it's not going to be 
outrageously expensive either. Remember, these are phones that are up to 
four years old already. Spending $50 on an after-market battery 
replacement is a heck of a lot better than spending $700+ on a new phone.

This was a good article: 
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2018/02/07/apple-iphone-battery-probems-timcook-failure-disclosure-mistakes-doj/#78a365e02132>

But there is no permanent fix that is tenable. They can't stick a 
redesigned main board into tens of millions of phones. In the article it 
states that Apple is attributing this to a “manufacturing defect”. This 
is not really true. It's a design defect, the manufacturing process was 
just fine. And they've corrected the problem in new models.

I'm reminded of what a vehicle manufacture once said about their 
oil-burning engines. They defined a ridiculously low "normal" rate of 
oil burning and just told owners to keep adding oil. They were not going 
to give everyone a new engine or replace the valve seals in millions of 
engines, many of which were well past the warranty period. It was a 
design flaw that had a workaround of sorts. That vehicle company went 
out of business as consumers avoided their cars and SUVs.

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

#55434

On 31 Aug 2018 18:06:09 GMT, sms wrote:

>> So it's nice that now Apple finally allows the users two choices
>> a. Loyal customers can choose *unacceptable phone stability*, or,
>> b. Loyal customers can choose *unacceptable CPU performance*.
>> *Pick one.*
> 
> No, the third option is to periodically replace the battery.

C'mon sms. Don't play silly games. 
*Realistically the user has no choice but to replace the battery yearly.*

The point is that Apple never *solved* the problem. 
And that Apple's "solution" is highly unethical (to say the least).

*And that Apple proved (in spades) they don't care about the customer!*

So, sure, the customer has three options, ... which is to *pay more* for a
new battery every year or two ... but wait ... they have four options ...
which is to sell the phone ... but wait ... they have five options ...
which is to sell the phone and buy a non-defective one ... but wait ...
they have six options which is to give the phone to Goodwill and take the
full price tax deduction ... but wait ... they have seven options which is
to wait for the results of the class action lawsuit and then get a tradein
or other discount on a new phone ... but wait they have an eighth option...
etc.

The immediate options that an Apple customer *must* choose the moment the
iOS code notices an aged battery is clear. It's only one of two immediate
choices.

I agree with you that *after* they make one of those two immediate choices
(they have to make that choice then and there at that very moment!), then
they have a zillion options, all of which include replacing the hardware,
which isn't in the same level of decision making for heaven's sake.

Let's not play silly games. 
*Realistically, the user has no choice but to replace the battery yearly.*

> It's not 
> going to be $29, at least not from Apple, but it's not going to be 
> outrageously expensive either. Remember, these are phones that are up to 
> four years old already. Spending $50 on an after-market battery 
> replacement is a heck of a lot better than spending $700+ on a new phone.

Agreed that it will be $80 after the first year, but the point is that
Apple shouldn't charge the loyal customer for Apple's own problems.

Remember, the iPhone is and was never a cheap phone.
It's a high end device (at least in terms of style and price).

It's clearly unethical to *secretly* damage the phones 
(which the lawsuits already are making the case so we'll just wait).

It's just as unethical (IMHO) to charge the loyal customer anything!
Remember, it's not the customer's fault Apple screwed up.

I'm amazed that Apple customers permit Apple to screw them yearly.
Because of Apple's design flaws, the customer has to buy a new battery
every year or year and a half. Forever. (Remember how long I kept my
Samsung Galaxy S3 for example, so don't say that everyone throws away their
phone every year.)

Apple screwed their customers (by secretly damaging the phone).
Apple *continues* to screw their customers (by charging them for the flaw).

> This was a good article: 
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2018/02/07/apple-iphone-battery-probems-timcook-failure-disclosure-mistakes-doj/#78a365e02132>

WOW! Thank you for that article! It's what I was looking for!

Many months ago, near the end of January, I tried to find the *reply* to
the Senate who sent a letter to Apple asking them to answer a few
questions. This February article implies that the reply came from Apple.

First they discuss the battery pricing, which, any sane person would agree,
makes no sense since at any price ($80 or $30), Apple is forcing the
consumer to play for their design flaws that they didn't admit until they
were forced to admit them (which means they were hiding them).

Also, despite the Apple Apologists literally screaming they *knew all
along* about the throttling, Apple admitted to the government they played
with the data, making it *look* like they admitted it in the release notes,
when they only modified the release notes a month later surreptitiously
(and even then, "fell short" on disclosure).

Apple then told the energy committee that the only solution is throttling
the handsets, which is blatantly wrong - since Apple could easily replace
batteries for free until the end of time if they were actually ethical.

Also, Apple could buy the phones back, or give the loyal consumer a
discount toward a non-defective phone, but that would only be something
that an *ethical* company would think of. Not Apple.

These are facts, mind you - as you, sms, I presume, took Business Ethics in
college just like the rest of us did (now it's even taught at our local
high school - at least in a few lectures in their mandatory Economics for
Seniors classes).

*Apple clearly failed the *business ethics* part of their decisions*
since Apple has *plenty* of *ethical* choices to resolve the problem.

Interestingly, the article says the problem is "rooted deep inside the
iPhone hardware", which is true, in a sense, since it seems clear to me, a
logical intelligent well-educated adult, that the *pairing* of that
specific battery to that specific phone is the top-level problem set.

> But there is no permanent fix that is tenable.

Yes there is.
a. Apple can replace batteries for free.
b. Apple can replace defective phones with a non-defective phone.
c. Apple can give the users a discount toward a new non-defective phone.
etc.

