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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57730 > unrolled thread

charging policy

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

Contents

  charging policy "Linea Recta" <bleep.bleep@bleep.invalid> - 2018-11-21 18:24 +0100
    Re: charging policy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-21 17:36 +0000
      Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-21 19:02 +0100
        Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
    Re:charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-21 18:53 +0100
      Re: Re:charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-21 18:42 +0000
      Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
        Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-22 07:13 +0100
          Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 01:50 -0500
            Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-22 09:15 +0100
              Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 16:09 +0000
              Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 11:57 -0500
            Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 16:18 +0000
              Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 11:57 -0500
                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 17:26 +0000
                  Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 12:54 -0500
                    Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:26 +0000
                      Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500
                        Re: charging policy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-23 09:28 +0000
                          "tl; dr" (was: Re: charging policy) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 15:28 +0000
                    Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
              Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 10:22 -0700
                Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-22 18:45 +0000
                  Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 13:47 -0500
                  Re: charging policy "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-22 20:40 +0000
                    Re: charging policy David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:29 +0000
                      Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
                    Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
                  Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:30 +0000
                    Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500
                      Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 15:26 +0000
                    Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 16:13 +0000
                      Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 19:52 +0000
                        Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 21:29 +0000
                          Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 16:40 -0500
                            Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 21:48 +0000
                              Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 17:06 -0500
                                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 22:09 +0000
                                  Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 17:23 -0500
                                  Re: charging policy The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-23 21:00 -0800
                                    Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 09:05 -0500
                              Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-24 15:46 +0000
                                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 10:51 -0500
                                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 10:01 -0700
                                  Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 12:55 -0500
                                    Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 13:07 -0700
                                      Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 16:33 -0400
                                        Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700
                                          Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500
                                            Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 11:33 -0700
                                              Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-25 19:06 +0000
                                                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500
                                                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700
                                                  Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 22:07 -0500
                                                  Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 04:46 +0000
                                                    Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 00:32 -0500
                                                    Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 22:37 -0700
                                              Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500
                                                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700
                                                  Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-26 15:45 +0000
                                                    Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 10:49 -0500
                                                    Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-26 16:04 -0700
                                                      Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 19:11 -0500
                                  Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-24 20:14 +0000
                                    Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700
                                      Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500
      Re: charging policy Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2018-11-26 10:36 +0200
        Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 16:37 +0000
    Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
    Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-21 15:01 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#57839

In article <ptalsp$agr$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> Because people tend to want new phones before the batteries in their old 
> one die?  I've used 6 cell phones, and not a single one was replaced 
> because of battery failure.  And I'm the kind of person who keeps a 
> rotten car for 5 years after it tries to kill me the first time!

which is what i originally said, that jumping through hoops to extend
battery life is not worth the trouble.

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

#57842

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <231120181640378302%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam 
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
> >In article <pt9v0g.bbk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> ><this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>   I.e. despite nospam's foot-stamping, this - again, for the umpteenth
> >> time - specifically debunks the claim that limiting charging to between
> >> XX and 80/90% "is not worth the small benefit"/"an extra month or two
> >> over 3-5 years".
> >
> >if the difference was as big as you claim, why do nearly all device
> >makers *not* limit charging, especially in devices with internal
> >batteries?
> 
> Perhaps because there's little incentive for them to do so?

  Indeed. If they can get away with it - i.e. not too many unhappy
customers, bad reviews, bad press, etc. - there's little to no incentive
for device makers to prolong the life of their products, quite the
contrary.

  BTW, did you notice nospam doing yet another dodge-and-divert,
pretending *I* 'claim' something, while what I *actually* did was
giving references to an authoritative source.

  I'm sure most here will take Battery University's expertise over
nospam's unsubstantiated foot-stamping any time.

