Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Apple throttled your iPhone by cutting its speed almost in HALF!

282 views
Skip to first unread message

harry newton

unread,
Dec 27, 2017, 10:28:57 AM12/27/17
to
Talk about drastic!

Apple throttled your iPhone by cutting its speed almost in HALF!

"After replacing the battery, Geekbench showed that the scores had nearly
doubled."

<http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/12/is-apple-slowing-down-iphones-with-aging-batteries.html>

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Dec 27, 2017, 11:48:57 AM12/27/17
to
Sure, but if Apple did NOT reduce consumption somewhere as the battery
aged, you would complain that the iPhone battery didn't survive the
warranty period or operate the advertised number of hours.

What I find disgusting is that Apple did not make the feature optional
and controlled in the settings.

When we're done complaining about the evil Apple, we can then switch
our focus to the evil Google, which extends runtime and battery life
by disabling display intensive features and reducing OLED display
brightness if it detects a weak battery.
<https://www.google.com/patents/US8407502>
See the "Summary" section. The phone still works, but all the fancy
features are disabled and you can't see what you're doing (only red
LED's are active). This might be a serious problem for someone on
Viagra, who's vision is shifted towards blue, and doesn't see any red.

Cutting features to enhance battery life is nothing new. Palm has a
patent for saving battery power by switching from battery guzzling
color, to a more economical monochrome:
"Method and Apparatus for Selectable Display Mode for Intelligently
Enhancing Battery Life"

Meanwhile, Intel offers CPU's that self-throttle if they draw too much
power, get too hot, or are in danger of turning off before the end of
the movie or big game. Most of the technology was inherited from
Transmeta:
"Adaptive power control"
<https://www.google.com/patents/US7100061>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta>

I'm sure if I dig some more, I'll find other patents for ways to
generate longer battery life numbers at the expense of other features.

Hmmm... my battery is low and old. Maybe that's why I'm losing at
Solitaire?

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

tabb...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 27, 2017, 12:04:07 PM12/27/17
to
Apple phones are very much aimed at people that know nothing about technology and don't want to learn. They're idiot proofed partly by key useful features not being available. One can criticise them, but tbh I reckon they know their market.


NT

harry newton

unread,
Dec 27, 2017, 12:05:09 PM12/27/17
to
He who is Jeff Liebermann said on Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:48:50 -0800:

> Sure, but if Apple did NOT reduce consumption somewhere as the battery
> aged, you would complain that the iPhone battery didn't survive the
> warranty period or operate the advertised number of hours.

Fair enough observation but the Materials Science experts seem to be
inferring a different take on that same sentiment, by stating that Apple
batteries were sold with intolerable (and unadvertised) performance decay.

They "clearly came with intolerable performance decay." says The Verge.
<https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16806582/apple-battery-slowdown-science>

> What I find disgusting is that Apple did not make the feature optional
> and controlled in the settings.

Lawsuits argue Apple had to keep the permanent throttling to far less than
half the advertised speeds (from 1,400MHz to 600MHz) secret if the reason
was they didn't want to honor warranty claims.

<https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/20/16800058/apple-iphone-slow-fix-battery-life-capacity>

> When we're done complaining about the evil Apple, we can then switch
> our focus to the evil Google, which extends runtime and battery life
> by disabling display intensive features and reducing OLED display
> brightness if it detects a weak battery.

This is only related if it was done secretly, permanently, and drastically.

> <https://www.google.com/patents/US8407502>
> See the "Summary" section. The phone still works, but all the fancy
> features are disabled and you can't see what you're doing (only red
> LED's are active).

Is this slowdown drastic (far more than half the advertised speeds)?
Is it secret?
Is it permanent (for any given battery)?

> This might be a serious problem for someone on
> Viagra, who's vision is shifted towards blue, and doesn't see any red.

As of December 11th, 2017, that problem may increase!
<https://www.goodrx.com/blog/generic-viagra-in-2017-sooner-than-expected/>

> Cutting features to enhance battery life is nothing new. Palm has a
> patent for saving battery power by switching from battery guzzling
> color, to a more economical monochrome:
> "Method and Apparatus for Selectable Display Mode for Intelligently
> Enhancing Battery Life"

Is this slowdown drastic (far more than half the advertised speeds)?
Is it secret?
Is it permanent (for any given battery)?

> Meanwhile, Intel offers CPU's that self-throttle if they draw too much
> power, get too hot, or are in danger of turning off before the end of
> the movie or big game. Most of the technology was inherited from
> Transmeta:
> "Adaptive power control"
> <https://www.google.com/patents/US7100061>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta>

Is this slowdown drastic (far more than half the advertised speeds)?
Is it secret?
Is it permanent (for any given battery)?

> I'm sure if I dig some more, I'll find other patents for ways to
> generate longer battery life numbers at the expense of other features.

IF they're not secret, permanent, and drastic (throttled to far less than
half the claimed CPU speeds), then they're relevant.

Otherwise they're just red herrings.

> Hmmm... my battery is low and old. Maybe that's why I'm losing at
> Solitaire?

Nope. It's why that huge power outage a week ago by PG&E was caused by the
winds coming from the north instead of from the south like they usually do
where you live!

Seriously though ... since you are generally old-school and balanced, do
you really consider Apple's secret, permanent, and drastic (the cpu is
chopped to far less than half the claimed speeds) is equivalent to a
temporary, slight, and obvious slowdown?

Really?

rickman

unread,
Dec 27, 2017, 11:22:15 PM12/27/17
to
Even the unsophisticated user can tell when his phone is getting slow. Many
people will then trade it in not knowing this could easily be fixed.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

harry newton

unread,
Dec 28, 2017, 10:16:40 PM12/28/17
to
He who is harry newton said on Wed, 27 Dec 2017 17:05:03 +0000 (UTC):
> Fair enough observation but the Materials Science experts seem to be
> inferring a different take on that same sentiment, by stating that Apple
> batteries were sold with intolerable (and unadvertised) performance decay.
>
> They "clearly came with intolerable performance decay." says The Verge.
> <https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/21/16806582/apple-battery-slowdown-science>

Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in half
because they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries that they
didn't want to pay for in-warranty claims.

December 28, 2017
A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance
<https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/>

They desperately try to convince Apple gullibles that all batteries require
the need to be secretly, drastically, and permanently throttled (to half
the original CPU speeds) with this clever marketing document posing as an
engineering white paper.

iPhone Battery and Performance
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387>

Basically, what they say is that all batteries degrade but only Apple cares
enough about its customers to secretly, permanently, and drastically cut
the CPU performance in half.

The rest of the manufacturers simply replace defective batteries under
warranty. But Apple didn't want to honor the warranty claims.

Even now, they're *still* charging the customer $30 for what amounts to a
defective battery. After the end of 2018, you're fucked again.

The phones affected after iOS 10.2.1 are:
iPhone 6,
iPhone 6 Plus,
iPhone 6s,
iPhone 6s Plus,
iPhone SE,
iPhone 7, and
iPhone 7 (after iOS 11.2)

The secret is never to update iOS and this wouldn't have happened to you.

bitrex

unread,
Dec 28, 2017, 10:36:11 PM12/28/17
to
On 12/27/2017 11:48 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> This might be a serious problem for someone on
> Viagra, who's vision is shifted towards blue, and doesn't see any red.

Wait, what?

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Dec 28, 2017, 11:34:17 PM12/28/17
to
Cyanopsia or blue tinted vision
<https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-viagra-tints-your-vision-blue-1685176169>
<https://www.zmescience.com/science/biology/why-viagra-makes-you-see-blue-0423432/>

Executive summary: Viagra makes your world blue because an enzyme
that regulates activity in your crotch happens to be very similar to
an enzyme that regulates activity in your eyes.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Dec 28, 2017, 11:41:11 PM12/28/17
to
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 23:22:09 -0500, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Even the unsophisticated user can tell when his phone is getting slow. Many
>people will then trade it in not knowing this could easily be fixed.

I had a customer phone me today asking if I could find her a cheap
used iPhone 6 for her daughter, who was complaining that her iPhone 5
was "worn out". No sooner had she read that Apple was slowing down
older phones to preserve battery life, the daughter magically
discovered that her phone was suffering from "a slow battery" and the
phone was in need of an upgrade. This might eventually be beneficial
to Apple sales.

pf...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 29, 2017, 8:06:12 AM12/29/17
to
This is the same troll with the smoke machine and the BMW.

Don't feed the troll.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

harry newton

unread,
Dec 29, 2017, 9:52:30 AM12/29/17
to
He who is Jeff Liebermann said on Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:34:09 -0800:

> Executive summary: Viagra makes your world blue because an enzyme
> that regulates activity in your crotch happens to be very similar to
> an enzyme that regulates activity in your eyes.

So the plumbing in the crotch opens up the world to your eyes?

Anyway, Jeff - did you read the fantastically *cleverly worded* apology
from Apple yesterday?

December 28, 2017
A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance
<https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/>

What you have to admire is how utterly *cleverly* worded the "apology" is.

Just like a smart kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, they are
clever in what they admit and what they don't admit even though everyone
knows they did it, not for the planned obsolescence (that was just a
bonus), but because they put the wrong battery in the wrong phone and
didn't want to honor the warranty.

Like all Apple Apologists, they can't come clean.

So they essentially apologized for the "misunderstanding". Heh heh.

They apologize for the "mis communication", heh heh...

And then they try to say all kids have their hands caught in the cookie
jar, with their idiotic white paper on batteries - which completely skirts
the issue that no other manufacturer on the planet was caught secretly,
*permanently*, and *drastically* cutting the CPU speeds (in half!).

The fact you can replace a defective battery for $38 after January still
doesn't solve the problem that they're the wrong batteries for the phones.

I *love* their clever apology - which literally screams they didn't do it
for planned obsolescence (they didn't - that was just a bonus) - and yet -
completely skirts the real reason they did it - which was they didn't want
to honor their battery warranty.

Since it's *still* the wrong battery for the phone, it's still a crime
(literally) that they force you to pay even $38 for a new battery.

Not only should the defective batteries be replaced for free, but, one year
after you put the new defective battery in the phone, you're fucked again.

I only speak fact.

bitrex

unread,
Dec 29, 2017, 11:32:10 AM12/29/17
to
On 12/28/2017 11:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:36:07 -0500, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/27/2017 11:48 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>>> This might be a serious problem for someone on
>>> Viagra, who's vision is shifted towards blue, and doesn't see any red.
>>
>> Wait, what?
>
> Cyanopsia or blue tinted vision
> <https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-viagra-tints-your-vision-blue-1685176169>
> <https://www.zmescience.com/science/biology/why-viagra-makes-you-see-blue-0423432/>
>
> Executive summary: Viagra makes your world blue because an enzyme
> that regulates activity in your crotch happens to be very similar to
> an enzyme that regulates activity in your eyes.
>

Interesting, never knew about that side effect. I'll report back my
empirical findings after the upcoming New Year's weekend

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Dec 29, 2017, 11:57:30 AM12/29/17
to
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 11:32:05 -0500, bitrex
At this point, I would normally scribble a variety of sexually
explicit observations and suggestions. However, this is a family
newsgroup and such things are unfortunately deemed unacceptable.

Technical details: I'm told that it's not a "blue shift" but rather a
"blue tint". Also, the color varies but is generally considered to be
cyan (between blue and green) and not blue.

Full disclosure: I've never noticed the blue tint effect, probably
because I was too busy and distracted at the time.