Those would be *ethical* choices.

All Apple proved was that they couldn't think of more non-ethical choices.

> They can't stick a 
> redesigned main board into tens of millions of phones. 

Bearing in mind the iPhone isn't cheap, why can't Apple just replace the
defective phones?

That would be an *ethical* decision by Apple, would it not?

> In the article it 
> states that Apple is attributing this to a ´manufacturing defect¡. This 
> is not really true. It's a design defect, the manufacturing process was 
> just fine. And they've corrected the problem in new models.

You bring up a good point, which means that you are an astute reader.
I agree that Apple has never shown a single "manufacturing" defect in that
phone (like there appears to be with the iPhone 8 as reported today).

> I'm reminded of what a vehicle manufacture once said about their 
> oil-burning engines. They defined a ridiculously low "normal" rate of 
> oil burning and just told owners to keep adding oil. 

It's kind of what BMW did when people complained of high maintenance costs,
that BMW then did two things at once:
a. They declared that the fluids (e.g., ATM), were "lifetime fluids".
b. And _then_ they declared that they'll do maintenance for free!

Hehhehheh ... you gotta love that logic!

Those bimmer owners who fell for the "free maintenance" got zero
maintenance on the "lifetime fluids"!

HINT: BMW has since rescinded that "lifetime fluids" declaration.

> They were not going 
> to give everyone a new engine or replace the valve seals in millions of 
> engines, many of which were well past the warranty period.

*Why can't Apple make the customer whole by giving them a free battery?*

What's so hard about that?

HINT: It's the ethical thing to do.

DOUBLE HINT: Apple has proven time and again that they are NOT ethical.

> It was a 
> design flaw that had a workaround of sorts. That vehicle company went 
> out of business as consumers avoided their cars and SUVs.

I am *amazed* at how loyal the slavish customers are of the iPhone!

I realize one person can't do much, but if everyone just expected Apple to
act ethically (for once for God's sake!), then Apple might consider doing
what's ethical.

To me, it's an easy decison, based on pure ethics and business sense
(although Apple knows their customer far better than I do).

*Give every affected owner a free battery for the next X years.*

What's so freaking hard about that?
HINT: That would be the *ethical* thing for Apple to do.

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

#55380

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> I can't see anyone choosing to have a major problem show up as the
>> phone ages when that can be avoided by a better DC-DC converter design.

> Absolutely. But I don't know what they were thinking when they decided 
> that the appropriate solution was to throttle the CPU. Did anyone think 
> for a second that this would go unnoticed?

Its better than doing nothing and have the phone shut down
with higher demand stuff like using the camera when very cold.

>> Don’t buy that either given that so many keep their phones much longer 
>> than that.

> The 6s is a phone people wanted to keep longer because it was the last one 
> (other than the SE) with a headphone jack.

Plenty kept them longer than 1 year before the 6S 

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

#55510

In message <pmcfd6$80n$2@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2018 12:42 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

> <snip>

>> I can't see anyone choosing to have a major problem show up as the
>> phone ages when that can be avoided by a better DC-DC converter design.

> Absolutely. But I don't know what they were thinking when they decided 
> that the appropriate solution was to throttle the CPU. Did anyone think 
> for a second that this would go unnoticed?

Step down CPU on tasks that exceed the battery;s current capabilites or
crash the phone. Hmmm. decision, decisions.

It's interesting that Android manufacturers do EXACTLY THE SAME THING,
only they also fake their results on bacnhmarks, and yet not on the
androolers seem to care about that.

Pathetic infant trolls.

>> Don’t buy that either given that so many keep their phones much longer 
>> than that.

> The 6s is a phone people wanted to keep longer because it was the last 
> one (other than the SE) with a headphone jack.

My eldest child still has an iPhone 6 (not S) and it has a 100% battery
health.

I offered to swap my 7 Plus (battery health at 93%), but no go. So I
will be selling my 7 this month to offset a new phone.

-- 
Transvestite: A guy who likes to eat, drink and be Mary.

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

#55514

On 3 Sep 2018 23:20:28 GMT, Lewis wrote:

> It's interesting that Android manufacturers do EXACTLY THE SAME THING,
> only they also fake their results on bacnhmarks, and yet not on the
> androolers seem to care about that.

*Each time Apple Apologist Lewis posts, we get a glimpse of his mindset!*

What's very interesting is that the child-like Apple Apologists
consistently blame Android for all the poor decisions by Apple.

Here, the child-like mentality of the Apple Apologist Lewis is in full
view, where Lewis just proved he feels that it's Android's fault that Apple
had to *secretly*, *drastically*, and *permanently* throttle CPUs to less
than half speed in about a year (and then it just gets worse from there).

Like children who claim that the reason they did a bad thing is that other
children did bad things, the mentality of the child-like Apple Apologists
is *consistently* that of a fifth grader (or less).

They have absolutely no comprehension of actual facts.
Real facts don't have a place in their child-like imaginary belief system.

In their child-like imaginary belief system, Apple Apologists like Lewis
seem to assume (sans a single shred of any evidence whatsoever) that "all
the kids" are doing it.

Even though there is clear and convincing factual evidence for adults that
no mobile phone manufacturer except Apple ever felt the need to *secretly*,
*drastically*, and "permanently* throttle CPU speeds to less than half
speeds after about a year (and it just gets worse from there).

*Each time Apple Apologist Lewis posts, we witness the mind of a child!* 

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web