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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57874

Re: charging policy

From "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk>
Newsgroups comp.mobile.android
Subject Re: charging policy
Date 2018-11-25 19:06 +0000
Organization 255 software
Message-ID <I8kioKxeKv+bFwV8@255soft.uk> (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>

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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