Harry Newton

unread,
Dec 30, 2017, 5:07:41 AM12/30/17
to
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 08:57:24 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Full disclosure: I've never noticed the blue tint effect, probably
> because I was too busy and distracted at the time.

And all this time I thought I was looking through the world with
rose-tinted glasses!

Ralph Mowery

unread,
Dec 30, 2017, 11:09:06 PM12/30/17
to
In article <71i74ddt8vjkceobk...@4ax.com>,
je...@cruzio.com says...
>
>
> Sure, but if Apple did NOT reduce consumption somewhere as the battery
> aged, you would complain that the iPhone battery didn't survive the
> warranty period or operate the advertised number of hours.
>
> What I find disgusting is that Apple did not make the feature optional
> and controlled in the settings.
>

If it takes slowing down the Apple so the battery will last, the battery
is not meeting the standard. I can see it slowing down after the
battery has lasted as long as it is warranted to. There should be some
mention of that in the book that comes with it.


Seems that would be equal to a car that will only go 40 MPH after it
gets say 30,000 miles on it and is warrentied for 50,000.

harry newton

unread,
Dec 31, 2017, 10:23:12 AM12/31/17
to
He who is Ralph Mowery said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:08:57 -0500:

> If it takes slowing down the Apple so the battery will last, the battery
> is not meeting the standard. I can see it slowing down after the
> battery has lasted as long as it is warranted to. There should be some
> mention of that in the book that comes with it.
>
>
> Seems that would be equal to a car that will only go 40 MPH after it
> gets say 30,000 miles on it and is warrentied for 50,000.

This article backs up your feelings.

Apple Deserves What It Gets From This Battery Fiasco
<https://lonesysadmin.net/2017/12/29/apple-deserves-gets-battery-fiasco/>

harry newton

unread,
Jan 1, 2018, 10:14:59 PM1/1/18
to
Apple iOS 11.2.5 Release: It's A Big One
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/01/01/apple-ios-11-2-5-release-iphone-battery-problem-slow-down/#52fb94c53b5c>

Verbatim quotes:
"We expect the iPhone X to be throttled in late 2018 with replacement
batteries for it back to full price by January 2019."

"Samsung guarantees 95% battery capacity retention for the first
two years of ownership. Meanwhile LG and Google offer two year
warranties, which also cover the battery."

"Apple's promise of a limited time price reduction (11 months) on new
iPhone batteries doesn't cut it, particularly with the swap taking
three days and no further pledge from Apple to change anything
going forward."

"Apple has admitted it slows iPhones - and coincidentally just after
the release of each new generation - to protect their already degrading
batteries from shutting off if the phone were to continue operating at
full performance."

"Not only does the well promoted title of Performance Champ suddenly
ring hollow now we know this *only lasts for one year*, but we also
know this behaviour isn't normal. HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
the performance of their smartphones."

bruce2...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 12:56:33 AM1/2/18
to
Sometimes so-called 'Big Tech' is like that.

JF Mezei

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 1:14:17 AM1/2/18
to
On 2018-01-01 22:14, harry newton wrote:

> Verbatim quotes:
> "We expect the iPhone X to be throttled in late 2018 with replacement
> batteries for it back to full price by January 2019."


"exprect" is the keyword here. Speculation by some snews media. This is
not a statement from Apple and thus useless.

The product development of the X was done with knowl;edge of the
batterty problems for the 6s. So it is possible that it was fixed or
significantly reduced.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 1:38:56 AM1/2/18
to
He who is JF Mezei said on Tue, 2 Jan 2018 01:14:13 -0500:

> "expect" is the keyword here. Speculation by some snews media. This is
> not a statement from Apple and thus useless.
>
> The product development of the X was done with knowledge of the
> batterty problems for the 6s. So it is possible that it was fixed or
> significantly reduced.

I think that's wishful thinking (sans facts) for two big reasons:
1. What you hope goes diametrically against what Apple actually said.
2. Apple didn't change their power-hungry single-threaded architecture.

Backing up those two facts is this recent article:
Apple Won't Stop Throttling iPhone Performance
<https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/261243-apple-cuts-battery-replacement-costs-wont-stop-throttling-iphone-performance>

That article clearly says Apple "won't stop" throttling of *all* newer
iPhones after about one year to about half their original CPU speeds.

Hence, the article makes the same claim that I do which is that Apple
iPhones effectively cost a *lot* more than just the sticker price:

"The effective cost of buying an Apple device is significantly higher
than it used to be, at least for people who keep their hardware more
than a year"

And, the article reiterates that Apple outright lied to its customers:

"Apple acknowledges that it failed to properly inform users about the
changes made in iOS 10.2.1 and the introduction of this throttling."

Interesting fact, since the Apple Apologists still deny what Apple already
admitted. Another fact that the Apple Apologists will hate is that this is
an Apple-only problem.

"Apple tries to dodge responsibility for its own smartphone designs"
"This is an Apple-only issue."

Everyone (but the Apple Apologists) already knew that this problem is an
Apple-created Apple-design problem, where *all* the major Android
manufacturers have gone on record publicy asserting

"Android phones do not perform this kind of throttling".

What's more interesting than that is where this article goes into decent
detail on the one thing that's different about Apple design:

"Single-threaded performance is the one area where Apple clearly
stands alone."

Interesting. The article posits that the Apple single-threaded design might
be the main reason why Apple batteries can't handle their phones:

"there's a strong relationship between power consumption and
architecture"

In summary, it's purely wishful thinking that Apple won't throttle *all*
their latest iPhones after one year because:
1. Apple themselves clearly said they'd throttle all their newest iPhones.
2. Apple didn't change their power-hungry single-threaded architecture.

Remember, this is an Apple-caused Apple-designed Apple-only problem,
despite nospam's clever hands-caught-in-the-cookie jar Apple Apologists'
attempt at saying Android manufacturers also *secretly*, *permanently*, and
*drastically* throttle CPU speeds of their phones after only one year of
ownership.

Everthing I state is a fact.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 11:44:01 AM1/2/18
to
harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
>
> HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
> among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
> the performance of their smartphones."

False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
warning:

<https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130>

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

pf...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 12:21:02 PM1/2/18
to
You will learn two things about little Jimmy Newton very quickly:

1. It changes its name more often than a few here change their socks (those that wear socks).

2. It is looking for validation, not discussion.

M.L.

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 1:03:32 PM1/2/18
to


>> HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
>> among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
>> the performance of their smartphones."
>
>False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
>warning:
>
><https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130>

<from the same stackoverflow thread RE: Samsung Galaxy S3 (9300)>
"It turns out to be a thermal problem. As the app is running the
android battery temperature is rising. At 48 degrees android os has
throttled down the cpu from 1.4 Ghz to 0.8 Ghz."

The difference is that the throttling isn't permanent. Unclear if the
same behavior exists for all Androids.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 1:19:52 PM1/2/18
to
On 2018-01-02, M.L <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>> HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
>>> among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
>>> the performance of their smartphones."
>>
>>False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
>>warning:
>>
>><https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130>
>
> The difference is that the throttling isn't permanenti

Nope; the Apple feature only activates when the OS detects the battery
is unable to provide needed voltage, which fluctuates and is not
permanent or even constant. You've been fed a lie.

nospam

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 1:38:33 PM1/2/18
to
In article <i1in4ddkhgq8f5d3n...@4ax.com>, M.L.
it's not permanent on iphones either.

only *peak* loads are limited, where the battery can't source the
necessary current. had that not been done, the phone would likely
suddenly shut down.

the rest of the time, when the battery is not being pushed hard,
there's no throttling because the battery is capable of providing the
needed power.

> Unclear if the
> same behavior exists for all Androids.

all mobile devices vary cpu speed and other subsystems based on load.

to not do so is stupid.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 4:32:03 PM1/2/18
to
He who is nospam said on Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:38:29 -0500:

> it's not permanent on iphones either.

Apple Apologists seem to believe in the battery fairy.

JF Mezei

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 4:44:06 PM1/2/18
to
On 2018-01-02 01:38, harry newton wrote:

> I think that's wishful thinking (sans facts) for two big reasons:
> 1. What you hope goes diametrically against what Apple actually said.
> 2. Apple didn't change their power-hungry single-threaded architecture.

Apple made big changes starting with the 7 with low power and high power
CPU cores, and with the 8/X, The CPU has more dynamic management of
which core is used.

So with the 8/X, there is a possibility that the "power management" will
just limit processes to the low power cores instead of throttling the
CPUs.

Apple knows how many amps are needed to run the phone, and how many amps
older batteries of certain size can supply. If the needed amps with low
power cores is less than what battery can supply, then no need for
further throttling.

> That article clearly says Apple "won't stop" throttling of *all* newer
> iPhones after about one year to about half their original CPU speeds.

Articles are speculation. And limiting access to high power cores is a
form of throttling anyways (except it doesn't actually slow down the CPU).

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 5:00:29 PM1/2/18
to
harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
> He who is nospam said on Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:38:29 -0500:
>
>> it's not permanent on iphones either.
>
> Apple Apologists

So few facts, so much time. Life's hard for an old troll!

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 2, 2018, 5:18:42 PM1/2/18
to
On 2018-01-02, harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
> He who is nospam said on Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:38:29 -0500:
>
>> it's not permanent on iphones either.
>
> Apple Apologists blah blah blah blah blah.

The old man-child troll is a broken record.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 12:15:20 AM1/3/18
to
He who is JF Mezei said on Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:44:02 -0500:

>> I think that's wishful thinking (sans facts) for two big reasons:
>> 1. What you hope goes diametrically against what Apple actually said.
>> 2. Apple didn't change their power-hungry single-threaded architecture.
>
> Apple made big changes starting with the 7 with low power and high power
> CPU cores, and with the 8/X, The CPU has more dynamic management of
> which core is used.

JF Mezei,
You're one of the rare people on this newsgroup who can converse like an
adult, so I appreciate that you bring up this great point.

There's *something* different about the iPhone 6's and 7's that Apple felt
the need to secretly permanently reduce the CPU speeds to less than half
the original in just a year - so - we would *hope* that Apple figured out
what it is that only the Apple CPUs exhibit that kills the batteries in a
year.

Let's *hope* they made those changes - but - if they did make those
changes, then why do they definitely throttle the iPhone 7?

And why did they *say* they would throttle *all* their phones in the
future?

Both those are facts.

So if Apple did "improve" the power - why are they still throttling and
planning to throttle the exact phones you say have power improvements?

Those two facts don't mix well.

> So with the 8/X, there is a possibility that the "power management" will
> just limit processes to the low power cores instead of throttling the
> CPUs.

This would be *great* if it is true.
I *hope* it is true.

But then we have to wonder why Apple clearly said they would throttle *all*
their phones going forward.

Maybe ... and this is just conjecture ... Apple wants to settle the court
cases out of court so they don't want to give the court cases ammo by
admitting wrongdoing ... so maybe that's why Apple *said* they would
throttle moving forward (as if that's "normal" for phones).

Dunno. All I can say is that if they did "fix" the power management, then
they wouldn't need to throttle the newer phones - but they clearly said
they would throttle them. So the facts don't line up.

> Apple knows how many amps are needed to run the phone, and how many amps
> older batteries of certain size can supply. If the needed amps with low
> power cores is less than what battery can supply, then no need for
> further throttling.

I think Apple learned a lesson here which is they should test their phones
in the real world - and where the real world happens to include weather
colder than it gets in Cupertino and where the real world happens to be
"aged" batteries of at least the warranty period of 1 or 2 years.