  In closing, a repeat of what I said in the "charging to 80 or 90%"
thread (and which nospam of course also dodged and diverted):

  If anyone still has any doubt about what is myth and what is fact, it
might help somewhat to know that Teslas are normally configured to 90%
or a bit less. One would think that *they* know a bit about batteries,
wouldn't one!? :-)

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

#57843

In article <ptbv8a.dbk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>   If anyone still has any doubt about what is myth and what is fact, it
> might help somewhat to know that Teslas are normally configured to 90%
> or a bit less. One would think that *they* know a bit about batteries,
> wouldn't one!? :-)

they do. except that cars are normally kept a *lot* longer than
cellphones and replacement batteries for teslas are *not* cheap.

it's an entirely different use case.

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

#57844

On 11/24/2018 8:46 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> there's little to no incentive for device makers to prolong the life
> of their products

And if the battery does manage to live too long a life, the
(no longer updated) OS gets out of date...

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

#57845

In article <ptc05h$qn$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com>
wrote:

> 
> > there's little to no incentive for device makers to prolong the life
> > of their products
> 
> And if the battery does manage to live too long a life, the
> (no longer updated) OS gets out of date...

for android, that's true.

5 year old iphones are still getting software updates.

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

#57846

On 11/24/2018 10:55 AM, nospam wrote:
> 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote:

>> And if the battery does manage to live too long a life, the (no
>> longer updated) OS gets out of date...

> for android, that's true.

Well...this IS an Android group after all. But you Apple fanbois are
still (somewhat?) welcome... ;)

> 5 year old iphones are still getting software updates.

Yes. Apple was a little more sneaky. Their updates actually made some of
those old phones slower so people would buy new ones. Course they didn't
tell anyone. When they finally got caught they made up that old battery
problem nonsense and put out an update to fix the update...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/30/us-probing-apple-over-updates-that-slow-older-phones-bloomberg-report.html

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

#57848

In article <ptcb2n$kas$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com>
wrote:

> >> And if the battery does manage to live too long a life, the (no
> >> longer updated) OS gets out of date...
> 
> > for android, that's true.
> 
> Well...this IS an Android group after all. But you Apple fanbois are
> still (somewhat?) welcome... ;)

i use a little of everything, depending on the given task.

> > 5 year old iphones are still getting software updates.
> 
> Yes. Apple was a little more sneaky. Their updates actually made some of
> those old phones slower so people would buy new ones. 

false. ios 12 is faster in nearly everything (there are always edge
cases). the goal for ios 12 was to improve overall performance,
particularly with older devices. 

it's also ludicrous to think that making a phone slower via an update
will get someone to buy another device from the same company. if
anything, people will buy something *else*.

> Course they didn't
> tell anyone. When they finally got caught they made up that old battery
> problem nonsense and put out an update to fix the update...

the 'battery problem' is *not* nonsense and affects android phones as
well as other products. as of yet, the laws of physics have not been
overturned. the alternative is unexpected shutdowns, which is worse and
and risks data loss. 

apple's solution was to *extend* the useful life of the device so that
users *didn't* have to buy a replacement.

<https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/241772-google-nexus-pixel-devices-sh
utting-battery-drained>
  The Nexus 6P was Google¹s flagship phone last year, and is by far the
  more common device to suffer these symptoms. Owners report that
  phones will run fine, then they¹ll abruptly shut down at between 10
  and 60% remaining in the battery. Owners seem to be experiencing this
  earlier and more often in cold conditions.
...
  It sounds like the random shutdowns started happening around the time
  Nougat rolled out to the 6P. However, some people who have had the
  battery replaced (which required disassembling the phone) report that
  the issues have disappeared. This could indicate that we¹re looking
  at a combination of a software bug and a hardware fault.

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

#57853

On 11/24/2018 1:33 PM, nospam wrote:
> 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote:

>> this IS an Android group after all. But you Apple fanbois are still
>> (somewhat?) welcome... ;)

> i use a little of everything, depending on the given task.

When's the last time you actually criticized an Apple product?? Be
honest. And I'm certainly not the first to use the F-word (fanboi) on
you... ;)

>> Apple was a little more sneaky. Their updates actually made some
>> of those old phones slower so people would buy new ones.

