Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57876
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.mobile.android |
| Subject | Re: charging policy |
| Date | 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <251120181446327466%nospam@nospam.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <ptcb2n$kas$1@dont-email.me> <241120181633272332%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ptcv8a$2vm$2@dont-email.me> <251120180042495307%nospam@nospam.invalid> <pteptm$e77$2@dont-email.me> |
In article <pteptm$e77$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > calling anyone a fanboi is an ad hominem attack. > > Merriam Webster: > fanĀ·?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.
Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web