I'm with you that Apple will likely *fix* this problem because they know
that people have to be thinking that they pay $1000 for an iPhone X and in
just one year, it's an iPhone 1/2X in terms of CPU speeds. That's horrid.

Nobody wants half an iPhone X in just one year!

So Apple *has* to fix this problem. Remember, despite the FUD that the
Apple Apologists (e.g., nospam & Jolly Roger) try to spew, this is an
Apple-only problem.

So Apple needs to understand what they did wrong, and how to fix it.

To me, the Occam's Razor answer is they need more realistic battery sizing
or actual "dynamic" (and not just "legally semantically dynamic that is
actually permanent" speed optimization), but, we have to let Apple figure
that one out for themselves.

>> That article clearly says Apple "won't stop" throttling of *all* newer
>> iPhones after about one year to about half their original CPU speeds.
>
> Articles are speculation. And limiting access to high power cores is a
> form of throttling anyways (except it doesn't actually slow down the CPU).

Actually, that's *not* speculation. Apple said it themselves. So it's just
the article saying a fact which is what Apple said it would do.

I suspect that Apple is playing a clever game (as always), which is that
they will vehemently deny wrongdoing all the while trying to combine the
court cases into a single case that they can settle out of court.

I posit that once they settle out of court, they're free to actually
finally admit the truth and fix the problem - but until then - they can't
be open (because anything they admit will be used in court against them).

In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
to solve that it's not funny. But this is a long post so we can leave the
solution to later.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 12:15:20 AM1/3/18
to
He who is Jolly Roger said on 2 Jan 2018 22:00:24 GMT:

> So few facts, so much time. Life's hard for an old troll!

Since you're an Apple Apologists, facts are invisible to you.
You do believe in the battery fairy.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can see the fact that are *invisible* to Apple
Apologists.

To wit...
That article clearly says Apple "won't stop" throttling of *all* newer
iPhones after about one year to about half their original CPU speeds.

"The effective cost of buying an Apple device is significantly higher
than it used to be, at least for people who keep their hardware more
than a year"

"Apple acknowledges that it failed to properly inform users about the
changes made in iOS 10.2.1 and the introduction of this throttling."

Another fact that the Apple Apologists will hate is that this is
an Apple-only problem.

"Apple tries to dodge responsibility for its own smartphone designs"
"This is an Apple-only issue."

Everyone (but the Apple Apologists) already knew that this problem is an
Apple-created Apple-design problem, where *all* the major Android
manufacturers have gone on record publicy asserting

"Android phones do not perform this kind of throttling".

Remember, this is an Apple-caused Apple-designed Apple-only problem,
despite nospam's clever hands-caught-in-the-cookie jar Apple Apologists'
attempt at saying Android manufacturers also *secretly*, *permanently*, and
*drastically* throttle CPU speeds of their phones after only one year of
ownership.

Everything I state is a fact; but facts are invisible to Apple Apologists.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 12:44:14 AM1/3/18
to
He who is harry newton said on Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:15:18 +0000 (UTC):

> In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
> to solve that it's not funny. But this is a long post so we can leave the
> solution to later.

Here's what I posit is the easy solution to this Apple-only problem.

1. They will never come clean until they settle the court cases - it's just
not realistic to expect them to tell the truth - so we can expect all sorts
of cleverly crafted statements like that so-called apology until and unless
the combine the court cases and settle them out of court.

2. Once Apple clears that legal hurdle (which will cost them something like
five or ten million dollars and some nearly worthless incentive to
consumers, like free batteries or reduced-price batteries in the future or
discounts on new phones or whatever) ... then Apple can work on a truthful
"fix".

3. The most truthful fix is to eliminate the mandatory throttling - which
is to allow the user to decide if they want half an iPhone X in one year or
not. But of course, that will kill the batteries if the consumer doesn't
opt for half an iPhone X.

4. Hence, the next-most truthful fix is to fix the batteries or to fix the
Apple-only Apple-created problem with power management of those batteries.

Notice if Apple opts for the power management fix, then it's likely going
to be implemented in the next revision *after* the iPhone X because it
might involve changing how they streamline the CPU loads.

If Apple opts to fix the batteries, that has its own problems such as the
back of the phone might need to be enlarged to fit the bigger batteries. If
they can squeeze a better battery out of the current size, then that's fine
- but it's likely not gonna happen - so they have to increase the size of
the phone which will invite all sorts of lawsuits in and of itself.

In the end, Apple *knows* all this - which is why they secretly,
drastically, and permanently chopped CPU speeds in half after just one year
of use in those phones. It was the easy way out of the Apple-created
Apple-only design problem.

The good news is that Apple can make a trade-in of the old phone with the
newer (perhaps slightly bigger) phone as part of their settlement of the
lawsuits. Apple has plenty of money so that is the option that is probably
the best for all concerned.

But if Apple continues to attempt to weasle their way out of this
Apple-only Apple-design problem with lies, subterfuge, and secrecy, then
they will lose a *lot* of customer goodwill (which should be important to
them).

Most of the above is conjecture - so please consider it part of an adult
perspective on the facts in your adult response.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 1:25:59 AM1/3/18
to
harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
> He who is Jolly Roger said on 2 Jan 2018 22:00:24 GMT:
>
>> So few facts, so much time. Life's hard for an old troll!
>
> Blah blah blah Apple Apologists, blah blah blah blah

Get some new material, old foolish troll.

JF Mezei

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 1:59:05 AM1/3/18
to
On 2018-01-03 00:15, harry newton wrote:

> And why did they *say* they would throttle *all* their phones in the
> future?

Disabling the high power/speed cores when battery is bad would be a form
of throttling (visible when doing a speed test which would be the type
of application that would noprmally go on the high power core).

We'll just have to see what apple does for iPhone 2018 models. (Whether
it grows battery capacity such that after 2 years, the battery is still
good enough to power the phone in cold weather) or whether this is still
done through software throttling.


> I think Apple learned a lesson here which is they should test their phones
> in the real world - and where the real world happens to include weather
> colder than it gets in Cupertino

The specs mention low operating temperature of 0°, so from a legal point
of view, they may be in the clear. (although for the first battery,
within a year, I saw it shutdown at +12° once).

> So Apple needs to understand what they did wrong, and how to fix it.

I am pretty sure Apple has known for quite some time. They will just
have to break the news to Jony Ive who won't be able to make his baby
thinner in 2018.


On the plus side, bigger batteries will give more autonomy as well as
proviode enough amps when cold.

> In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
> to solve that it's not funny.

It's not that easy. If only they could shrink that huge taptic engine to
what it used to be like before (a small vibrator). Marketing might not
like that.

Apple could grow the smaller phones a bit to allow bigger battery. I
have to wonder at what stage the iPhone 9 is at right now and wether it
is too late or not to make such a change.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 2:23:30 AM1/3/18
to
He who is JF Mezei said on Wed, 3 Jan 2018 01:59:01 -0500:

> We'll just have to see what apple does for iPhone 2018 models. (Whether
> it grows battery capacity such that after 2 years, the battery is still
> good enough to power the phone in cold weather) or whether this is still
> done through software throttling.

Yup. Apple has to do *something* because nobody wants their $1000 iPhone X
to turn into an iPhone 1/2X in just one year.

Apple *knows* what the problem is, and they *knew* the problem when they
decided to secretly slip in the CPU halving in the first place.

That they resorted to a drastic move that nobody else has ever done for a
smartphone is a very strong indicator that a "real" solution is a new
design.

So I agree with you on your logic that Apple must do something so that this
Apple-only design problem doesn't happen with the 2018 iPhone models.

>> I think Apple learned a lesson here which is they should test their phones
>> in the real world - and where the real world happens to include weather
>> colder than it gets in Cupertino
>
> The specs mention low operating temperature of 0+ALA-, so from a legal point
> of view, they may be in the clear. (although for the first battery,
> within a year, I saw it shutdown at +-12+ALA- once).

It's been proven already that Apple wasn't aware of the low-temperature
issues so it's just yet another piece of the puzzle that clearly indicates
Apple doesn't test their devices thoroughly enough.

What Samsung implemented for batteries is sort of what Apple needs to
implement for their phones - which is a rigorous testing system that
simulates what would happen in a year.

Remember, Apple said they were totally blindsided by the iPhone 6 problems,
which simply means they didn't test it because they were common.


>> So Apple needs to understand what they did wrong, and how to fix it.
>
> I am pretty sure Apple has known for quite some time. They will just
> have to break the news to Jony Ive who won't be able to make his baby
> thinner in 2018.

That's a pretty accurate assessment that I agree with. If anything, they
need thicker phones, where their "legal remedy" from lawsuits might be a
trade-in program for a phone that works for more than a year but that has
to have a thicker case.

I agree with you that Apple *knows* all the possible solutions which is why
they came up with the genius idea that they implemented, got caught, and
apologized for (although their so-called apology was a soothing farce).

> On the plus side, bigger batteries will give more autonomy as well as
> proviode enough amps when cold.

Yup. My battery is 7,000 mAh. It lasts as long as I need it to last.
And when it's dead, I just pop in another.

I agree with you that better batteries is what they need, and they know
this, which is why they decided not to and to just do their secret trick.

They can't do the secret trick anymore, so, they'll have to fix the design
problem moving forward. Let's hope they fix it for 2018 models and that
they offer a new-design trade-in program for the previous iPhones.

I suspect that's what their out-of-court settlement will end up being:
a. A penalty
b. A trade-in for the customers to a design that actually works

>> In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
>> to solve that it's not funny.
>
> It's not that easy. If only they could shrink that huge taptic engine to
> what it used to be like before (a small vibrator). Marketing might not
> like that.

Well, it's not that easy if they want to keep the phones thin, but remember
this is an Apple-only problem so they can do whatever it is that the
Android manufacturers do and they won't have this problem.

So they can fix the design if they want to.

For the existing phones, it's pretty easy for them to just design a thicker
back and thicker battery, and that might solve their legal issues if they
offer a trade in. People might accept a bigger phone if it's the same
phone, essentially, but with the battery that works with it for more than
just one year.

I pity all those $1000 iPhone X owners who will have an iPhone 1/2 X in
just one year. Apple can't afford to alienate those customers who pay the
most. It might be why shipment forecasts are down 20 million from 50
million to 30 million. Dunno.

But if I was in the market for a $1000 iPhone X, and I knew it would be an
iPhone 1/2 X in just a year, I wouldn't plunk down $1000 for a phone with
that time-lapse halving "feature".

> Apple could grow the smaller phones a bit to allow bigger battery. I
> have to wonder at what stage the iPhone 9 is at right now and wether it
> is too late or not to make such a change.

I'm going to agree with you and posit that the simplest solution is a
bigger battery. Of course, Apple already knew this, which is why they came
up with their simplest solution (which was to secretly halve the cpu).

Since they can't secretly halve the CPU anymore (they'll lose customers if
they continue that shady practice) - they have to do *something*, and that
something might be a bigger battery.

What I think is *easy* for Apple, given they have more money than God, is
just to make a trade-in for existing owners of a phone with a bigger
battery, and that will go a long way toward solving their self-created
legal troubles.

Once they get that backlog of legal troubles resolved, moving forward, all
they havfe rto do is implement what the Android people do, since this
problem is an Apple-only problem.

That's why the solution should be easy for them - since it's already solved
on the Android side. It's a self-created Apple-only problem that Apple can
easily solve if they want to solve it.

As you said ... we'll know in the future... so this is just conjecture.
I do appreciate that you speak as an adult would, and not as an Apple
Apologist would. That's refreshing for this newsgroup.

nospam

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 8:38:46 AM1/3/18
to
In article <p2i0de$anm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
<ha...@at.invalid> wrote:

> but remember
> this is an Apple-only problem

nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
other device that uses a battery.

there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.