> it's also ludicrous to think that making a phone slower via an
> update will get someone to buy another device from the same company.

If people like their iPhone and think it is just getting slower because
it's getting older, they'll likely refresh it with a new iPhone. That's 
a real good reason to keep a sneaky secret, don't you think...

> the 'battery problem' is *not* nonsense

It was so not-nonsense that Apple apologized, got fined, got
investigated, and offered battery discounts.

> apple's solution was to *extend* the useful life of the device so
> that users *didn't* have to buy a replacement.

Of course...wink, wink, wink...

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

#57857

In article <ptcv8a$2vm$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com>
wrote:

> >> this IS an Android group after all. But you Apple fanbois are still
> >> (somewhat?) welcome... ;)
> 
> > i use a little of everything, depending on the given task.
> 
> When's the last time you actually criticized an Apple product?? Be
> honest. And I'm certainly not the first to use the F-word (fanboi) on
> you... ;)

i criticize apple all the time, including earlier today. 

i also criticize those who make false statements about apple and any
other company. see the thread about screen protectors for an example.

and calling anyone a fanboi is an ad hominem attack. 

> >> Apple was a little more sneaky. Their updates actually made some
> >> of those old phones slower so people would buy new ones.
> 
> > it's also ludicrous to think that making a phone slower via an
> > update will get someone to buy another device from the same company.
> 
> If people like their iPhone and think it is just getting slower because
> it's getting older, they'll likely refresh it with a new iPhone. That's 
> a real good reason to keep a sneaky secret, don't you think...

there is no sneaky secret and ios 12 made ios devices *faster*.

it's flat out ludicrous to think that making a device slower is going
to motivate people to buy another product from the same company. 

> > the 'battery problem' is *not* nonsense
> 
> It was so not-nonsense that Apple apologized, got fined, got
> investigated, and offered battery discounts.

it is nonsense when it's misrepresented, as you've done.

as batteries age, regardless of battery type, their ability to source
peak demands is reduced and there's no getting around that. 

attempting to draw more current than a battery can source results in a
voltage drop, possibly causing the device to suddenly shut down, which
is about the worst possible user experience, especially if there are
unsaved changes that are lost. 

apple's solution was to limit peak demands to avoid sudden shutdowns,
which *extended* the useful life of the device, but users saw that as a
huge conspiracy for some reason.

apple could have explained what was happening a bit better, but physics
is physics and not even apple can get around it.

the same issue affects many android phones, including the nexus 6p and
5x, which resulted in a lawsuit:
<https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05/26/amended-complaint-filed-ongoin
g-nexus-6p-early-shutdown-bootloop-lawsuit/>
  ...some Nexus 6P's have been experiencing bootloops, a situation in
  which the phone doesn't correctly start, but sits unresponsively on
  the startup animation. The other battery-related defect manifests
  itself as the phone suddenly shutting down long before the battery
  indicator would predict.

the boot loop is due to high power demands during booting, causing a
shutdown and reboot, which then draws too much power while booting
again, causing another shutdown and reboot cycle...

and it's not just phones. an older car battery can power the headlights
and radio without issue, but will be unable to source enough current to
start the car. in fact, measuring the voltage drop during cranking is
one way to measure battery health.

> > apple's solution was to *extend* the useful life of the device so
> > that users *didn't* have to buy a replacement.
> 
> Of course...wink, wink, wink...

no winking. that's *exactly* what they did.

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

#57873

On 11/24/2018 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:

> calling anyone a fanboi is an ad hominem attack.

Merriam Webster:
fan·​boy | \ˈfan-ˌbȯi \ : a boy or man who is an extremely or overly
enthusiastic fan of someone or something

As Webster notes, fanboi is a descriptive - not an ad hominem attack.
Especially when used with my smiley. But I'll try and keep your
excessive sensitivity in mind in the future... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

> it's flat out ludicrous to think that making a device slower is
> going to motivate people to buy another product from the same
> company.