<https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-Note-Phones/Note-4-shuts-off-
at-40-battery/td-p/54776>
The  note  4 shut down with 40% left I thought mine  was the only one
but I've heard others complaining about this  how fustrating is that
what's up that samsung ?
...
My phone shuts down at 50% I don't know what to do ??
...
New or old, internal battery makes no difference.   I've had
shutdowns at levels as high as 80%. Most notably during camera usage,
especially if flash is used.  I've resorted to always being connected
to a fast charge external battery. Sigh. 
...
A buddy of mine recently took note of something similar, especially
when using his camera as well. He ended up disabling Instagram and
the boomerang feature, and that did the trick for him on the random
restarts or shutting down. Not sure how that was even related, just
what he told me.

it's related because those apps were causing the battery to be pushed
beyond its limits, exactly the same as with iphones, at which point, it
shut down.


<https://forums.androidcentral.com/sprint-galaxy-s-ii-epic-4g-touch/2246
28-strange-battery-problem-need-help.html>
In each case, I was using it in some kind of high battery drain
function... either watching a movie or running GPS software.
In two of the three cases, this was started right after unplugging
the phone from the charger for the night, so I had a full charge,
but suddenly, without warning the phone just shuts off dead. No power
down animation, no nothing... just goes cold black dead.
In each case, I know I've had about 60-75% battery left just before
it died.

When I power up the phone, it beeps low battery, and say I have
between 1-3% power left and eventually powers down from low battery.
...
I had this issue as well. New battery fixed it, hadn't happened since.
...
Had this exact problem. Never had any battery issues until the JB
upgrade. Tried Factory Reset and that didnt help.
...
my S2 just shuts off without any notification and doesn't start until
i plug it to the charger and switch it on. This mostly happens after
2 minutes of playing games,listening songs or downloadin an app. What
should I do? Please help me
...
My phone is a HTC Desire S, which I upgraded to Android 4.0.4 a few
months ago (official update). The shutdowns and extreme power
drainage startet about a week ago. With a full battery my phone
reliably shuts down less than 5 minutes into a game. Then upon reboot
it reports ~6% battery life and often shuts down again.
...
My Galaxy J7 suddenly shut down, and could not restart by pushing the
power button.
...
My mobile switches off even at 70-80% of charging.and it doesn't
switch on even when I switch it on.


<https://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-note-4/610523-note-4-s
udden-battery-drain.html>
My Sprint Note 4 (running 5.1.1) has been working without issue for
the past year, but a strange power/battery/something issue happened
yesterday and today.

Both days, around the same time (between 5:00-6:00pm) my phone has
decided that it no longer has a charge and shuts off. Yesterday, the
phone went from roughly 35% > 10%, which alerted me of low charge >
0% and shutting off within around 30 seconds.
...
That's funny. My AT&T Note 4 does the exact same thing.
...
My note 4 does similar. I get maybe 1.5 hours of use out of it, then
at 30% boom it shuts down. Plug it in and it shows zero percent.

30% after 1.5 hours of use (ignoring the shutdown problem)? hah.
iphones can easily get 1.5 *days* of use.

JF Mezei

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 12:54:10 PM1/3/18
to
On 2018-01-03 02:23, harry newton wrote:

> It's been proven already that Apple wasn't aware of the low-temperature
> issues so it's just yet another piece of the puzzle that clearly indicates
> Apple doesn't test their devices thoroughly enough.

I know Apple became aware of battery problem for 6s by March/April 2016,
so barely 6 months after product launch. Staff were instructed to tell
customers that it was normal for thw 6a to shutdown in cold.

By October, Apple Support was instructed to get customers to run the
remote diagnostics suite (with results sent back to Apple). And by end
of November, the battery recall was launched. (2016).

That recall was premised on a bad batch of batteries, so the customers
were given expectation that new battery would permanently fix problem.
It didn't.

Note that the "bad batch" did age much faster and exhibited the problem
within 5-6 months of product launch.


> What Samsung implemented for batteries is sort of what Apple needs to
> implement for their phones - which is a rigorous testing system that
> simulates what would happen in a year.

I am pretty sure that engineering within Apple would have been aware
that the battery was undersized for the type of power loads of the 6s
once you factopr in reduced battery amperage capacity as it ages. And it
is likely that marketing overruled this for the sake of keeping the 6s
as thin as the 6, making it sturdier (back pocket bending gate) and
adding a bigger taptic engine.


> Remember, Apple said they were totally blindsided by the iPhone 6 problems,
> which simply means they didn't test it because they were common.

They were not blindsighted. The bad batch simply made a problem they
would have been aware of surface well before they had predicted.

With the then expected replacement cycle of 2 years, they likely figured
that the average onwer might expect a couple of cold shutdowns during
the winter of year 1, and as phone would be replaced in fall of year 2,
wouldn't get the bad shutdowns on year 2.

Suspect they underestimated how soon the problem would surface.


BTW, one possible solution is similar to electric cars: Put a heater
in/under the battery.

JF Mezei

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 12:56:32 PM1/3/18
to
On 2018-01-03 08:38, nospam wrote:

> nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
> other device that uses a battery.


Funny how the 6s PLUS doesn't have that. Same battery chemistry. Same
CPU and components. Oh, but while same chemistry, it has BIGGER Battery
which means that it is able to supply my amps than the small battery
when cold/old.

All phone may have smame/similar battery chemistry, but how the battery
is sized relative to power consumption needs of the phone makes a huge
difference.

The bigger Android phone have mega battteries like 5000-7000mAh compared
to the ~1750 on the 6s.

pf...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 1:02:02 PM1/3/18
to
What this all comes down to is a chemistry/battery aging issue that Apple did a piss-poor job of explaining to its customers. Not some grand conspiracy, not some plot to force Apple users to purchase a new phone - I would posit that 90% of their customers did not notice one whit of inconvenience or trouble.

But, that did not stop our schizophrenic OP from attempting to start his personal tempest in a virtual teapot. And with a little "poor me" thrown in.

nospam

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 1:52:12 PM1/3/18
to
In article <fP83C.134079$4Z6....@fx41.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
> > other device that uses a battery.
>
> Funny how the 6s PLUS doesn't have that.

it absolutely does

harry newton

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 3:32:06 PM1/3/18
to
He who is JF Mezei said on Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:56:27 -0500:

> Funny how the 6s PLUS doesn't have that. Same battery chemistry. Same
> CPU and components. Oh, but while same chemistry, it has BIGGER Battery
> which means that it is able to supply my amps than the small battery
> when cold/old.
>
> All phone may have smame/similar battery chemistry, but how the battery
> is sized relative to power consumption needs of the phone makes a huge
> difference.
>
> The bigger Android phone have mega battteries like 5000-7000mAh compared
> to the ~1750 on the 6s.

Everything you say is apropos, where nospam, as a classic Apple Apologist,
tries to intimate because all phones have batteries, that this
Apple-created Apple-only problem is inside of all phones.

That's like saying because all houses have paint, that lead paint is in all
houses if it's in just one house.

I don't know why facts are invisible to the Apple Apologists, but nospam
knows very well this is a specific problem for specific phones, just like
the Samsung exploding battery problem was a specific problem for a specific
phone.

As you aptly noted, Apple *knows* exactly what the problem is, and since
the solution is to fix the design, they decided to secretly take the
simpler way out ...

And for that, I predict they'll need to settle those lawsuits out of court
and then, when they have that behind them, they can come clean and just
make the customer harm good.

Hence I predict the following along that strategy:
1. Apple won't admit fault until they settle the lawsuits in court
2. Once they settle, the settlement will dictate the redress

I postulate that a perfectly acceptable redress for the owners harmed is
for Apple to provide a trade-in program of old phone to slightly larger
equivalent phone that doesn't have the same Apple battery problems.

Apple has enough money and customer loyalty to pull this off with aplomb.
Let's see if they take the true "courageous" decision.

I suspect they will because they will have to.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 3:39:17 PM1/3/18
to
He who is Jolly Roger said on 3 Jan 2018 06:25:53 GMT:

> Get some new material, old foolish troll.

Think about this question before you childishly retort.

Q: How much added *value* have you added to this adult conversation?

harry newton

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 3:39:17 PM1/3/18
to
He who is JF Mezei said on Wed, 3 Jan 2018 12:54:04 -0500:

>> It's been proven already that Apple wasn't aware of the low-temperature
>> issues so it's just yet another piece of the puzzle that clearly indicates
>> Apple doesn't test their devices thoroughly enough.
>
> I know Apple became aware of battery problem for 6s by March/April 2016,
> so barely 6 months after product launch. Staff were instructed to tell
> customers that it was normal for thw 6a to shutdown in cold.

Except that it's not normal for a phone to shutdown in the cold. :)

I applaud you for being able to see facts.

You're not an Apple Apologist because your observations and opinions are
sane. Certainly no Apple Apologist could say what you just said.

IMHO, Apple spent more energy on how to hide the battery issues after they
were found, than on testing for them prior to launch.

> By October, Apple Support was instructed to get customers to run the
> remote diagnostics suite (with results sent back to Apple). And by end
> of November, the battery recall was launched. (2016).

The Apple battery recall was the right thing to do, just as any other
manufacturer would recall a defective device.

> That recall was premised on a bad batch of batteries, so the customers
> were given expectation that new battery would permanently fix problem.
> It didn't.

Again, you have the ability to see facts which appear to be invisible to
the Apple Apologists.

Apple was "incredibly specific" about the first recall issue but incredibly
vague about the 10.2.1 "fix". There's a reason for that since nothing
happens at Apple by accident.

Apple made a conscious decision to hide the facts, which will be proven in
court if the cases aren't settled out of court sooner.

> Note that the "bad batch" did age much faster and exhibited the problem
> within 5-6 months of product launch.

This is an interesting fact, where even Apple said there were multiple
problems that the customers found for them since Apple doesn't test their
devices long enough in the real world to find them on their own.

>> What Samsung implemented for batteries is sort of what Apple needs to
>> implement for their phones - which is a rigorous testing system that
>> simulates what would happen in a year.
>
> I am pretty sure that engineering within Apple would have been aware
> that the battery was undersized for the type of power loads of the 6s
> once you factopr in reduced battery amperage capacity as it ages.

This is a good point, in that there isn't any engineering mystery here like
there was, initially, in the Samsung exploding battery recall ... so, it's
odd then that if Apple engineers knew what they were doing, then why did
Apple feel the need to *secretly* halve the performance of the CPU.

Do you think the engineers planned this all along?

> And it
> is likely that marketing overruled this for the sake of keeping the 6s
> as thin as the 6, making it sturdier (back pocket bending gate) and
> adding a bigger taptic engine.

Ummm....mmm... this makes sense. Nothing happens at Apple without MARKETING
knowing about it - as it's one of the most successfully marketed companies
on the planet.

It could very well be that, just like in the Volkswagen situation,
MARKETING decided the final specs, and engineering couldn't do it - so they
had to shoehorn in the secret halving of the CPU just to meet the spec.

I know that the handful of (155.7 x 80 x 7.4 mm) $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus
phones I bought for Christmas as gifts has a 3200 mAh battery, as does the
(159.7 x 78.1 x 7.6 mm) LG V20, while the (158.2 x 77.9 x 7.3 mm) iPhone 7
Plus has only a 2900 mAh battery (about 10% less capacity).

Maybe that tenth of a millimeter in thickness is what cost Apple customers
that 10% loss, out of the box, of their battery capacity?

<https://www.phonearena.com/phones/compare/LG-Stylo-3,Apple-iPhone-7-Plus,LG%20V20/phones/10337,9816,10202>

>> Remember, Apple said they were totally blindsided by the iPhone 6 problems,
>> which simply means they didn't test it because they were common.
>
> They were not blindsighted. The bad batch simply made a problem they
> would have been aware of surface well before they had predicted.

I agree that it's a technical problem to test for "battery aging", and I
note that Apple went to extreme lengths to try to imply that all batteries
aged as fast as the iPhone batteries aged.... but it's a fact that this
problem that they felt the need to secretly throttle cpu speeds to less
than half within a year of use happens only on Apple devices, and only on
some of them.

So, no matter when Apple figured it out, the fact remains that they decided
to "solve" their problem by secretly halving CPU speeds, which is what
they're being sued for (rightfully so).

What I expect them to do is:
1. Not come clean until they can settle the lawsuits out of court
2. Then the lawsuits will dictate a proper remedy to the customer

Hint: Charging the customer to replace a defective battery is a lousy
remedy by all accounts.

> With the then expected replacement cycle of 2 years, they likely figured
> that the average onwer might expect a couple of cold shutdowns during
> the winter of year 1, and as phone would be replaced in fall of year 2,
> wouldn't get the bad shutdowns on year 2.

I have to disagree with your replacement lifecycle of 2 years, as I get far
more than that out of my phones. So do plenty of other people.

It's only Apple customers who have been trained to think a battery lasts
only two years. Did you see the Samsung statement I published for example?
It's a completely different expectation of battery life cycles.

In practice, the Android phones that have non-removable batteries (Nexus 5
was given away and is still working fine and the Google Moto G is also
working just fine) I gave as gifts years ago are still going strong.

My observation is that it seems only Apple customers feel that a battery
needs to be replaced after only two years of use. It's like saying a car
needs to be replaced after only two years of use. The perception works to
the manufacturer's advantage only.

> Suspect they underestimated how soon the problem would surface.

Like Volkswagon, they hit upon the "elegant" solution, but it was so
elegant, and cheap, that they had to do it secretly. :)

> BTW, one possible solution is similar to electric cars:
> Put a heater in/under the battery.

I think Apple knows all the solutions where they took the "elegant"
(secret) way out.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, I hope they just design the phones for
the batteries and vice versa. It's ridiculous that only Apple phones are
2-year replacement items. It's like having cars being replaced every two
years. It's wasteful.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 5:05:20 PM1/3/18
to
On 2018-01-03, harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
>
> Blah blah blah blah blah Apple Apologist, blah blah blah blah

Get some new material, old fool.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 5:05:42 PM1/3/18
to
On 2018-01-03, harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
> He who is Jolly Roger said on 3 Jan 2018 06:25:53 GMT:
>
>> Get some new material, old foolish troll.
>
> Think about

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

rickman

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:08:11 PM1/3/18
to
Jolly Roger wrote on 1/3/2018 5:05 PM:
> On 2018-01-03, harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
>> He who is Jolly Roger said on 3 Jan 2018 06:25:53 GMT:
>>
>>> Get some new material, old foolish troll.
>>
>> Think about
>
> Troll, troll, troll your boat...

I think we can see who the troll is. Anyone who o feels the need to post
four times complaining about someone being a troll *is* a troll.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:15:03 PM1/3/18
to
On 2018-01-03, rickman <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 1/3/2018 5:05 PM:
>> On 2018-01-03, harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
>>> He who is Jolly Roger said on 3 Jan 2018 06:25:53 GMT:
>>>
>>>> Get some new material, old foolish troll.
>>>
>>> Think about
>>
>> Troll, troll, troll your boat...
>
> I think we can see who the troll is. Anyone who o feels the need to post
> four times complaining about someone being a troll *is* a troll.

"Gosh, I KNOW, right? And anyone who calls out a racist for being a
racist *is* racist, y'all!"

Bullshit reasoning. The asshole currently known as "Harry Newton" has
been trolling the Apple news groups and belittling complete strangers in
them literally for hours a day for years now. He constantly changes his
name to avoid kill filters and pollutes the otherwise peaceful Apple
news groups with lame trolls filled with lies and misguided opinions.
Here's an incomplete list (and counting) of his names:

Paul B. Andersen, Adair Bordon, Liam O'Connor, Juan Camilo Blanco,
Alphonse Arnaud, Danny D., Vinny Perado, Whitney Ryan, Tony Cito, Adam
H. Kerman, Werner Obermeier, Steven Bornfeld, Winston_Smith, Mitch
Kaufmann, Paul M. Cook, E. Robinson, Alice J., P. Ng, Tam Nguyen, VPN
user, Joe Clock, Marob Katon, Chris Rangoon, AArdvarks, Conradt, Gustl
Hoffmann, Henry Jones, Tatsuki Takahashi, AL, Horace Algier, Karl
Schultz, Arthur Conan Doyle, Algeria Horan, Horace Algier, Raymond
Spruance III, Martin Chuzzlewit II, John Harmon, Yanis Bernard, Stijn De
Jong, Abe Swanson, Misha Vasiliev, Tomos Davies, Chaya Eve, Lionel
Muller, Roy Tremblay, Frank S, Chaya Eve, Blake Snyder, harry newton,
Harold Newton

Multiple regulars in these news groups call him out on his lame-ass
trolls. But little, old *you* have decided to step in and support the
troll. Good work, there, junior!

rickman

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:19:40 PM1/3/18
to
Jolly Roger wrote on 1/3/2018 6:15 PM:
>
> Multiple regulars in these news groups call him out on his lame-ass
> trolls. But little, old *you* have decided to step in and support the
> troll. Good work, there, junior!

No, I'm just calling it like I see it. You jumped into a reasonable
conversation making five (not four, my mistake) posts complaining about
troll behavior without indicating what was "trollish". Now you want to
argue about your trollish behavior and call me names. You are currently the
problem, not a cure. Why don't you stop being a troll and we can let the
conversation continue?

Savageduck

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:26:12 PM1/3/18
to
On Jan 3, 2018, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article <fb56fk...@mid.individual.net>):
Also, the cross posts to unrelated groups, and groups where he anticipates
some sort of support, and/or validation, are a pretty good clue as to the
trollish nature of posts from the Santa Clara nymshifter.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Fox's Mercantile

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:41:59 PM1/3/18
to
On 1/3/18 5:19 PM, rickman wrote:
>
> No, I'm just calling it like I see it.  You jumped into a
> reasonable conversation

There has been nothing reasonable about this conversation.
It's been 100% Harry against the world.
And anyone that even slightly disagrees with him is called
a variety of names.



--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

Savageduck

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:43:39 PM1/3/18
to
On Jan 3, 2018, rickman wrote
(in article <p2joea$37m$3...@dont-email.me>):

> Jolly Roger wrote on 1/3/2018 6:15 PM:
> >
> > Multiple regulars in these news groups call him out on his lame-ass
> > trolls. But little, old *you* have decided to step in and support the
> > troll. Good work, there, junior!
>
> No, I'm just calling it like I see it. You jumped into a reasonable
> conversation making five (not four, my mistake) posts complaining about
> troll behavior without indicating what was "trollish". Now you want to
> argue about your trollish behavior and call me names. You are currently the
> problem, not a cure. Why don't you stop being a troll and we can let the
> conversation continue?

The source of the troll is the OP not JR, and guess who the OP is in this
thread. None other than the nymshifting troll from Santa Clara County. He
provides nothing constructive, just his never ending anti-Apple posts. I for
one have decided to not respond to him, particularly given the toxicity, and
of his posts to the Apple NGs.

Recently I have responded to one of his posts to r.p.d. which appeared to be
benign, and where he had used yet another nymshift. I did not believe that
particular post was a troll, but one which sought an answer to a legitimate
question.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

nospam

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:49:47 PM1/3/18
to
In article <p2joea$37m$3...@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Multiple regulars in these news groups call him out on his lame-ass
> > trolls. But little, old *you* have decided to step in and support the
> > troll. Good work, there, junior!
>
> No, I'm just calling it like I see it. You jumped into a reasonable
> conversation

there is no reasonable conversation with 'harry' or whatever other nym
he's using.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:50:17 PM1/3/18
to
On 2018-01-03, rickman <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote on 1/3/2018 6:15 PM:
>>
>> Multiple regulars in these news groups call him out on his lame-ass
>> trolls. But little, old *you* have decided to step in and support the
>> troll. Good work, there, junior!
>
> No, I'm just calling it like I see it. You jumped into a reasonable
> conversation

On the contrary, your vaunted so-called "reasonable discussion" is part
of a campaign of pure troll posts about iOS throttling functionality
that was initially cross-posted to irrelevant newsgroups
(sci.electronics.repair, and android) by a well-known nym-shifting
Apple-hating troll with a LONG track record in the Apple newsgroups of
attacking complete strangers merely because they call him out on his
lies. Either you are unaware of this, or you are actively ignoring it.
Either way, you're wrong.

> making five (not four, my mistake) posts

Post counts for this thread (at the moment):

Harry: 16 (Under two different nyms, at that.)
Others: 15
Me: 4 (Oh my! This is a problem!)

> complaining about troll behavior without indicating what was
> "trollish"

Others have done a sufficient job of both debunking his lies and calling
out his trolls in this thread, but I guess they don't count for you. Or
do you not read anyone's posts but mine and "Harry's"?

> Now you want to argue about your trollish behavior and call me names.

If "junior" offends you, I'm sorry but you're a snowflake. Grow a
thicker skin. It was meant to convey you are new to the Apple news
groups; and I have little doubt you are since I don't recall seeing your
posts here in many years. If you think "junior" is bad, you should see
what the troll currently known as "Harry" has to say about the regulars
in the Apple news groups that call him out on his lies. It'll no doubt
blow your fragile mind. ; )

> You are currently the problem

Projection. Stop supporting established trolls.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:53:07 PM1/3/18
to
"...but no let's ignore all of that and instead concentrate on why the
regulars in the Apple newsgroups are *complaining* about his trolling.
Clearly *that* is the problem here!"

Fucking idiot.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 6:57:28 PM1/3/18
to
On 2018-01-03, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2018, rickman wrote
> (in article <p2joea$37m$3...@dont-email.me>):
>
>> Jolly Roger wrote on 1/3/2018 6:15 PM:
>> >
>> > Multiple regulars in these news groups call him out on his lame-ass
>> > trolls. But little, old *you* have decided to step in and support
>> > the troll. Good work, there, junior!
>>
>> No, I'm just calling it like I see it. You jumped into a reasonable
>> conversation making five (not four, my mistake) posts complaining
>> about troll behavior without indicating what was "trollish". Now you
>> want to argue about your trollish behavior and call me names. You are
>> currently the problem, not a cure. Why don't you stop being a troll
>> and we can let the conversation continue?
>
> The source of the troll is the OP not JR, and guess who the OP is in
> this thread. None other than the nymshifting troll from Santa Clara
> County. He provides nothing constructive, just his never ending
> anti-Apple posts. I for one have decided to not respond to him,
> particularly given the toxicity, and of his posts to the Apple NGs.

I should too, and I often refrain, but sometimes he steps in such a huge
pile of his own shit, it's hard not to laugh.

> Recently I have responded to one of his posts to r.p.d. which appeared
> to be benign, and where he had used yet another nymshift. I did not
> believe that particular post was a troll, but one which sought an
> answer to a legitimate question.