I dunno. Apple is one powerful brand. The wife's iPhone battery swelled
up like a balloon (popping the case) causing much consternation and some
inconvenience and yet I couldn't get her to consider another brand for
her next phone. And since then she's bought an Apple Watch and another
iPad... 8-O

> it is nonsense when it's misrepresented, as you've done.

Me and the news industry. I could enter many cites here but they're very
easy to find.

> apple's solution was to limit peak demands to avoid sudden
> shutdowns, which *extended* the useful life of the device, but users
> saw that as a huge conspiracy for some reason.

After I (and many others) put a NEW BATTERY in their old iPhones, they
were still being artificially slowed with no way to disable the
slowdown. And of course no clue as to the cause of the slowdown, so many
figured maybe it's time to get a new phone...

Do you really think Apple engineering was dumb enough that they had no
clue that people might put NEW BATTERIES in their old slowed phones? Me
neither.

> apple could have explained what was happening a bit better

It didn't help that it took an outside developer to discover and blow
the whistle on the "innocent" slowing update.

> but physics is physics and not even apple can get around it.

The Apple slowing debacle was not about physics...

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

#57874

In message <pteptm$e77$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> 
writes:
>On 11/24/2018 10:42 PM, nospam wrote:
>
>> calling anyone a fanboi is an ad hominem attack.
>
>Merriam Webster:
>fan·0 >enthusiastic fan of someone or something
>
>As Webster notes, fanboi is a descriptive - not an ad hominem attack.
>Especially when used with my smiley. But I'll try and keep your
>excessive sensitivity in mind in the future... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

It may be descriptive, but I've never seen it used other than in a 
negative manner (the "overly" in the definition above). And, much as I 
hate to defend nospam, I _will_ say I've never seen it used in an 
argument without thinking less of the user, rather than the usee. (If 
nothing else, the spelling irritates me, as I see no reason for it. But 
_that_ may be just me.) [And I normally dislike people who attack their 
attacker with words/phrases like ad hominem, straw man, and so on, but I 
fear he _was_ right in this case - using "fanboi" was attacking him not 
his argument.]
>
>> it's flat out ludicrous to think that making a device slower is
>> going to motivate people to buy another product from the same
>> company.

It might not motivate the undecided, but among those who had decided to 
stay with the same company anyway, it might make them upgrade sooner.
[]
>Me and the news industry. I could enter many cites here but they're very
>easy to find.
>
>> apple's solution was to limit peak demands to avoid sudden
>> shutdowns, which *extended* the useful life of the device, but users
>> saw that as a huge conspiracy for some reason.

Apple's claim was that they slowed older 'phones to prolong the on-time, 
as they knew that, on average, their batteries _would_ have reduced in 
capacity. This would have been more believable if they'd (a) explained 
it in advance (b) made it optional (even if it was the default).
>
>After I (and many others) put a NEW BATTERY in their old iPhones, they
>were still being artificially slowed with no way to disable the
>slowdown. And of course no clue as to the cause of the slowdown, so many
>figured maybe it's time to get a new phone...

Yes, the secrecy at best backfired on them, at worst might have been 
dishonest. (I don't think _that_ many iPhone users _would_ have replaced 
their 'phone battery: since it's not easily replaceable, I think most of 
those who buy into the iPhone philosophy don't do it, except where it 
actually goes wrong like your one that swelled did.)
>
>Do you really think Apple engineering was dumb enough that they had no
>clue that people might put NEW BATTERIES in their old slowed phones? Me
>neither.
>
>> apple could have explained what was happening a bit better

(-:
>
>It didn't help that it took an outside developer to discover and blow
>the whistle on the "innocent" slowing update.
>
>> but physics is physics and not even apple can get around it.
>
>The Apple slowing debacle was not about physics...
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated
that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you
agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum.