He's *never* posted in the Apple newsgroups without a clear agenda
against the people in those newsgroups.

Savageduck

unread,
Jan 3, 2018, 7:12:28 PM1/3/18
to
On Jan 3, 2018, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article <fb58v5...@mid.individual.net>):
Agreed.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

pf...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 7:34:12 AM1/4/18
to
Rick:

Some people (you, for instance) need a clue-stick liberally applied before they *get* it. The likes of Jimmy Neutron are not common, but they are much like Kudzu or Crown Vetch - once rooted, very difficult to expunge, and highly destructive to native life. Accordingly, a certain amount of vigilance is necessary as there are always innocents out there ready to be victimized. The proper approach is to salt the earth around him such that he cannot set those roots. There is no defending such - I suggest you look up the fable of the fox and the scorpion. It is Newton/Neutron's nature to be a troll, and nothing you can do will change that nature. Don't feed it, don't support or defend it, just burn the roots, salt the earth, and move on. And if you cannot do even that much, stay the hell out of the way of those *with* the flame-throwers and salt-spreaders.

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 2:46:54 PM1/4/18
to
I don't know about toxicity, but the best way to handle trolls is to ignore
them. I will be ignoring Roger.

pf...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 2:56:37 PM1/4/18
to
Rick:

Yet another application of the Clue Stick is required.

Ignoring known trolls works for those who know of and understand the troll. But that emphatically does not work when the troll attempts to root in fresh ground. And, there is always fresh ground. Glad that you will be ignoring things - that will let those who are willing to warn the unwary get on with it, without the likes of you attempting to validate the troll.

Are you on the spectrum?

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 2:57:08 PM1/4/18
to
This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen a number of ham groups destroyed by
this sort of behavior. One person is accused of being a troll, but they
aren't really a problem. They make their posts and people either read them
or ignore them. The problem arises when vigilantes try to "deal" with the
problem by turning the topic from the original to being about the accused
troll. Instead of solving anything, they make the problem 10 times worse.

That is what's going on here. I was reading the thread and considering the
issues in the discussion until someone threw a turd in the punch bowl. The
presence of the "enforcers" is more disruptive than the original thread. It
should be very easy to killfile the offender and/or the entire thread.

Oh, but then someone on the Internet would be wrong without knowing it!

https://xkcd.com/386/

I've killfiled JR, we'll see if the problem improves.

B...@onramp.net

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 3:27:15 PM1/4/18
to
First, there has never been a reasonable conversation with the person
to whom Roger was responding He really is an inveterate troll with
nothing to add to this newsgroup. I have kill filed every nym that he
uses that's identifiable and will continue.

We each have a decision to make regarding trolls. In this case JR has
decided to point out the troll. That is effective in warning other
posters.

You will be missing some interesting and edifying posts if you ignore
Roger.

Fox's Mercantile

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 3:39:21 PM1/4/18
to
On 1/4/18 1:57 PM, rickman wrote:
> I've killfiled JR, we'll see if the problem improves.

It won't until you killfile harry newton.

pf...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 3:47:15 PM1/4/18
to
Until it changes its name.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 4:37:12 PM1/4/18
to
Harry has consistently and methodically disrupted the Apple news groups
with campaigns consisting of sometimes tens of separate threads at a
time, often with multiple nyms at a time, and more often than not
cross-posted to completely irrelevant groups, and you pop your head in
to claim they aren't a fucking problem. What fucking planet are you on
that trolls of the worst kind aren't really a fucking problem?

> They make their posts and people either read them or ignore them.

You're definitely not from around here, boy. This particular troll has
polluted these otherwise peaceful Apple newsgroups on a regular basis
with hundreds of posts under numerous and never-ending names to avoid
kill filters filled with misinformation and antagonizing and attacking
anyone who dare disagree or call him out on his bare-faced lies. And
they aren't just harmful little interactions that people can just
ignore, especially considering he *regularly* nym switches to avoid
filtering.

> The problem arises when vigilantes try to "deal" with the problem by
> turning the topic from the original to being about the accused troll.

No, the problem already existed. Whenever (which is constantly) it
becomes plainly obvious that "Harry" actively *ignores* and *disputes*
anything anyone says about the topic at hand that disagrees with his
lies, and attacks them instead, people *naturally* start examining his
character. His stubborn refusal to accept anything but his anti-Apple
position on a topic *forces* others to look at his personality faults as
an explanation for what might cause a person his age to literally spend
hours upon hours *daily* writing long, rambling, laborious posts where
he antagonizes and belittles complete strangers simply because he
dislikes Apple and people who use Apple devices.

> Instead of solving anything, they make the problem 10 times worse.

Projection. Victim blaming makes the problem ten times worse.

> That is what's going on here.

You're ignorant of the actual situation, and deluded.

> I've killfiled JR, we'll see if the problem improves.

LOL! Enjoy "Harry's" trolls, idiot.

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:03:13 PM1/4/18
to
JR has gone *far* beyond pointing out a troll. He has gone so far beyond
that he has become the troll. To point out that you think someone is a
troll only takes a single post of a few lines. His less annoying posts were
the uneducating, "So few facts, so much time. Life's hard for an old troll!"
and "Get some new material, old foolish troll." When I point out his
excessive complaining he only comes back with much more annoying posts.
These are not intended to be educational to anyone. These are the rantings
of someone who feels he is on a mission, a very misguided mission.

Just as bad are the many posts attempting to justify his behavior.


> You will be missing some interesting and edifying posts if you ignore
> Roger.

It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts. But you have to
consider the noise level they bring as well. In this thread all but one
post was noise. That's an unacceptable level.

nospam

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:05:49 PM1/4/18
to
In article <p2m8as$5hc$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.

actually, it's extremely unusual.

trolls post for a reaction, not for content.

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:08:30 PM1/4/18
to
Fox's Mercantile wrote on 1/4/2018 3:39 PM:
> On 1/4/18 1:57 PM, rickman wrote:
>> I've killfiled JR, we'll see if the problem improves.
>
> It won't until you killfile harry newton.

Unlike you, I was learning something about the topic issue until I was
sidetracked by the multiple troll accusation posts. In this thread Harry's
posts are on topic at least.

How about we just don't respond to the posts we don't like? I don't see any
value in discussing this further, so I won't be replying to posts about the
trolling going on and in particular to posts containing personal insults.

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:09:27 PM1/4/18
to
And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me. I guess that shows he
isn't trolling.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:12:49 PM1/4/18
to
On 2018-01-04, rickman <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net wrote on 1/4/2018 3:27 PM:
>>
>> First, there has never been a reasonable conversation with the person
>> to whom Roger was responding He really is an inveterate troll with
>> nothing to add to this newsgroup. I have kill filed every nym that he
>> uses that's identifiable and will continue.
>>
>> We each have a decision to make regarding trolls. In this case JR
>> has decided to point out the troll. That is effective in warning
>> other posters.
>
> JR has gone *far* beyond pointing out a troll.

Yes, yes, folks. I am the devil incarnate! I have dared to give the
troll a taste of his own fucking medicine! Surely this is a worse
offense than the attacks from the troll himself! I HAVE BECOME PURE
EVIL! MUAHAHAHAAA!! >: D

Let me assure you, coming from someone who is new to the Apple
newsgroups, your completely misguided opinion means OH SO MUCH!! Thank
you for enlightening the group with your supreme instant wisdom, Rick,
man!

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:17:15 PM1/4/18
to
nospam wrote on 1/3/2018 8:38 AM:
> In article <p2i0de$anm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
> <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
>
>> but remember
>> this is an Apple-only problem
>
> nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
> other device that uses a battery.
>
> there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.

Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first
year. A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
battery ages. I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new
for two or three years. Do you not understand the issue? Apple would seem
to have either not given this attention in the design stage (indicating
incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery
deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of
operation (with potential warranty issues).

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:18:25 PM1/4/18
to
On 2018-01-04, rickman <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fox's Mercantile wrote on 1/4/2018 3:39 PM:
>> On 1/4/18 1:57 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>>> I've killfiled JR, we'll see if the problem improves.
>>
>> It won't until you killfile harry newton.
>
> Unlike you, I was learning something about the topic issue until I was
> In this thread

The extent of Harry's trolling of the Apple news groups extends far
beyond this thread, junior. You're clueless.

> How about we just don't respond to the posts we don't like?

Ah, is that what you did with my posts?

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:23:54 PM1/4/18
to
On 2018-01-04, rickman <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:05 PM:
>> In article <p2m8as$5hc$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman
>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.
>>
>> actually, it's extremely unusual.
>>
>> trolls post for a reaction, not for content.
>
> And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.

No, they were filled with lies, like:

"Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
half"

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
with batteries that are on the way out.

And:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

> I guess that shows he isn't trolling.

No, it doesn't. You, on the other hand, are in very shady territory and
company.

pf...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:33:03 PM1/4/18
to
> Rick C

Dayum, but you know next-to-nothing about battery chemistry and/or the aging process. Knowing now that you are likely unencumbered by the thought process (insult) and likely on the Spectrum (not an insult, but a reach for an explanation for your apparent-deliberate ignorance), batteries age. They age in two ways:
a) Not able to deliver the necessary amperage at a given voltage for as long as before.
b) Not able to deliver sufficient voltage as before. Subset: voltage is OK, but the amperage is not.

This is true of every kind of chemical battery from a liquid lead-acid battery used for backing up POTS systems to a Tesla battery.

I keep radio-control submarines. On them, I have a device that reads the state of the battery, and if it goes critical, immediately surfaces the boat, and will not permit diving. I can determine the age of the battery by when that happens on a run.

Again, this is a chemical issue true of every kind of chemical battery over time. Cell phones make heavy demands on batteries depending on what they are asked to do. Some simply cannot meet that demand with an old battery, and so 'limit' the phone much as the "Sub-Safe" device does. That Apple explained this badly is the issue. Not what happened.

Getting back to Jimmy Neutron - he offered a Conspiracy-Based explanation for an obvious phenomenon in order to light off his personal tempest in his virtual teapot. It was neither thoughtful, nor offered as a basis for actual discussion.

nospam

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:39:30 PM1/4/18
to
In article <p2m8ml$5hc$3...@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.
> >
> > actually, it's extremely unusual.
> >
> > trolls post for a reaction, not for content.
>
> And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.

how so?

nothing he's written has any basis in fact (despite his claims
otherwise).

he is regularly proven wrong. he claims things can't be done on ios or
macs even though it's been explained to him *exactly* how to do it. he
snips to alter context to avoid admitting he's full of shit.

> I guess that shows he
> isn't trolling.

nope.

what it shows is that you'll believe anything without verifying it.

nospam

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:39:30 PM1/4/18
to
In article <fb7nrm...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> >>> It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.
> >>
> >> actually, it's extremely unusual.
> >>
> >> trolls post for a reaction, not for content.
> >
> > And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.
>
> No, they were filled with lies, like:
>
> "Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
> half"
>
> The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
> permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
> requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
> with batteries that are on the way out.

yep.

put simply, the peaks are clipped.

for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or
web surfing, there is no slowdown.

> And:
>
> "they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"
>
> No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
> mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

nospam

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:39:31 PM1/4/18
to
In article <p2m958$bs8$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> but remember
> >> this is an Apple-only problem
> >
> > nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
> > other device that uses a battery.
> >
> > there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.
>
> Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first
> year.

it doesn't. it's not based on how old it is.

it depends on the battery health and the specific power demands at the
time.

> A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
> battery ages.

exactly what it does.

> I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new
> for two or three years.

'nearly as well' means there's a noticeable effect.

laptop batteries also have a *much* higher capacity than what's in a
phone and capable of much higher peaks.

they are also powering a different processor with different power
demands in a product with a different thermal profile along with
numerous other differences.

in other words, not a good comparison.

> Do you not understand the issue?

far more than you do.

> Apple would seem
> to have either not given this attention in the design stage (indicating
> incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery
> deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of
> operation (with potential warranty issues).

both false.

B...@onramp.net

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:46:22 PM1/4/18
to
By your definition you have become a troll. IOW why don't take your
own advice and not respond as you have several times. JR has less
posts about this than you now.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:46:59 PM1/4/18
to
On 2018-01-04, rickman <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote on 1/3/2018 8:38 AM:
>> In article <p2i0de$anm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
>> <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> but remember this is an Apple-only problem
>>
>> nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
>> other device that uses a battery.
>>
>> there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.
>
> Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the
> first year.

Where's the evidence that all (or even the majority) of iPhones are
impacted in the first year? Answer: it doesn't exist because it's
bullshit hyperbole.

> A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
> battery ages.

Apple devices *do* continue to operate as the battery ages. I've got an
eight year old iPad 1st generation sitting right here beside me that's
working just fine on the original battery. And the feature in question
actually extends the *runtime* of devices with dying batteries rather
than putting so much load on them they fail outright and shut down the
device. Personally, eeking out every little bit of runtime possible
happens to be precisely what I *expect* from the OS that runs on my
devices. Is that something that sets Apple users apart from the rest of
the herd?

> I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new for two or
> three years.

Just two or three? I'm posting this on a six year old MacBook Pro with
the original battery (486 cycles and counting and 88% healthy) without
any issues. I have an iPhone 3GS that still works on the original
battery. I have a 2010 iPhone 4 in the car as a dedicated dashcam that
still runs great too.

> Do you not understand the issue?

Do you?

> Apple would seem to have either not given this attention in the design
> stage (indicating incompetence)

Nonsense. Apple's customers have good experiences, which is why Apple
tops customer satisfaction and rakes in the profits. Real-world use
trumps some blogger with a slant any day.

> or they made a conscious decision to allow battery deterioration to
> impact the operation of the phone in the first year of operation (with
> potential warranty issues).

Anecdotes and hyperbole don't equate to pandemics. This entire "issue"
is a big, overblown bucket of bullshit from people who don't understand
the engineering involved. And a few months from now it'll be forgotten
and replaced with the next new "scandal".

B...@onramp.net

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:49:51 PM1/4/18
to
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:09:25 -0500, rickman
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

>nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:05 PM:
>> In article <p2m8as$5hc$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman
>> <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.
>>
>> actually, it's extremely unusual.
>>
>> trolls post for a reaction, not for content.
>
>And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me. I guess that shows he
>isn't trolling.

No, it shows that you aren't knowledgeable enough to see his idiocy.

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:50:02 PM1/4/18
to
On 2018-01-04, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <fb7nrm...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.
>> >>
>> >> actually, it's extremely unusual.
>> >>
>> >> trolls post for a reaction, not for content.
>> >
>> > And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.
>>
>> No, they were filled with lies, like:
>>
>> "Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
>> half"
>>
>> The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
>> permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
>> requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
>> with batteries that are on the way out.
>
> yep.
>
> put simply, the peaks are clipped.

Exactly, and the benefit is a device with longer runtime towards the end
of its battery life. I'll take it.

> for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or
> web surfing, there is no slowdown.

Yup. But details like that don't fit the troll narrative.

>> And:
>>
>> "they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"
>>
>> No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
>> mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.
>
> they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes.

Savageduck

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 5:52:20 PM1/4/18
to
On Jan 4, 2018, rickman wrote
(in article <p2m0uh$c1p$1...@dont-email.me>):
The problem will continue, because the actual news group spoiling, anti-Apple
agenda holding troll, is the nymshifting OP. He taunts with his provocative
bait knowing that he will precipitate the thread into a flamewar. Many of the
usual participants, such as JR, Lewis, nospam, and others seem to be unable
to resist to temptation to engage with him. I for one will not entertain
playing into the trollish flamewar trap he sets in the Apple NGs and cross
pollinates to other groups which have no interest in things Apple.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

harry newton

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 6:47:46 PM1/4/18
to
He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:17:11 -0500:

>>> this is an Apple-only problem
>>
>> nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
>> other device that uses a battery.
>>
>> there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.
>
> Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first
> year.

This is the key point, rickman, where you and almost all the logical people
who bought iPhones (and even logical people who didn't buy them) would have
presumed that the CPU speed of a phone would be the same on day 1 when the
reviews come out as it would be on day 366 after a year of ownership.

Nobody (but Apple & the Apple Apologists) has even tried to defend the
secret, permanent, and drastic halving of the CPU speeds as being
"beneficial" for "prolonging the life" of the phone.

I can understand why Apple says that (they have a dozen lawsuits to not
give any ammunition to), but it's harder to understand the logic of the
defense that we should have known all along that Apple would halve the
speeds based on what Apple said it put in the iOS 10.2.1 release (and 11.2
for the iPhone 7).

"iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your
iPhone or iPad. It also improves power management during peak
workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone."
<https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US>

Affected phones were:
iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE.
<https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/>

> A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
> battery ages. I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new
> for two or three years. Do you not understand the issue?

Bear in mind that it is a fact that I am the one who first broke the news
to the Apple newsgroups of the problem, and who first broke the news of
Apple's apology about the problem - so I am vehemently hated by the Apple
Apologists (nospam, Jolly Roger, Savageduck, Snit, BKonRamp, etc.).

You have to understand that on the affected iOS newsgroups, there is a set
of bona-fide lifer Apple Apologists who hate any fact that is truthful but
not what they like to hear.

So they will *destroy* any thread that contains facts that they don't like,
using a variety of techniques, some of which you've seen here, all combined
with guile and vitriol and ill logic, where, in the end, they always
attempt to destroy truthful facts like any competent cancer would.

You have Jolly Roger exclaiming today that an Apple battery is as easy to
replace as a "user replaceable" battery for example, which is just patently
ridiculous - and yet - he makes that claim with a straight face. Worse,
Jolly Roger consistently fabricates content that never occurred, just so
that he can appear witty (to himself?) by responding to that completely
fabricated content!

Why does Jolly Roger habitually fabricate quoted content?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FJ0ScwZ9sLE/d40Bp9jKDQAJ>

You have nospam insisting that Apple duly informed its users with that
cryptic 10.2.1 release-note blurb, and you have Savageduck trying to skirt
facts with semantic outliers such as iOS-based non-Apple cameras, and you
have B...@Onramp.net who consistently high-fives other people's posts but has
never once (ever!) added technical value to any thread in his entire life!

All of these ill-logical people resort to complete and utter fabrications
of non-existing functionality, whenever confronted with patently
unassailable facts - that they don't like.

Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/vcq3ESStmlc/bjhf9Z5vBAAJ>

That's the kind of people you're currently dealing with.

> Apple would seem
> to have either not given this attention in the design stage (indicating
> incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery
> deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of
> operation (with potential warranty issues).

It seems from all the evidence (quoted elsewhere already), that Apple
didn't test the product thoroughly enough (they admitted as much that they
were blindsided by the initial shutdowns) and then, after the second series
of reports came in, Apple finally realized what happened.

The "fix" is clear - which they already apologized for not communicating
(but only because they got caught so they had to apologize).

The fact is that they implemented a secret solution that is permanent and
drastic (cutting CPU speeds to less than half after only one year of use).

The conjecture is "WHY" they did that.

I posit, with logical thought, that they realized how BIG of a problem this
design flaw is, and they realized they didn't have ANY options to fix it in
software that were palatable to the customer.

They certainly *could* have implemented a recall, where they provided the
customer with a better design - but they took the easy way out - which was
to secretly mask the design flaw.

This is all well described already in valid factual references I've
supplied in each of my posts, so I will let you decide who is a troll on
this newsgroup, and who is providing valid referenced facts.

<https://www.computerworld.com/article/3245048/mobile-wireless/apple-makes-its-intent-on-the-battery-fiasco-clear-and-not-in-the-way-it-wanted.html>
Title:
"Apple makes its intent on the battery fiasco clear.
And not in the way it wanted."

harry newton

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 7:08:14 PM1/4/18
to
He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:09:25 -0500:

> And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me. I guess that shows he
> isn't trolling.

You have to understand, rickman, that the Apple Apologists *hate* me, with
a vengeance, because I speak facts that they don't like.

I call out Jolly Roger on his trolls (if you run a search for the
combination of Jolly Roger and troll on the iOS newsgroups, he comes up on
top, by far, since he calls every fact he doesn't like, a troll).
http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone

BTW, I always *add* value to a newsgroup, so who do you think *created*
those tinyurls in the first place? I did.

For example:
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
http://tinyurl.com/sci-electgronics-repair

Why did I create them?

For the good of all, as I've been on Usenet for decades, being an old
octogenarian (where you'll note Jolly Roger always tries to insult me for
simply being old).

What the Apple Apologists you're dealing with absolutely hate, are facts
that they don't like so they attempt to defame and destroy the bearer of
those valid verified facts.

For example, this is my thread on the iOS newsgroups which *broke* the news
to them that Apple was caught secretly throttling CPU speeds.
Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device down to
trick you into buying a new device
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/GdEtzzrc9F0%5B1-25%5D>

When you skim that thread, you'll instantly see how the Apple Apologists
react to truthful facts and how the others on the iOS newsgroup who are not
Apple Apologists, react.

They are two completely different mentalities (which you're noticing).
a. Adults who can converse using logic and facts, and,
b. Apple Apologists (e.g., nospam, Savageduck, Jolly Roger, BKonRamp, etc.)
who can, but don't.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 7:18:48 PM1/4/18
to
He who is harry newton said on Fri, 5 Jan 2018 00:08:08 +0000 (UTC):

> BTW, I always *add* value to a newsgroup, so who do you think *created*
> those tinyurls in the first place? I did.
>
> For example:
> http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
> http://tinyurl.com/sci-electgronics-repair
>
> Why did I create them?
>
> For the good of all, as I've been on Usenet for decades, being an old
> octogenarian (where you'll note Jolly Roger always tries to insult me for
> simply being old).

OOoooops. Typo.

Here are the URLs I created for the good of all, so that *facts* can be
researched easily and so that the immense effort most of us put into adding
value to Usenet can be harvested to the benefit of others.

http://tinyurl.com/sci-electronics-repair
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad
http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone
http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-system
http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-apps
http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux
etc.

Note: When Google took over dejanews, and when TinyUrl came out years ago,
I added the Windows newsgroups - but Google consistently breaks them over
the years, so I eventually gave up adding Windows newsgroups for tinyurl
convenience.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 7:22:53 PM1/4/18
to
He who is Jolly Roger said on 4 Jan 2018 22:23:50 GMT:

> The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
> permanent

This is a good topic for adult logical discussion...

Title:
How to take advantage of Apple's $29 iPhone battery replacement program
right now
URL:
<http://bgr.com/2018/01/01/iphone-battery-replacement-29-how-to-iphone-slowdown-scandal/>
Quote:
"There is no way to toggle Apple's hidden throttling on or off
within the company's iOS software. Instead, the only way to disable
an iPhone slowdown is to install a new battery in your phone."