If you carry on hating, you're the one who's damaged.
- Sir Harold Atcherley, sent to the Burma/Siam railway in April 1943

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

#57877

In article <I8kioKxeKv+bFwV8@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >> apple's solution was to limit peak demands to avoid sudden
> >> shutdowns, which *extended* the useful life of the device, but users
> >> saw that as a huge conspiracy for some reason.
> 
> Apple's claim was that they slowed older 'phones to prolong the on-time, 

nope. what apple did was limit *peak* demands, not an overall slowdown,
because the alternative was unexpected shutdowns when the phone tried
to use more power than the battery could provide.

> as they knew that, on average, their batteries _would_ have reduced in 
> capacity. This would have been more believable if they'd (a) explained 
> it in advance (b) made it optional (even if it was the default).

apple *did* explain the changes in the release notes, however, they
could have been more clear about the specifics, but most people aren't
interested in the technical details about battery chemistry and power
management and rarely read the release notes anyway. 

*all* batteries have reduced capacity as they age. there is no getting
around that.

it happens to android devices too:
<https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05/26/amended-complaint-filed-ongoin
g-nexus-6p-early-shutdown-bootloop-lawsuit/>
  But, for those that might not be aware, some Nexus 6P's have been
  experiencing bootloops, a situation in which the phone doesn't
  correctly start, but sits unresponsively on the startup animation.
  The other battery-related defect manifests itself as the phone
  suddenly shutting down long before the battery indicator would
  predict.

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

#57883

On 11/25/2018 12:06 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> 123456789 <12345@12345.com> writes:

> It [fanboy/fanboi] may be descriptive, but I've never seen it used
> other than > > in a negative manner

Here are a few non-negative examples:

New York Times
Media reporters Brian Stelter and David Carr go all fan boy on the iPad
and then take a breath...
https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/media-decoded-a-video-discussion-of-the-ipad/?scp=2&sq=fanboy&st=cse

Christian Science Monitor
The machine is a good fit for the casual gamer – hardcore fanboys would
obviously look elsewhere...
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Horizons/2010/0405/Nintendo-exec-scoffs-at-gaming-potential-of-Apple-iPad

And then there is a Fanboy.com, a Macfanboy.com, a Sonyfanboy.com, a
Nintendofanboy.com, and a Googlefanboy.com. with none of the titles
denoting negative connotations.

> I've never seen it used in an argument without thinking less of the
> user, rather than the usee.

Even when followed by a smiley? Even when it's true as described by the
official Webster dictionary definition?

> If nothing else, the spelling irritates me

Both spellings are in the dictionary. I'll try to remember to use the
other spelling next time so you will only be half as offended... ;)

> I normally dislike people who attack their attacker with
> words/phrases like ad > hominem

So he attacked me?? I had no clue...

> using "fanboi" was attacking him not his argument.

I saw it as me KIDDING, thus my WINKY SMILEY.

Now if I had called him an asshole...that would be an attack. But most
here on Usenet can take a little occasional rough and tumble fun. It's
certainly not the place for the overly sensitive.

Anyway, enough with this overly sensitive BS and back to the show.

> It [device slowing] might not motivate the undecided, but among those
> who had . > decided to stay with the same company anyway, it might
> make them upgrade sooner.

Agreed.

> Apple's claim was that they slowed older 'phones to prolong the
> on-time, as they knew that, on average, their batteries _would_ have
> reduced in capacity.

BUT battery physics was NOT what caused the Apple debacle.

> This would have been more believable if they'd (a) explained it in
> advance (b) made it optional (even if it was the default).

Apple needed to explain in advance AND make a switch to turn off the
slowdown. Because obviously those with NEW batteries installed had no 
need for the slowdown.

> Yes, the secrecy at best backfired on them, at worst might have been
>  dishonest.

It seems incredulous to me that Apple engineers didn't foresee people
having new batteries installed in their old iPhones and providing an off
switch for them. Since I doubt the engineers are that dumb the only
other likely logical conclusion is the dishonest one.

> I don't think _that_ many iPhone users _would_ have replaced their
> 'phone battery: since it's not easily replaceable

Replacing a battery is a fraction of the cost of a new
iPhone so likely many do it.

Apple stores replace iPhone batteries. And there are at least five
independent stores within a 10 mile range of me that replace iPhone
batteries. YMMV.

I replaced the wife's iPhone battery for $30 US (online) and it came
with the installation tools. That iPhone was later given to a grandson
and it's still working fine now over a year later.

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

#57885

In article <ptfm8s$8n7$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com>
wrote:

> BUT battery physics was NOT what caused the Apple debacle.

yes it is what caused it, and it only became a 'debacle' because people
didn't understand it.

it's not just apple either. as i posted a few times now, the nexus 6p
has the same battery issues, as well as several other android phones.
it also happens with car batteries and every other type of battery.

> > This would have been more believable if they'd (a) explained it in
> > advance (b) made it optional (even if it was the default).
> 
> Apple needed to explain in advance AND make a switch to turn off the
> slowdown. Because obviously those with NEW batteries installed had no 
> need for the slowdown.

it was in the release notes, it's not an overall slowdown, but rather
only limiting peak demands, which if that was not done, the phone can
(and did) suddenly shut down, which is *worse*.

apple was trying to *fix* a real world problem, and did so. 

> > Yes, the secrecy at best backfired on them, at worst might have been
> >  dishonest.
> 
> It seems incredulous to me that Apple engineers didn't foresee people
> having new batteries installed in their old iPhones and providing an off
> switch for them. Since I doubt the engineers are that dumb the only
> other likely logical conclusion is the dishonest one.

nonsense.

> > I don't think _that_ many iPhone users _would_ have replaced their
> > 'phone battery: since it's not easily replaceable
> 
> Replacing a battery is a fraction of the cost of a new
> iPhone so likely many do it.

other than defective batteries, not many do, since by the time the
battery needs to be replaced, the phone itself does as well.

> Apple stores replace iPhone batteries. And there are at least five
> independent stores within a 10 mile range of me that replace iPhone
> batteries. YMMV.

they might offer the service, but out of the millions of phones sold,
very few are actually replaced.

replacement batteries for cellphones, laptops and many other devices
has never been particularly common. 

> I replaced the wife's iPhone battery for $30 US (online) and it came
> with the installation tools. That iPhone was later given to a grandson
> and it's still working fine now over a year later.

since the battery was defective and swollen, which presented a danger,
it should have been done for no cost.

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

#57887

In message <ptfm8s$8n7$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> 
writes:
>On 11/25/2018 12:06 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> 123456789 <12345@12345.com> writes:
>
>> It [fanboy/fanboi] may be descriptive, but I've never seen it used
>> other than > > in a negative manner
>
>Here are a few non-negative examples:
[]
All of those use the y spelling. Maybe it's only the i spelling that 
I've only ever seen used negatively.
>
>> I've never seen it used in an argument without thinking less of the
>> user, rather than the usee.
>
>Even when followed by a smiley? Even when it's true as described by the
>official Webster dictionary definition?

Sorry, the spelling (which makes me think of the French word for wood) 
probably made me miss the smiley. My bad.
>
>> If nothing else, the spelling irritates me
>
>Both spellings are in the dictionary. I'll try to remember to use the
>other spelling next time so you will only be half as offended... ;)

(-:
[]
>Anyway, enough with this overly sensitive BS and back to the show.
>
>> It [device slowing] might not motivate the undecided, but among those
>> who had . > decided to stay with the same company anyway, it might
>> make them upgrade sooner.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Apple's claim was that they slowed older 'phones to prolong the
>> on-time, as they knew that, on average, their batteries _would_ have
>> reduced in capacity.

Or, cut the peak demand to stop (well, reduce) the possibility that the 
'phone might instantaneously (as far as the user is concerned) reboot. 
Plausible ...
>
>BUT battery physics was NOT what caused the Apple debacle.

... but agreed.
>
>> This would have been more believable if they'd (a) explained it in
>> advance (b) made it optional (even if it was the default).
>
>Apple needed to explain in advance AND make a switch to turn off the
>slowdown. Because obviously those with NEW batteries installed had no 
>need for the slowdown.

Agreed - and "explain" does _not_ mean "put in the release notes"; they 
should have used their advertising budget.
>
>> Yes, the secrecy at best backfired on them, at worst might have been
>>  dishonest.
>
>It seems incredulous to me that Apple engineers didn't foresee people
>having new batteries installed in their old iPhones and providing an off
>switch for them. Since I doubt the engineers are that dumb the only
>other likely logical conclusion is the dishonest one.
>
>> I don't think _that_ many iPhone users _would_ have replaced their
>> 'phone battery: since it's not easily replaceable
>
>Replacing a battery is a fraction of the cost of a new
>iPhone so likely many do it.

I fear I disagree; it's not the Apple ethos. (To a first approximation.) 
I think you're not a typical iPhone user. (Otherwise, they'd have made 
them user-replaceable, by popping off a cover or something, as many 
other 'phone models are.)
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated
that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you
agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum.

An act like Morecambe and Wise happens once in a lifetime. Why did it have to
happen in mine? - Bernie Winters quoted by Barry Cryer, RT 2013/11/30-12/6

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

#57888

In article <J60CpOLfq3+bFwVH@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:

> Or, cut the peak demand to stop (well, reduce) the possibility that the 
> 'phone might instantaneously (as far as the user is concerned) reboot. 
> Plausible ...

not only is that plausible, but that's exactly why. 

> >BUT battery physics was NOT what caused the Apple debacle.
> 
> ... but agreed.

it *is* battery physics. older batteries can no longer provide the same
peak demands as they could when they were new, and it's something that
affects all batteries.

> >> This would have been more believable if they'd (a) explained it in
> >> advance (b) made it optional (even if it was the default).
> >
> >Apple needed to explain in advance AND make a switch to turn off the
> >slowdown. Because obviously those with NEW batteries installed had no 
> >need for the slowdown.
> 
> Agreed - and "explain" does _not_ mean "put in the release notes"; they 
> should have used their advertising budget.

there is no need to take out ads explaining that they fixed a bug.

what they probably should have done is show an alert that the previous
unexpected shutdown could be due to an aging battery, therefore in some
cases, performance may be limited so that it no longer unexpectedly
shuts down in the future.

> >Replacing a battery is a fraction of the cost of a new
> >iPhone so likely many do it.
> 
> I fear I disagree; it's not the Apple ethos. (To a first approximation.) 
> I think you're not a typical iPhone user. 

battery replacement has nothing to do with any ethos.

> (Otherwise, they'd have made 
> them user-replaceable, by popping off a cover or something, as many 
> other 'phone models are.)

and many are not, including google's own pixel series phones and
microsoft surface laptop (which is impossible to replace its battery).

as it turns out, relatively few people replace batteries, so the space
is better used either for more battery (longer run time) or make the
device smaller, more portable and more reliable.

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

#57889

On 11/25/2018 9:46 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> 123456789 <12345@12345.com> writes:

>> Replacing a battery is a fraction of the cost of a new iPhone so 
>> likely many do it.

> I fear I disagree; it's not the Apple ethos.

I dunno. Most of the iPhone users I know are just ordinary folks (wife,
family members, and friends) that like their iPhones  because they just
work. Not because of any culture thing. (They're not fanboys... ;)

> I think you're not a typical iPhone user.

I'm not an iPhone user. And my Motorola smartphone also has the battery
sealed tightly inside.

> Otherwise, they'd have made them user-replaceable, by popping off a 
> cover or something,

Most batteries don't need to be replaced during the useful life of the
phone so there is really little need for a removable battery cover. But
when one does fail there's no need to buy an expensive new phone since
there are many ways to go for repair.

> as many other 'phone models are.

The vast majority of smartphones I've seen have the batteries sealed
inside these days.

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

#57876

In article <pteptm$e77$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com>
wrote:

> > calling anyone a fanboi is an ad hominem attack.
> 
> Merriam Webster:
> fan·?boy | \?fan-?b?i \ : a boy or man who is an extremely or overly
> enthusiastic fan of someone or something
> 
> As Webster notes, fanboi is a descriptive - not an ad hominem attack.
> Especially when used with my smiley. But I'll try and keep your
> excessive sensitivity in mind in the future... ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

calling someone a fanboi is an ad hominem attack, which means your
entire argument is baseless.

> > it's flat out ludicrous to think that making a device slower is
> > going to motivate people to buy another product from the same
> > company.
> 
> I dunno. Apple is one powerful brand. The wife's iPhone battery swelled
> up like a balloon (popping the case) causing much consternation and some
> inconvenience and yet I couldn't get her to consider another brand for
> her next phone. And since then she's bought an Apple Watch and another
> iPad... 8-O

that's a defective battery and can happen to any product.

> > it is nonsense when it's misrepresented, as you've done.
> 
> Me and the news industry. I could enter many cites here but they're very
> easy to find.

the news industry loves linkbait and nothing does that better than
something about apple

the nexus 6p had the same problem and a lawsuit, but you don't see very
many news stories about that.

> > apple's solution was to limit peak demands to avoid sudden
> > shutdowns, which *extended* the useful life of the device, but users
> > saw that as a huge conspiracy for some reason.
> 
> After I (and many others) put a NEW BATTERY in their old iPhones, they
> were still being artificially slowed with no way to disable the
> slowdown. And of course no clue as to the cause of the slowdown, so many
> figured maybe it's time to get a new phone...

nonsense. nothing is artificially slowed down. 

> Do you really think Apple engineering was dumb enough that they had no
> clue that people might put NEW BATTERIES in their old slowed phones? Me
> neither.

nope. they're smart enough to understand how batteries perform as they
age and the power demands of the devices they make.

> > apple could have explained what was happening a bit better
> 
> It didn't help that it took an outside developer to discover and blow
> the whistle on the "innocent" slowing update.

that outside developer didn't understand what he was looking at, nor do
you.

there is *no* 'slowing update'.

once again, *peak* demands are limited because the alternative is an
unexpected shutdown because the aging battery can no longer provide
those peak demands. 

> > but physics is physics and not even apple can get around it.
> 
> The Apple slowing debacle was not about physics...

yes it is about physics, although more accurately called battery
electrochemistry. 

*every* battery is subject to aging, including ones in cars, (which i
mentioned and you snipped), cameras and many other products.

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

#57884

On 11/25/2018 12:46 PM, nospam wrote:

> calling someone a fanboi is an ad hominem attack,

> which means your entire argument is baseless.

Ok.

I guess further discussion is useless then. Sorry to have
hurt your feelings...

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

#57900

123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote:
> On 11/25/2018 12:46 PM, nospam wrote:
> 
> > calling someone a fanboi is an ad hominem attack,
> 
> > which means your entire argument is baseless.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> I guess further discussion is useless then. Sorry to have
> hurt your feelings...

  Saying that something is an ad hominem attack is often a fallacy in
itself, because the person saying so doesn't quite know what an ad
hominem attack - or better an ad hominem fallacy - is and is not.

  IMO, this is just yet another such case.

  An ad hominem fallacy does not mean that any and all personal
premisses about the opponent are off limits. It's only an ad hominem
fallacy if the introduced personal premiss is *irrelevant*.

  IMO, considering nospam's track record - and again in this thread - of
supporting and defending all things Apple no matter what, the
qualification 'fanboi' is quite relevant.

  N.B. I don't use the term 'fanboi' myself, so I was looking for an
alternative, synonym, etc.. It was quite funny to see that
Dictionary.com's only example was "Apple fanboys lined up to buy the new
phone.". QED :-)

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web