This was already referenced in the iOS newsgroups here:
Title:
For anyone who still thinks the iPhone throttling isn't *permanent* - read this article
URL:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wq4r6ALKewE>

harry newton

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 8:05:07 PM1/4/18
to
He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:57:04 -0500:

> This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen a number of ham groups destroyed by
> this sort of behavior.

Hi rickman,

I too have been on Usenet since the early days, so we've seen groups
utterly devastated by this cancer, such as what happened here:
http://tinyurl.com/alt-free-newsservers

And yet, not to the (somewhat) related newsgroup:
http://tinyurl.com/news-software-readers

In many cases over the decades where we both have seen a newsgroup fall
into the cesspool, it's only a *handful* of viciously angry posters who
ruin the newsgroup for everyone else who is just trying to learn from the
immense tribal knowledge of all the members of the group, as a whole.

I don't know, offhand, whether you come from the android side or from the
electronics side (where I love Jeff Liebermann, who lives near me, but
we've yet to meet fact to face), so I apologize for the behavior of the
folks whom I call Apple Apologists (after having dealt with them for years
and trying to figure out why they act the strange way that they do).

Of the Apple Apologists you're dealing with, here's a characterization:
1. nospam - by far - the most clever and most knowledgeable of them all
2. Jolly Roger - nonsensically consumed by his own vitriol and rage
3. BKonRamp - if you find him ever adding value - I'll send you money!
4. Savageduck - he is knowledgeable (hence useful) on digital photography
but he hates iOS facts as much as the others - so he's unreasonable but
still very useful because he's expert at digital photography
REFERENCE: http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital

Overall, they're useful, where, in my killfile, even after two decades on
Usenet, is only Snit (whom you haven't experienced yet, I think), who is a
*perfect* example of an Apple Apologists - in that he even created a public
video attempting to "refute" my facts (which are always correct since
they're all validated by references), which he trolled incessantly over 400
times, where even I had to plonk him.

You really need to listen to the first minute of this video before I tell
you the key facts about these Apple Apologists (who are not normal people):
Title: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

Once you listen to the first minute of that video, you then need to know
that the Apple Apologists here (nospam, Jolly Roger, BK, etc.) all *agreed*
with him, numerous times.
It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0%5B26-50%5D>

For example, here's a direct quote from "nospam" on the facts I presented:
"Harry can't back anything he says, mostly because it's false.
what's even worse, he continues with his bogus claims after being
proven wrong with actual facts (not the ones in his delusional head)."

Notice how the Apple Apologists (who are not normal adults), claim to have
facts, and they claim to have been providing proof all along, and they do
it in such as self-serving way that you have to wonder if they actually
*believe* a single word they utter (they're that different from normal
people!)...

But get this - none of them, even after all that vitriol, know the
difference between a megabit and a decibel!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/BK4Vtbg9BwAJ>

Yup. They whole time they've been just blatantly *fabricating* non-existent
iOS functionality. Why? They hate the bearer of facts!

Here's how I tried to respond to the Apple Apologists (with facsts):
"One look at the graph it outputs proves that it's just a speedtest app.
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg>
The Apple Apologists insist it's a wifi signal strength app.
Why when it's a fact iOS apps can't graph wifi signal strength over time?
Meanwhile, the Android Fritz app clearly show Y-axis decibels (not Mbps).
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritzapp.jpg>
As does the Android WiFi Analyzer app wifi signal strength timeline:
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzer.jpg>

The problem here, which I've noticed over the decades happens in spades in
the Apple-related newsgroups, is that there is a clan of people who
viciously hate the bearers of facts that they just don't like.
What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>

So they react by *fabricating* functionality and then arguing for a billion
posts that what they claim exists, actually exists (when, in fact, it does
not). Just look at this thread, initiated by Jolly Roger himself:
Apple Is Being Slandered For What Chemistry Cannot Fix
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zM-uvnUrSCk>

Any thread that deals with facts on the iOS newsgroups that the
iOS apologists don't like, follows this same formula.

1. Someone states a valid fact about Apple that they don't like.
2. They deny the fact - almost always with childishly idiotic "logic"
3. More facts are provided in response to the fake denials
4. That incenses them so much they resort to vicious insults (JR)
5. Or they resort to extremely clever semantic contortions (nospam)
6. Or, they simply say that every fact is wrong (Savageduck)
7. And they pile on and high-five and support each other (JKonRamp)

Any casual reader of the thread gives up reading because of the cancer
above (which is exactly their goal).

It happens every time.
Just watch.
Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY>

That's the kind of people you're dealing with.

Years ago, I termed them "Apple Apologists"; but you can term them whatever
you think is appropriate.

They are not like normal adults in that viciously and repeatedly attack the
bearer of truthful facts they don't like.

harry newton

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 8:26:29 PM1/4/18
to
He who is Fox's Mercantile said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:39:11 -0600:

> It won't until you killfile harry newton.

You have to realize whom you're dealing with when you deal with these Apple
Apologists who claim everyone else is a troll but they themselves.

This single screenshot explains it all graphically in a way words can't:
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg>

One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:
itle: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>]

In that video, the Apple Apologist Snit claims that iOS does have the
functionality that I proved long before it does not.

Worse - the Apple Apologists you're dealing with *congratulated* Snit for
"proving Harry wrong" when, in fact, absolutely none of the Apple
Apologists knew the difference between a decibel and a megabit!
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritzapp.jpg>
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzer.jpg>

And yet, there must have been at least *400 additional posts* where nospam
claims to have proven it to us numerous times, and where Jolly Roger claims
that we're all "old fools" for not believing their completely baseless
claims.
It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0%5B26-50%5D>

So that's something like 800 posts, almost all of which are the Apple
Apologists denying what is, to normal adults, obvious fact.

Why do the Apple Apologists act this way?
I do not know the answer.

Every single time they post, I have to ask myself:
a. Are they really clueless (they don't know a megabit from a decibel?)
b. Or, do they do this on purpose (since they post it 800 times!)

I still don't know the answer to that question.
Do you?

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 9:08:20 PM1/4/18
to
Wow! You think you understand the issues, but nothing you said was
relevant. This is not really a technical issue, this is a business issue.
Yes, batteries wear out with time and use. So do a lot of things. A
properly designed product will take into account all the issues of using
batteries. The bottom line is the phone was not designed properly to even
have a 1 year working life without performance problems.

Your submarines have nothing to do with it.

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 9:09:46 PM1/4/18
to
Ok, you seem to think it is acceptable for a product to no longer meet
specifications before it is out of warranty. I don't. We'll have to agree
to disagree.

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 9:12:36 PM1/4/18
to
Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out. But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability. That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nospam

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 9:20:20 PM1/4/18
to
In article <p2mmp7$103$2...@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, you seem to think it is acceptable for a product to no longer meet
> specifications before it is out of warranty.

i said nothing remotely close to that, and nobody, not even apple, said
it no longer meets specs within or without warranty.

> I don't. We'll have to agree
> to disagree.

only because you don't understand what's *actually* going on.

nospam

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 9:20:21 PM1/4/18
to
In article <p2mmui$103$3...@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> "they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"
> >>
> >> No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
> >> mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.
> >
> > they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.
>
> Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
> runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

> But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
> which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

> That's why it became an issue, the phones
> started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

rickman

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 9:54:54 PM1/4/18
to
I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 10:12:01 PM1/4/18
to
On 2018-01-05, harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
> He who is Fox's Mercantile said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:39:11 -0600:
>
>> It won't until you killfile harry newton.
>
> Blah blah blah blah Apple Apologists blah blah blah

You're a broken record, old fool.

nospam

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 10:46:49 PM1/4/18
to
In article <p2mpds$ctg$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:


> >> That's why it became an issue, the phones
> >> started slowing down for no clear reason.
> >
> > nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
> > capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.
> >
> > as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.
>
> I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
> slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
> The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
> discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?

no, and the only article you should read is from apple itself, not
random journalists, some of whom have an agenda. there's a lot of
misinformation out there.

the slowdown only occurs with peak demands, not baseline performance,
and only with a battery that has degraded over time (which they all do)
to where it can't supply enough current for those peak demands.

the reason it's done is to avoid sudden shutdowns when the battery
voltage drops too low when pushed too hard, which is *far* more
annoying and also risks data loss and possible hardware damage.

when apple made the change last year, customers noticed a significant
*reduction* in sudden shutdowns. that's a good thing.

if the battery is healthy or the phone isn't being pushed hard (e.g.,
email, web surfing, text messaging, etc.), it's *highly* unlikely that
anyone will notice a difference. most of those tasks are *not*
cpu-bound, with the device waiting on the user to tap something or
other.

keep in mind that all devices, including android, are susceptible to
battery limitations, something the various articles neglect to mention.

one of *many* posts on the topic:
<https://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s4/322719-galaxy-s4-sh
uts-down-randomly.html>
Okay, I've had my phone for a few months now, and over the past week,
it has been shutting itself down, even though there is plenty of
battery left.
It seems like when I'm "stressing" the phone alittle bit, I can
reproduce the problem. For instance, it usually happens when I browse
around and multitask - jumping from one app to another... Also, if i
just load the game GTA III, which is somewhat heavy to run, it shuts
off within 10 minutes, usually less.
Also, I'm unable to reproduce the problem if I plug the phone to a
power charger.

batteries have limitations. the way to avoid shutdowns is to limit peak
demands so that the voltage doesn't drop to where the phone shuts off.
there's no getting around the laws of physics and battery chemistry.

and there have been lawsuits too:
<http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05/26/amended-complaint-filed-ongoing-
nexus-6p-early-shutdown-bootloop-lawsuit/>
The Nexus 6P lawsuit we previously reported on twice in April has
been recently amended, and the venue of the suit seems to have
changed to northern California. The latest filings have expanded the
total number of actions in the suit from 10 to 23, with claimants
hailing from 11 different states.
...
...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.

Harry Newton

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 10:48:46 PM1/4/18
to
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC), harry newton wrote:

> One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:
> itle: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
> URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>]
>
> In that video, the Apple Apologist Snit claims that iOS does have the
> functionality that I proved long before it does not.

*How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd behavior?*

Even today, just now, moments ago, nospam, probably the most informed of
all the Apple Apologists, just posted this, which is patently false, and,
in light of the entire thread of proof - one has to wonder:
a. Is nospam really that stupid (and the answer is clearly no - he's smart)
b. Then why does he claim fabricated iOS functionality as if it exists?

I don't know WHY the Apple Apologists aren't normal adults.
But the fact is they lie as openly and as easily as if it's natural.

Here's what nospam just posted:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/YYB2LmdTAAAJ>

Verbatim quote from me:
"It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time"
Verbatim response from nospam:
"yes they can and you've been told how.
why do you keep lying?"

*How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd behavior?*

Jolly Roger

unread,
Jan 4, 2018, 10:53:07 PM1/4/18
to
On 2018-01-05, Harry Newton <harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC), harry newton wrote:
>
>> One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:
>
> *How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd
> behavior?*

And now he's talking to himself with two different nyms...

Chris

unread,
Jan 5, 2018, 4:03:11 AM1/5/18
to
Batteries are not covered under warranty unless shown to be truly defective
- not just swear and tear.



Chris

unread,
Jan 5, 2018, 4:06:54 AM1/5/18
to
Not as I read it.

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.


rickman

unread,
Jan 7, 2018, 12:11:00 PM1/7/18
to
It's not just an issue of transparency, if the user experience is being
impacted to mitigate the problems of a battery that is degrading prematurely
in order to avoid warranty replacements, that's a problem in itself.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages