Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries

[harry newton]

Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries by
chopping CPU speeds secretly, permanently, and drastically (in half!).

Apple will offer $29 battery replacements for out of warranty iPhone 6 or
later devices, up to the end of 2018. After that, you're fucked again.

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

Basically, Apple knew they'd lose many a lawsuit because they secretly
masked the fact they didn't want to pay to replace defective batteries by
slowing phones permanently in half so that Apple's loyal customers would be
unaware of the defect.

But they got caught.
a. It was secret.
b. It was permanent.
c. And it was utterly drastic (CPU speeds cut in half!)

The lawsuits worked!

[harry newton]

He who is sobriquet said on Fri, 29 Dec 2017 03:39:03 -0800 (PST):

> Poor apple is so sorry they ripped off those clueless customers..
> boohoo.. they are crying all the way to the bank.

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.

[Dave Higton]

In message <p24b74$n6b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

harry newton <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

>Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries by
>chopping CPU speeds secretly, permanently, and drastically (in half!).

Not defective: aged.

Batteries wear out gradually.

Dave

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 20:31:43 GMT, Dave Higton wrote:

>>Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries by
>>chopping CPU speeds secretly, permanently, and drastically (in half!).
>
> Not defective: aged.
>
> Batteries wear out gradually.

The Apple white paper called them "chemically aged", as does this article:
<http://bgr.com/2017/12/29/iphone-slowdown-scandal-apple-fix/

That article points out two very important facts that I have been saying
for years, and which are proven time and again by Apple - and which both
show up in spades for anyone with a logical brain for facts in this battery
fiasco.

1. Apple never tests any of their products in the real world
2. Apple makes the users do their testing for them

Specifically, what the article says, verbatim,
"Apple is basically telling us that it's not testing iOS updates"
... and ...
"Apple had to wait for user feedback to realize that the iPhone slowdown,
which Apple caused, is to blame for the poorer user experience on older
iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s devices."

Essentially, of all mobile devices on the planet that have batteries, only
these specific Apple devices required a secret, permanent, and drastic CPU
slowdown (to *half* the original speeds!).

In reality, it's clear to all but to the Apple Apologists, that Apple
didn't test the product and when the user testing showed that the battery
was the wrong battery for the phone, Apple decided to stop replacing the
batteries under warranty and to mask the improperly designed batteries
instead.

Apple uses the words 'chemically aged' to mask the fact that only their
phones, and only certain of their phones, are in need of a warranty repair
that they weren't willing to do.

*Apple avoided warranty repairs by secretly masking the problem.*

The planned-obsolescence advantage to Apple was merely an added bonus.

These are all facts that I predict will be amply proven in the upcoming
dozen court cases.

[nospam]

In article <p26emp$1v78$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton

<harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

> Essentially, of all mobile devices on the planet that have batteries, only
> these specific Apple devices

nope. not just apple.

<https://source.android.com/devices/tech/power/mgmt>
To extend battery life, Android continually adds new features and
optimizations to help the platform optimize the off-charger behavior
of applications and devices.

guess what 'optimize the off-charger behavior' means.

it means when running on battery power, it may reduce performance 'to
extend battery life'.

and they're not being up front about it either.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-29, Harry Newton <harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 20:31:43 GMT, Dave Higton wrote:
>
>>>Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries by
>>>chopping CPU speeds secretly, permanently, and drastically (in half!).
>>
>> Not defective: aged.
>>
>> Batteries wear out gradually.
>

> That article points out two very important facts

> "Apple is basically telling us that it's not testing iOS updates"

That's not a fact, but an *opinion* - and one based entirely on the
faulty interpretation of this statement, which says absolutely *nothing*
about whether or how Apple tests iOS releases:

"Over the course of this fall, we began to receive feedback from some
users who were seeing slower performance in certain situations. Based on
our experience, we initially thought this was due to a combination of
two factors: a normal, temporary performance impact when upgrading the
operating system as iPhone installs new software and updates apps, and
minor bugs in the initial release which have since been fixed.

We now believe that another contributor to these user experiences is the
continued chemical aging of the batteries in older iPhone 6 and iPhone
6s devices, many of which are still running on their original
batteries."

> ... and ...

> "the iPhone slowdown, which Apple caused

Also not a fact, but *opinion*.

> These are all facts

You don't know fact from fiction.

--
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

[Dave Higton]

In message <291220171724000462%nos...@nospam.invalid>

But none of the new features and optimizations shown there is
specifically triggered by the age or condition of a battery,
whereas what Apple has done is.

>and they're not being up front about it either.

The link above looks pretty much up front to me.

Dave

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 17:24:00 -0500, nospam wrote:

> nope. not just apple.

C'mon nospam. We know you hate facts, and that you'll Apologize for
anything that Apple does.

In this case, the lawsuits have merit.
1. Apple didn't test their products (even they admit this).
2. Their users found severe battery-related shutdowns (Apple admits this)
3. They were initially replacing batteries under warranty
4. And then they hit upon the secret VW-like solution!

They figured they'd secretly permanently & drastically slow down the CPU
(to half the initial speeds) so that the batteries were no longer the
limiting factor.

These are all facts that even Apple admits.
Only you can't admit them.

> guess what 'optimize the off-charger behavior' means.

People sue for two reasons mainly.
1. They feel they have a case of wrongdoing by the manufacturer, and,
2. The manufacturer has big pockets.

All the major manufacturers have big pockets, whether they be LG, Samsung,
Google, Sony, or Apple. All have similar batteries (even Apple makes this
case, surprisingly - but so cleverly that only the iOS gullibles fail to
note the distinctions).

If people could sue Google/Samsung/Sony/LG for the same issue - they would.

If there are lawsuits for a manufacturer secretly, permanently, and
drastically slowing down the CPU (to half the advertised speeds), then just
report the URL to the lawsuit.

The fact we all know you can't is the proof since people would sue Google,
Sony, LG, and Samsung as quickly as they'd sue Apple if they thought they
had a clear case of wrongdoing.

For you to claim otherwise is just your classic Apple Apologist tactic.

> it means when running on battery power, it may reduce performance 'to
> extend battery life'.

For you to claim that every manufacturer secretly, permanently, and
dreastically cuts down the CPU to half of the advertised speeds is just
more of your Apple Apologists fabrication of fictional functionality.

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

> and they're not being up front about it either.

You Apple Apologists hate facts so you're very comfortable just fabricating
claims that have absolutely zero basis in fact. You just make up this claim
that all the mobile device manufacturers secretly, permanently, and
drastically cut the CPU performance in half just so that they don't have to
honor warranty claims.

And yet, Apple is the only one who has these dozen specific lawsuits for
doing just that.

You Apple Apologists are funny that way. Fact are an enigma to you.

[nospam]

In article <30103fb25...@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton

<da...@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> >
> ><https://source.android.com/devices/tech/power/mgmt>
> > To extend battery life, Android continually adds new features and
> > optimizations to help the platform optimize the off-charger behavior
> > of applications and devices.
> >
> >guess what 'optimize the off-charger behavior' means.
> >
> >it means when running on battery power, it may reduce performance 'to
> >extend battery life'.
>
> But none of the new features and optimizations shown there is
> specifically triggered by the age or condition of a battery,
> whereas what Apple has done is.

it can be.

it doesn't say battery health is ignored.

> >and they're not being up front about it either.
>
> The link above looks pretty much up front to me.

the phrase, 'optimize off-charger behavior' is intentionally obscuring
the fact that it throttles performance in some situations.

google called the pixel 2xl burn-in issue 'differential aging', as if a
fancy sounding name makes that ok.

[Harry Newton]

On 29 Dec 2017 22:29:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> That's not a fact, but an *opinion* - and one based entirely on the
> faulty interpretation of this statement, which says absolutely *nothing*

> about whether or how Apple tests iOS releases.

I realize you're intellecturally challenged so I'll be more gentle with you
than I am with nospam because nospam knows very well exactly what is going
on while you're actually as clueless as the typical iOS consumer is.

Do you realize Apple admitted they didn't test iOS well enough to find this
problem on their own? And when the problem first arose, do you realize
Apple just threw fixes at the problem without sufficient testing again?

Apple *admitted* this in that apology - so for you to deny it would be
folly, even for you, where you're one of the most brazen of the iOS
fabricators of fictional functionality.

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

> You don't know fact from fiction.

Hey Jolly Roger,
I will state again that I need not explain this to nospam, who very well
knows and understands the facts - but - you don't.

So let me tell you that I'm quite intelligent - at least average in
intelligence - so while I tower over you - I do believe that most people
have the capacity to read EXACTLY what Apple said.

Apple pulled a Hilliary Clinton in that apology.

They didn't apologize for "doing" anything - they apologized for the
"misunderstanding" and they apologized for the "miscommunication".

It's obvious what was done.

1. Apple put the wrong battery in the affected phones.
2. Apple did not know this because they don't test iOS in the real world.
3. During warranty claims, they realized they used the wrong battery.
4. Some genius figured they could *mask* the defect with software.
5. So they did.
6. Then they got caught.
7. Their apology is for not telling people that they did this.

These are facts nospam knows but you will never be able to comprehend.
But they're facts nonetheless.

The lawsuits will give us more facts - so I wish them well because it's
clear that Apple's intent was to secretly mask their prematurely
"chemically aged" batteries so as to save on warranty repairs.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-29 17:13, Harry Newton wrote:

>
> 1. Apple never tests any of their products in the real world
> 2. Apple makes the users do their testing for them

Pray tell, how do you do such tests and how long do they last? Do Apple,
Samsung, Google and all the others delay their product launches for 1
year so a few customers in the "real world" can test it?

No. A few prototypes are built, distributed internally for testing, and
then prodyction ramps up, couple months later, product launch made with
deliveries startting a few weeks from that point.

There is simply no way to field test a product for a whole year before
launch. For one thing, the field test would be the launch and everyone
in the real workd would leak the specs for new phone so competitors
could then introduce their phones during the field test period , beating
Apple to the market with those features.

Note: Samsung didn't test its fire starter feature in its Note 7 product
and it found out the hard way that it would be activated at the wrong
time and wrong place.




However, one expects the company to learn from experience with previous
products. Apple learned from the iPhone 6's weak bezel and strenghetened
it for the 6s. But at that time, the 6 had not yet exhibit the cold
weather shutdown because less than a year old so there was no mistake to
learn from.

Apple also made sweet deals to carriers to offer free upgrades to the 6
because that costed less than fixing the deffective screen (and the
upcoming battery problems).

It can be argued however that Apple engineers would know from experience
that peak power draw from batteries drops by x% with each year, and y%
when temperature drops. They would also know the peak power draw from
the components the include in the next iPhone, so SHOULD have known that
after one year, when in cold, that iPhone might try to draw more power
than battery can supply, causing voltage to drop and phone reacts by
shutting down.

Note that after a shutdown, the phone should NOT have gone into "plug me
in" mode because once power draw had stopped, voltage level should go
right back up.


So yes, Apple SHOULD have known about it as they designed the 6s. And
should have known about it as thei designed the 7 and has known about it
when the 8 came out since 0 montsh before, they had a recall for the 6s
batteries due to cold weather shutdown.


But this has nothing to do with field testing for 1 year in the "real
world" , it has everything to do with proper engineering of the power
consumption vs power production sides of the phone. (which had been done
for the 5s which didn't shutdown in cold).

Note: the taptic engine takes up a LOT of space in a phone, which
reduces battery size and pushed apple to remove earphone plug.

> Essentially, of all mobile devices on the planet that have batteries, only
> these specific Apple devices required a secret, permanent, and drastic CPU
> slowdown (to *half* the original speeds!).

All lithium ion batteries degrade over time. The chemistry inside the
battery slowly consumes itself. The trick is to size the batteries such
that they still provide enough power for at least 2 years, including
when unit is cold.

GM has an 8 year warrantee on its electric car batteries. But it doesn't
garantee that your autonomy will remain the same as on day 1 during
those 8 years.

And in fact, in cold weather, the displayed autonomy is reduced by quite
a bit at first ubtil the battery heaters kick in. (yes, electric cars
have electric heaters to keep batteries warm).

> In reality, it's clear to all but to the Apple Apologists, that Apple
> didn't test the product and when the user testing showed that the battery
> was the wrong battery for the phone,

Not a question of testing. It's a question of engineering the phone to
have the right size fo battery to survive at least 2 years with an
ability to suplly peak current even in cold.

Apple compromised battery size to fit the taptic engine for instance.

> Apple uses the words 'chemically aged' to mask the fact that only their
> phones, and only certain of their phones, are in need of a warranty repair
> that they weren't willing to do.

Warrantee replacement of 6s batteries started last november as I recall
(or december). I was under impression they would be "fixed" batteries,
but they were identical and also starting to fail a year later. The
difference is that along with that recall, Apple also updated IOS 10 to
collect info on battery and shutdowns and now, we learn to also throttle
CPU to prevent current peaks from CPU (but not from camera).

> *Apple avoided warranty repairs by secretly masking the problem.*

No. They provided warrantee change of battery last year. AND provided
software fix to help prevent shutdowns without warning.

The throttling of the CPU was not documented so this was not transparent
and honest. And the news have caugfht up and Apple now has to fix its image.

This may present a serious headache to Jony Ive when marketing tells him
needs to include bigger batteries in the phone and can't continue to
make them thinner.

[nospam]

In article <mWz1C.164497$Cr5.1...@fx36.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> Apple compromised battery size to fit the taptic engine for instance.

no.

> The throttling of the CPU was not documented so this was not transparent
> and honest. And the news have caugfht up and Apple now has to fix its image.

it was documented in the release notes.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 22:50:48 GMT, Dave Higton wrote:

> But none of the new features and optimizations shown there is
> specifically triggered by the age or condition of a battery,
> whereas what Apple has done is.

Hi Dave,
You may not know "nospam" but he likely works for Apple in that he's always
fabricating fictional functionality for iOS that simply doesn't exist.

He's a classic Apple Apologist, where he denies even what Apple has already
admitted. He first claimed that the slowdown wasn't permanent, but it is.
He then claimed that the slowdown wasn't drastic but it is (to *half* the
original CPU clock speeds).

Then he claims all the manufacturers secretly, permanently, and drastically
cut down CPU speeds to half the original speeds so that they too won't have
to honor warranty claims.

He never provides a single reference for his claims, whereas all mine, for
example, came with references in the related threads.

>>and they're not being up front about it either.
>
> The link above looks pretty much up front to me.

I agree with you.
The guy who goes by the name "nospam" just doesn't like facts.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 17:58:53 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> But none of the new features and optimizations shown there is
>> specifically triggered by the age or condition of a battery,
>> whereas what Apple has done is.
>
> it can be.
>
> it doesn't say battery health is ignored.
>
>>>and they're not being up front about it either.
>>
>> The link above looks pretty much up front to me.
>
> the phrase, 'optimize off-charger behavior' is intentionally obscuring
> the fact that it throttles performance in some situations.
>
> google called the pixel 2xl burn-in issue 'differential aging', as if a
> fancy sounding name makes that ok.

Dave,
You have to note a classic iOS apologists' tactic by nospam that whenever
Apple is caught with wrongdoing, he tries desperately to deflect the facts
by bringing up completely unrelated issues in Android.

It's just his nature.

Like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, his first response is to
say that "Billy across the street throws rocks at windows" and that "Judy
next door litters on the sidewalk" to deflect the conversation from the
on-topic fact that Apple was caught with its hands in the cookie jar.

Specifically, nospam claims that all the manufacturers secretly,
permanently, and drastically cut CPUs to half their advertised performance,
and yet, miraculously, there are no lawsuits.

How's that for logic?

Do you think for a second that if any of nospam's claims were even remotely
true, that people wouldn't sue Google, LG, Samsung, & Sony if they did
exactly what Apple was caught doing?

The Apple Apologists never start from a basis of logic nor fact.
They're funny that way.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 18:09:06 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Pray tell, how do you do such tests and how long do they last? Do Apple,
> Samsung, Google and all the others delay their product launches for 1
> year so a few customers in the "real world" can test it?

The article I referenced said it clearly. Did you not read the article?
Or did you just not comprehend it?

Again, the article stated the problem very clearly in Apple's testing.
Read the article again please.

> No. A few prototypes are built, distributed internally for testing, and
> then prodyction ramps up, couple months later, product launch made with
> deliveries startting a few weeks from that point.

The fact is the same now as when Apple broke Linux connectivity for all
Linux users when I first updated my first iPad by a single dot release
(from iOS 7.0.0 to iOS 7.0.1).

*Apple does not test any of their products in the real world.*

This is a fact that you can't deny, since Apple themselves says that the
real world is "not supported".

> There is simply no way to field test a product for a whole year before
> launch.

Ummmmm... companies make & sell refrigerators you know.

Apple could have tested their phones inside a refrigerator.
They didn't.
They tested them indoors in Cupertino instead.

That's why they missed the cold-related shutdowns.
Even Apple admitted they don't test their products in the real world.

Read the article again.

> For one thing, the field test would be the launch and everyone
> in the real workd would leak the specs for new phone so competitors
> could then introduce their phones during the field test period , beating
> Apple to the market with those features.

You iOS apologists go to great lengths to fabricate fictional reasons why
only Apple is always unable to test their products in the real world.

You have to bear in mind that Apple implemented a *secret*, *permanent*,
and *drastic* slowdown of the CPU (to half the claimed speeds) to mask the
defect in their batteries.

Why?
It's clear why by the secrecy involved.

And the lawsuits claim intentional harm, which, I believe, will be found to
be true since the goal clearly was to not honor warranty claims (which will
be shown in the lawsuits, I predict).

> Note: Samsung didn't test its fire starter feature in its Note 7 product
> and it found out the hard way that it would be activated at the wrong
> time and wrong place.

You are like all the Apple Apologists when your hand is caught in the
cookie jar. You try to deflect criticism of Apple's actions by stating non
sequiturs such as "But Judy smokes cigarettes in the park" and "But Bobby
threw a snowball with a rock inside it" when you're caught with your hand
in the cookie jar.

Apple got caught *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* cutting CPU
speeds to mask a battery defect that was caused by Apple's poor engineering
and lack of any testing in the real world.

Did Samsung *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* cut the CPU speeds
in half simply to mask a premature "chemical aging" of their batteries?

Did they?

If they didn't, then your non sequitur is just like those of nospam and
Jolly Roger and all the other iOS apologists who can't comprehend that an
adult discussion sticks to the relevant facts.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 18:11:04 -0500, nospam wrote:

> it was documented in the release notes.

You're funny since Apple even apologized for it being secret.

It's an interesting trait of the Apple Apologists to deny everything, even
that which Apple was forced to admit.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-29, Harry Newton <harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

> On 29 Dec 2017 22:29:00 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> That's not a fact, but an *opinion* - and one based entirely on the
>> faulty interpretation of this statement, which says absolutely
>> *nothing* about whether or how Apple tests iOS releases.
>
> I realize you're intellecturally challenged

As history repeats itself yet again, you resort to insults. Insults are
the last refuge of the intellectual coward. Nothing you can ever say
will change the definitions of "fact" and "opinion". You can pretend one
is the other, but to the rest of the world you just have no credibility.
You're an old man who gets his rocks off spending literal hours upon
hours daily belittling strangers in Apple news groups because it's the
only thing in life that gives you anything close to pleasure. You're a
sick individual whose sole contribution to the world at this ripe age is
trolling. Pathetic.

[nospam]

In article <p26jfh$6fa$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton

<harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

> Apple could have tested their phones inside a refrigerator.
> They didn't.
> They tested them indoors in Cupertino instead.

you have no idea what apple did or did not do.

google could have 'tested their phones inside a refrigerator':
<http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/12/20/some-nexus-6ps-have-developed-a-
battery-early-shutoff-problem-and-its-becoming-a-safety-issue/>
A number of Nexus 6P owners have reported an alarming battery problem
with their phones as of Android 7.0 being released for the handset,
which causes the phone to power down when the battery gauge still
shows anywhere from 10 to 60% battery remaining.
...
Interestingly, it seems the problem is most common in very cold
climates. These are where we see reports of phones dying at upwards
of 60% battery remaining indicated, which is obviously completely
ridiculous. As some on the various threads point out, this could
easily be a major safety issue.

>
> Did Samsung *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* cut the CPU speeds
> in half simply to mask a premature "chemical aging" of their batteries?

for the galaxy note 7's that caught fire, thereby cutting its cpu speed
to *zero*, the answer is overwhelmingly 'yes', and also very permanent,
along with whatever was nearby that also was burned.

[Harry Newton]

On 29 Dec 2017 23:37:47 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> As history repeats itself yet again, you resort to insults. Insults are
> the last refuge of the intellectual coward.

Heh heh heh ... says Jolly Roger, who is the *most associated* with the
word *troll* on all the iOS newsgroups.

Just run a search for "Jolly Roger" and "troll" to see this is a fact:
http://tinyurlcom/misc-phone-mobile-iphone

> Nothing you can ever say
> will change the definitions of "fact" and "opinion".

Says Jolly Roger, who has been caught fabricating fictional posts just so
that he can *appear clever* in a canned reply!

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

You even *admitted* fabricating posted content just so that you could
respond to it, since you didn't like the actual posted content (not that
you could possibly deny it - since it's a fact you did it).

> You can pretend one
> is the other, but to the rest of the world you just have no credibility.

Heh heh heh ... says the guy who habitually fabricates iOS functionality:

Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/K_yBNZiPFYo/xN_2R1MvBgAJ>

> You're an old man who gets his rocks off spending literal hours upon
> hours daily belittling strangers in Apple news groups because it's the
> only thing in life that gives you anything close to pleasure. You're a
> sick individual whose sole contribution to the world at this ripe age is
> trolling. Pathetic.

Actually, your memory is faulty as we've covered this issue before:
How To Fix Bad iOS 10 Battery Life (September 25, 2016)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/t-niQOaG80U/wH02jLdLBAAJ>

In that thread, you adamantly claim the following (verbatim):
"No battery issues here with iOS 10 on many different devices."

Heh heh heh ... you then went on to say (again, completely verbatim):
"They also often complain about performance degradation after a
major upgrade for the same reasons, and likewise performance
returns to normal afterwards."

Heh heh ... you were dead wrong and we were telling the truth, and yet, you
end that claim that Apple doesn't slow down phones a year ago with:
"Pretty pathetic that this is all he has left to troll about."

In that thread, I was telling everyone about problems introduced in iOS
10.x and you were all claiming that Apple didn't have any problems then, as
you do now.

Funny how Apple admits that which you can't.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 18:52:58 -0500, nospam wrote:

> you have no idea what apple did or did not do.

I think the lawsuits stated it better than I could.
So does the article quoted.

Apple does not test their products in the real world.
(They even admit that the real world isn't even supported.)

Apple did not sufficiently test their own software updates.
(They admitted that in their recent apology.)

Apple didn't want to honor battery warranty claims.
(This is very clearly alleged in the recent lawsuits.)

So Apple *secretly* and *permanently* and *drastically* slowed down the CPU
(to half of the advertised speeds), which was reported by numerous valid
tests which we presented proof of in these threads.

Apple admitted they did this.

Only you attempt to deny what even Apple was forced to admit.

Where's your proof that I have "no idea" what Apple did or did not do?

[Jolly Roger]

Harry Newton <harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2017 23:37:47 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> As history repeats itself yet again, you resort to insults. Insults are
>> the last refuge of the intellectual coward.
>
> Heh heh heh ... says Jolly Roger, who is the *most associated* with the
> word *troll* on all the iOS newsgroups.

Every single one is me calling you out (with your numerous different
made-up names) for your lame trolling over months and months in the Apple
newsgroups. All you have accomplished by pointing this out is showing the
world just how pathetic your life really is. You are a dedicated old fool -
I'll give you that.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 18:09:06 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> Not a question of testing. It's a question of engineering the phone to
> have the right size fo battery to survive at least 2 years with an
> ability to suplly peak current even in cold.

Who on earth implies phones can last only about 2 years?

My Samsung Galaxy S3 is still going strong, and I bought it in 2012, so
your inference that a $1000 iPhone X has basically a two-year realistic
lifespan is patently ridiculous.

Even the $200 Moto G I bought in circa 2013 (as I recall), is still going
strong for the user that I gave it to. As is the $350 Nexus 5 I bought at
about the same time and neither of those have replaceable batteries.

Your inference that only Apple batteries can barely make it for two years
isn't even supported by Apple themselves.

The truth about iPhone battery lifespan
<https://www.macworld.com/article/1058916/smartphones/iphonebattery.html>

[Harry Newton]

On 30 Dec 2017 00:24:33 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> All you have accomplished by pointing this out is showing the
> world just how pathetic your life really is. You are a dedicated old fool -

Heh heh ... all it took were open and honest facts, with valid references,
for you to *instantly* do exactly what you claim others do!

"you resort to insults."

[nospam]

In article <p26lbr$8r8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton

<harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

> I think the lawsuits stated it better than I could.

lawsuits state all sorts of stuff, most of which is exaggerated and
some of which is flat out false.

the jury (or judge if no jury) decides what's fact and what's fiction.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact>

not you.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:33:37 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I think the lawsuits stated it better than I could.
>
> lawsuits state all sorts of stuff, most of which is exaggerated and
> some of which is flat out false.
>
> the jury (or judge if no jury) decides what's fact and what's fiction.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact>
>
> not you.

The lawsuits allege harm.
They allege secret harm.
And they allege permanent harm.

It's a fact that Apple *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* slowed
down the CPU (to half the advertised speeds), which had the effect of
reducing warranty claims and spurring new-model sales - when all the
customer needed to do in order to regain CPU speeds was replace the
battery.

Those are facts.
Apple admitted the facts.

Only you Apple Apologists deny the facts.
Let's not interpret the law here ... here we simply state the facts.

[nospam]

In article <p26n6f$b4h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton

<harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

>
> >> I think the lawsuits stated it better than I could.
> >
> > lawsuits state all sorts of stuff, most of which is exaggerated and
> > some of which is flat out false.
> >
> > the jury (or judge if no jury) decides what's fact and what's fiction.
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact>
> >
> > not you.
>
> The lawsuits allege

again, what matters is what a judge or jury decides.

not the briefs and certainly not you.

[Timreason]

I have a 2013 Nexus 7 that is still going strong after over 4 years of
daily use - at probably less than a third of the cost of an equivalent
Apple tablet. I remember reading somewhere that different *personality*
types choose Apple or Android. It was said, basically, that Apple
appealed to those who are guided by emotions, and Android is chosen by
those who are guided by logic.

I was an electronics engineer for 23 years, and I chose Android based on
factors such as cost (Number 1), compatibility with other equipment I
already had (such as printer/scanner, smart TV, phone, Blue Tooth,
headsets, Hi Fi amplifier). I've never regretted it.

HOWEVER, some friends of mine are in the music industry and doing gigs
where high costs are involved, and claim that only Apple tablets and PCs
are reliable enough, and other friends who do a lot of writing and
publishing and insist that Apple far outstrips Microsoft for those
purposes. I suppose if money and compatibility don't matter, and they
can afford to throw money at it...

But they still get upset when I say I prefer Android.

Tim.

[nospam]

In article <p26o2j$iil$1...@dont-email.me>, Timreason

<timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> I was an electronics engineer for 23 years, and I chose Android based on
> factors such as cost (Number 1), compatibility with other equipment I
> already had (such as printer/scanner, smart TV, phone, Blue Tooth,
> headsets, Hi Fi amplifier). I've never regretted it.

ios devices are compatible with all of that and more.

[Timreason]

I've seen a host of peculiar patch cables that have to be bought in
order to connect Apple devices of varying ages to other equipment. Why
can't they just keep to the same connector types? They seem to enjoy
innovating never ending new types of connector. IMO it's to try and
dodge Chinese manufacturers who produce cheap adaptors!

Tim.

[nospam]

In article <p26old$lgm$1...@dont-email.me>, Timreason

<timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> >> I was an electronics engineer for 23 years, and I chose Android based on
> >> factors such as cost (Number 1), compatibility with other equipment I
> >> already had (such as printer/scanner, smart TV, phone, Blue Tooth,
> >> headsets, Hi Fi amplifier). I've never regretted it.
> >
> > ios devices are compatible with all of that and more.
>
> I've seen a host of peculiar patch cables that have to be bought in
> order to connect Apple devices of varying ages to other equipment.

not for ios devices, you haven't.

> Why
> can't they just keep to the same connector types?

because technology moves forward.

> They seem to enjoy
> innovating never ending new types of connector.

nope. usb-c is an industry standard, as is hdmi and other connectors
found on macs.

> IMO it's to try and
> dodge Chinese manufacturers who produce cheap adaptors!

nope.

[Jolly Roger]

Harry Newton <harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2017 00:24:33 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> All you have accomplished by pointing this out is showing the
>> world just how pathetic your life really is. You are a dedicated old fool -
>
> Heh heh ... all it took were open and honest facts

Those were opinions, not facts, as anyone can clearly see. You're so sick
in the head you think your blabbing is going to change that reality. How
limited and sad.

Back to filtering your posts into the garbage where they belong. Have a fun
little "last word" party; it's all the joy you'll get out of this
subthread.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-29 17:50, Dave Higton wrote:

> But none of the new features and optimizations shown there is
> specifically triggered by the age or condition of a battery,
> whereas what Apple has done is.

At this point, we don't know exactly what triggers the software
throttling. It could very well be based on battery behaviour (seing
rapid drop in voltage that does not match expected drop from normal
usage) as opposed to age of battery.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-29 18:11, nospam wrote:

>> Apple compromised battery size to fit the taptic engine for instance.
>
> no.

Yes. The 6s and 6 are identical outside yet the 6s has smaller battery
compared to 6 (in part due to bigger taptic engine).

>> The throttling of the CPU was not documented so this was not transparent
>> and honest. And the news have caugfht up and Apple now has to fix its image.
>
> it was documented in the release notes.

I did not see that and I was targetted by this as I suffered from the
shutdown and had battery replaced under Apple's replacement programme. I
saw text about reducing odds of shutdown, and especially the software to
record and report back to Apple occurence of those events to better
document what was happening.

I did not see anything about CPU being throittled. And if it had been
documented, it wouldn't have heen such a big surprise when those speed
tests just came out.

[nospam]

In article <K%D1C.117673$qe.7...@fx18.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> >> Apple compromised battery size to fit the taptic engine for instance.
> >
> > no.
>
> Yes. The 6s and 6 are identical outside yet the 6s has smaller battery
> compared to 6 (in part due to bigger taptic engine).

no.

the 6s has a different processor and other components with different
power draw. it also has a 3d touch display, which is slightly thicker,
thereby taking up space too.

you're making a lot of assumptions.

> >> The throttling of the CPU was not documented so this was not transparent
> >> and honest. And the news have caugfht up and Apple now has to fix its
> >> image.
> >
> > it was documented in the release notes.
>
> I did not see that and I was targetted by this as I suffered from the
> shutdown and had battery replaced under Apple's replacement programme. I
> saw text about reducing odds of shutdown, and especially the software to
> record and report back to Apple occurence of those events to better
> document what was happening.
>
> I did not see anything about CPU being throittled. And if it had been
> documented, it wouldn't have heen such a big surprise when those speed
> tests just came out.

<https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US>
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.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Where?:

https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US

“OS 10.2.1

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.”

That sounds vague to me. Originally it was vaguer than that:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2017/01/23/apple-ios-10-2-1-is-now-available-what-is-included-in-the-update/#57750326488f

But I am not a shareholder or otherwise incentivized to deflect bad PR.

[nospam]

In article <bdKdnT2C9sb6jNrH...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >> The throttling of the CPU was not documented so this was not transparent
> >> and honest. And the news have caugfht up and Apple now has to fix its
> >> image.
> >
> > it was documented in the release notes.
> >
> Where?:
>
> https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US
>
> ³OS 10.2.1
> 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.²

that's where.

> That sounds vague to me.

were you expecting a detailed power/performance curve under all loads?

> Originally it was vaguer than that:

that wasn't the official release notes.

[*Hemidactylus*]

How would anyone be led to anticipate the problems people have been
complaining about from that opaque mud puddle of obscurity?

[nospam]

In article <lNOdndnOEeb8j9rH...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> > It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid
> > unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.
> >
> How would anyone be led to anticipate the problems people have been
> complaining about from that opaque mud puddle of obscurity?

unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.

[*Hemidactylus*]

You said the CPU throttling was documented. How does the vague Apple notes
explicitly refer to that? Is this after the fact CYA?

[nospam]

In article <LoqdncdDi7dxitrH...@giganews.com>,

it's not vague.

[*Hemidactylus*]

It’s not explicit what is meant by “power management”. And for those
impacted by the slowdown “improves” is a sick joke. My phone is working
fine, but I would be a bit pissed if I were a victim of this atrocity. And
while I am venting spleen, when my TV or cable remotes are running low, I
can easily replace their batteries. For the $hellacking of cost one would
expect Apple capable of the technological advance of easily replaced
batteries. But no. Apple knows what’s in our best interest.

[nospam]

In article <_dSdnQPyYIIJudrH...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> And
> while I am venting spleen, when my TV or cable remotes are running low, I
> can easily replace their batteries. For the $hellacking of cost one would
> expect Apple capable of the technological advance of easily replaced
> batteries.

plenty of android phones have internal batteries.

also, stay away from the microsoft surface laptop:

<https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/17/15824670/microsoft-surface-teardown-
ifixit-impossible-repair>
Thereąs no screws holding the case together, so the technicians were
forced to try and pry apart the Alcantara fabric, noting that it was
difficult to do without tearing it. Underneath, the individual
components are also difficult to remove: the keyboard is glued down,
and the motherboard is covered with a series of thermal pads. The
team also reports that they canąt disconnect the battery until
several other components are removed, and once they get to it, they
found that itąs glued directly to the case.
...
...łItąs a glue-filled monstrosity. There is nothing about it that is
upgradable or long-lasting, and it literally canąt be opened without
destroying it.˛

[*Hemidactylus*]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <_dSdnQPyYIIJudrH...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And
>> while I am venting spleen, when my TV or cable remotes are running low, I
>> can easily replace their batteries. For the $hellacking of cost one would
>> expect Apple capable of the technological advance of easily replaced
>> batteries.
>
> plenty of android phones have internal batteries.
>
> also, stay away from the microsoft surface laptop:
>
> <https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/17/15824670/microsoft-surface-teardown-
> ifixit-impossible-repair>

> There¹s no screws holding the case together, so the technicians were

> forced to try and pry apart the Alcantara fabric, noting that it was
> difficult to do without tearing it. Underneath, the individual
> components are also difficult to remove: the keyboard is glued down,
> and the motherboard is covered with a series of thermal pads. The

> team also reports that they can¹t disconnect the battery until

> several other components are removed, and once they get to it, they

> found that it¹s glued directly to the case.
> ...
> ...³It¹s a glue-filled monstrosity. There is nothing about it that is
> upgradable or long-lasting, and it literally can¹t be opened without
> destroying it.²
>
Others do it too is not an acceptable answer.

[nospam]

In article <tLWdnQJxANZ6tNrH...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >> while I am venting spleen, when my TV or cable remotes are running low, I
> >> can easily replace their batteries. For the $hellacking of cost one would
> >> expect Apple capable of the technological advance of easily replaced
> >> batteries.
> >
> > plenty of android phones have internal batteries.
> >
> > also, stay away from the microsoft surface laptop:
> >
> > <https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/17/15824670/microsoft-surface-teardown-
> > ifixit-impossible-repair>

> > There1s no screws holding the case together, so the technicians were

> > forced to try and pry apart the Alcantara fabric, noting that it was
> > difficult to do without tearing it. Underneath, the individual
> > components are also difficult to remove: the keyboard is glued down,
> > and the motherboard is covered with a series of thermal pads. The

> > team also reports that they can1t disconnect the battery until

> > several other components are removed, and once they get to it, they

> > found that it1s glued directly to the case.
> > ...
> > ...3It1s a glue-filled monstrosity. There is nothing about it that is
> > upgradable or long-lasting, and it literally can1t be opened without
> > destroying it.2

> >
> Others do it too is not an acceptable answer.

you can't single out apple when most other companies do the same or
worse.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I purchased my very expensive license to criticize Apple. So I can single
out Apple, especially about issues that potentially or actually impact me
as a *paying* customer and not a sugarcoating shareholder or shill.

[nospam]

In article <erKdnYquUsazrNrH...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >> Others do it too is not an acceptable answer.
> >
> > you can't single out apple when most other companies do the same or
> > worse.
>
> I purchased my very expensive license to criticize Apple. So I can single
> out Apple, especially about issues that potentially or actually impact me
> as a *paying* customer and not a sugarcoating shareholder or shill.

sell it and buy something else.

[*Hemidactylus*]

WTF are you just into scoring cheap debating points? At this point you are
basically mailing it in on autopilot.

Humbly accept Apple’s profit hungry paternalism or buy something else.
Classic either/or fallacy. Our way or the highway. Criticism is
unacceptable.

[nospam]

In article <jt2dnQrnjZRQq9rH...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> Humbly accept Appleąs profit hungry paternalism or buy something else.

> Classic either/or fallacy. Our way or the highway. Criticism is
> unacceptable.

if you don't like the product or the company, buy something else. very
simple.

[*Hemidactylus*]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jt2dnQrnjZRQq9rH...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>

>> Humbly accept Apple¹s profit hungry paternalism or buy something else.

>> Classic either/or fallacy. Our way or the highway. Criticism is
>> unacceptable.
>
> if you don't like the product or the company, buy something else. very
> simple.
>

Beats you having to engage the actual issues in a forthright manner.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:48:53 -0500, nospam wrote:

> again, what matters is what a judge or jury decides.
>
> not the briefs and certainly not you.

What matters is the truth.


1. They put in the "wrong batteries" (we can get into the details of the
CPU demands and "chemical aging", but suffice to say they didn't test the
devices since Apple never tests anything in the real world - so they were
surprised by the unexpected slowdowns - which simply means that it was the
wrong battery for the given phone).

2. Many people report the unexpected shutdown issue on iPhone 6S. Apple
investigates and finds a "very small number of iPhone 6s devices" get an
official recall. In their statement, they're very specific about the root
cause: "a battery component that was exposed to controlled ambient air
longer than it should have been".

3. Soon after, Apple says iPhone 6S battery issue turned out to be bigger
than first thought and that they "would be releasing a software update next
week to garner more information".

4. Two months later, Apple comes out with a software update with a "fix"
that (magically) reduces unexpected shutdowns by 80%. This is a separate
issue than the initial assessment of a "battery component that was exposed
to controlled ambient air longer than it should have been".

5. It turns out that in iOS 10.2.1 an Apple genius came up with the bright
idea of *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* throttling the CPU
speed (in half!) which instantly "reduces the unexpected shutdowns by 80%".

6. Of course, they could have added a few sentences in Battery (in
Settings) explaining that the permanent & drastic throttling was active and
how to solve it (changing the battery). Does this mean that some people are
going to change the battery when Apple would prefer them to just buy a new
iPhone? Absolutely. But this is the kind of thing you would expect a
reputable company to do: being transparent and explaining themselves even
if that means losing a few phone sales.

7. Of course, Apple could have disclosed that performance would be
drastically affected when they released 10.2.1; but you only expect that
type of honesty from a reputable company.

8. Apple did not disclose the root cause of the "second" issue, despite
being incredibly specific about it the first time.

9. Apple didn't disclose who would get performance reductions as part of
their fix; hence it's entirely possible some users were throttled right
away (which was a little over a year after the 6S even came out) - which
would explain why Apple wouldn't be upfront about what the fix was.

10. Apple support wasn't informed that replacing batteries would have any
impact on performance so they never recommended customers just replace the
battery when they complained of the unexpected shutdowns and the subsequent
"fix" of permanently throttled CPUs.

11. Apple desperately tries, as does nospam, to palm this all off as
"normal" when it's patently obvious that no other smartphone has
"unexpected shutdowns" unless it's from a faulty battery. Apple is
duplicitiously trying to portray this as this can happen to any normal
functioning device, but it's really done just so they don't have to replace
faulty hardware they've sold to the unsuspecting customer.

12. Apple releases a bullshit explanation which isn't even in the least
true because they use clever phrases (like "dynamically managed") that
don't imply to the casual reader what everyone who knows about batteries
knows - which is that there is no battery fairy that magically "fixes"
batteries that are pematurely "chemically aged" already.

To wit:
"This power management works by looking at a combination of the device
temperature, battery state of charge, and the battery's impedance.
Only if these variables require it, iOS will dynamically manage the
maximum performance of some system components, such as the CPU and GPU
in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns."

iPhones with older batteries may also more aggressively dim their screens,
have lower maximum speaker volumes, and even have their camera flashes
disabled when the system needs more peak power than the battery can
provide. The whole approach actually quite clever, but *secret*,
*permanent*, and *drastic* (throttling to half the original CPU speed)
isn't a substitute for the lost speed.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 23:12:47 -0500, nospam wrote:

> were you expecting a detailed power/performance curve under all loads?

What the customer expects is the truth.

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:48:53 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The lawsuits allege

>
> again, what matters is what a judge or jury decides.
>
> not the briefs and certainly not you.

What matters is that Apple admitted they *secretly*, *permanently*, and
*drastically* slowed down the CPU (to half the advertised speeds), which
had the effect of reducing warranty claims and spurring new-model sales -
when all the customer needed to do (had they known) in order to regain CPU
speeds was replace the battery.

[Harry Newton]

Actually only *you* don't know what Apple did.
People who follow factual logic know almost exactly what they did.

I only speak valid verified facts.

[Harry Newton]

On 30 Dec 2017 02:34:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Those were opinions, not facts, as anyone can clearly see.

Like nospam, you are allergic to facts, particularly referenced facts.
These are well referenced facts...

1. Apple put the "wrong batteries" in the affected phones (we can get into

the details of the CPU demands and "chemical aging", but suffice to say
they didn't test the devices since Apple never tests anything in the real
world - so they were surprised by the unexpected slowdowns - which simply
means that it was the wrong battery for the given phone).

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

2. Many people report the unexpected shutdown issue on iPhone 6S. Apple
investigates and finds a "very small number of iPhone 6s devices" get an
official recall. In their statement, they're very specific about the root
cause: "a battery component that was exposed to controlled ambient air
longer than it should have been".

<https://www.apple.com/support/iphone6s-unexpectedshutdown/>

3. Soon after, Apple says iPhone 6S battery issue turned out to be bigger
than first thought and that they "would be releasing a software update next
week to garner more information".

4. Two months later, Apple comes out with a software update with a "fix"
that (magically) reduces unexpected shutdowns by 80%. This is a separate
issue than the initial assessment of a "battery component that was exposed
to controlled ambient air longer than it should have been".

<https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US>
"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."

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

5. In reality, it turns out that in iOS 10.2.1 an Apple genius came up with

the bright idea of *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* throttling

the CPU speed (by more than in half!) which instantly "reduces the

unexpected shutdowns by 80%".

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

Apple graciously extended this *secret*, *permanent*, and *drastic*
throttling "feature" to iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus in iOS 11.2.

6. Of course, they could have added a few sentences in Battery (in
Settings) explaining that the permanent & drastic throttling was active and
how to solve it (changing the battery). Does this mean that some people are
going to change the battery when Apple would prefer them to just buy a new
iPhone? Absolutely. But this is the kind of thing you would expect a
reputable company to do: being transparent and explaining themselves even
if that means losing a few phone sales.

7. Of course, Apple could have disclosed that performance would be
drastically affected when they released 10.2.1; but you only expect that
type of honesty from a reputable company.

<https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/28/16827248/apple-iphone-battery-replacement-price-slow-down-apology>

8. Apple did not disclose the root cause of the "second" issue, despite
being incredibly specific about it the first time.

9. Apple didn't disclose who would get performance reductions as part of
their fix; hence it's entirely possible some users were throttled right
away (which was a little over a year after the 6S even came out) - which
would explain why Apple wouldn't be upfront about what the fix was.

10. Apple support wasn't informed that replacing batteries would have any
impact on performance so they never recommended customers just replace the
battery when they complained of the unexpected shutdowns and the subsequent
"fix" of permanently throttled CPUs.

Only on December 28th, 2017 did Apple even hint at the performance impact:
"While these changes may go unnoticed, in some cases users may
experience longer launch times for apps and other reductions
in performance."

11. Apple desperately tries, as does nospam, to palm this premature
"chemical aging" off as "normal" when it's patently obvious that no other

smartphone has "unexpected shutdowns" unless it's from a faulty battery.
Apple is duplicitiously trying to portray this as this can happen to any
normal functioning device, but it's really done just so they don't have to
replace faulty hardware they've sold to the unsuspecting customer.

"Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which
includes overall performance and prolonging the life of their devices.
Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current
demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as
they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly
shutting down to protect its electronic components.
Last year we released a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone SE
to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the
device from unexpectedly shutting down during these conditions.
We've now extended that feature to iPhone 7 with iOS 11.2, and plan
to add support for other products in the future."

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

12. The reaction to Apple's duplicity was so negative that Apple further
released a bullshit explanation which isn't even close to true simply

because they use clever phrases (like "dynamically managed") that don't
imply to the casual reader what everyone who knows about batteries knows -
which is that there is no battery fairy that magically "fixes" batteries
that are pematurely "chemically aged" already.

<https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/>

To wit: <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387>

"This power management works by looking at a combination of the device
temperature, battery state of charge, and the battery's impedance.
Only if these variables require it, iOS will dynamically manage the
maximum performance of some system components, such as the CPU and GPU
in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns."

And: <https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/>
"Early in 2018, we will issue an iOS software update with new features
that give users more visibility into the health of their iPhone's
battery, so they can see for themselves if its condition is ...
[causing a *permanent* and *drastic* reduction in] performance."

BTW, it's not just the CPU that is cut in half ... iPhones with older

batteries may also more aggressively dim their screens, have lower maximum
speaker volumes, and even have their camera flashes disabled when the
system needs more peak power than the battery can provide. The whole
approach actually quite clever, but *secret*, *permanent*, and *drastic*
(throttling to half the original CPU speed) isn't a substitute for the lost
speed.

Also, the faulty batteries, IMHO, should be replaced for free, not for the
temporary $29 + $6.95 shipping = $36 for the year 2018.
<https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-power>

<https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/20/how-to-replace-iphone-battery-speed-up-performance/>

[nospam]

In article <p27n4g$1hf5$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton

<harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

>
> > again, what matters is what a judge or jury decides.
> >
> > not the briefs and certainly not you.
>
> What matters is the truth.

which a judge or jury will decide.

not you or anyone else.

> 1. They put in the "wrong batteries"

false

rest of your idiocy snipped.

[Alan Browne]

On 2017-12-29 23:28, nospam wrote:
> unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
> which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.

Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.

The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
and the effects of what they were doing.

A plain English explanation was in order detailing that they would slow
the CPU as the battery life reduced and that a remedy was to replace the
battery at some point to restore both endurance and performance.

Apple has their knickers around their knees and they know it. There is
no defense for what they omitted to say.

--
“When it is all said and done, there are approximately 94 million
full-time workers in private industry paying taxes to support 102
million non-workers and 21 million government workers.
In what world does this represent a strong job market?”
.Jim Quinn

[harry newton]

On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 10:30:50 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

>> unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
>> which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.
>
> Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.

I have to agree with Alan Browne that Apple is simply being clever when
caving in to the demand to come clean on what they secretly did.

Apple cleverly apologizes (which is what people want to see), and they
cleverly lower the battery price from 79+7=$86 to 29+7=$36 as if that's any
skin off their back (non-Apple battery replacements costs that).

But what Apple actually apologized for, legally, was for "letting you down"
because they were "hearing feedback" about "how" they "handled performance"
and how they "communicated that process".

I'm quite sure Apple lawyers spent more effort on the wording than Thomas
Jefferson did on the US Declaration of Independence, so that the "apology"
didn't fuel the lawsuits (which have enough fuel already).

> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
> and the effects of what they were doing.

The fact is that anyone with a logical thought process knows exactly why
Apple *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* cut down the CPU speeds
to less than half they were originally.

Apple drastically slowed down your CPU to mask a battery defect that they
didn't feel like fixing under warranty. It had the added bonus, which they
certainly were aware of, of increasing sales of new phones (which is what
the Genius Bar support told customers to do according to many reports on
the net).

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

> A plain English explanation was in order detailing that they would slow
> the CPU as the battery life reduced and that a remedy was to replace the
> battery at some point to restore both endurance and performance.

It would have been trivial for Apple to come clean when they released the
iOS 10.2.1 slowdown release, and when they released the iOS 11.2
double-slowdown release. But they just lied because their customers would
never know the truth ... or so they thought.
<https://www.apple.com/support/iphone6s-unexpectedshutdown/>

Remember, even the iOS Apologists said, a year ago, that the performance
went down but it would go back up (they were just making it up, as always)
How To Fix Bad iOS 10 Battery Life (September 25, 2016)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/t-niQOaG80U/wH02jLdLBAAJ>

> Apple has their knickers around their knees and they know it. There is
> no defense for what they omitted to say.

Since we now know what Apple did, the only question is why.

They did it for a good reason for them, and it was not to extend the life
of the phone - especially since the Genius Bar personnel are documented to
have been ubiquitously recommending people buy a newer phone and not a new
battery.

All evidence so far is that the Genius Bar personnel were oblivious to the
simple solution of replacing the battery to solve the *secret*,
*permanent*, and *drastic* slowdown of the CPU - and the tools provided ot
the Genius Bar didn't even look for the drastic CPU slowdown.

Most of the lawsuits will prevail such that I predict Apple will be forced
to settle, as Volkswagon did, rather than let such subterfuge carry through
the court system and be judged on its merits.

Basically Apple did one huge wrong, and maybe a second bonus wrong.
1. They masked what amounts to defective batteries so that they could avoid
replacement of those batteries, and,
2. Their support personnel unwittingly constantly and repeatedly advised
customers to "upgrade" to new phones with every iOS release drastically
slowing down the old phones.

Unlike the Apple Apologists, I speak valid verifiable verified facts.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 09:59:45 -0500:

> rest of your idiocy snipped.

It's amazing how derisively you Apple Apologists react to valid facts.

[nospam]

In article <p28eev$oe5$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@at.invalid> wrote:

>
> It would have been trivial for Apple to come clean when they released the
> iOS 10.2.1 slowdown release,

they did

[nospam]

In article <otqdnZzo9M62LNrH...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> > unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
> > which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.
>
> Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.

not at all.

apple is doing the same things other companies are doing, and as usual,
the other companies get a free pass.

> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
> and the effects of what they were doing.

they could have done a better job explaining things (same for other
companies), but they do not need to go into gory details because most
people won't understand it and it will just confuse them, especially
since the cpu is constantly adjusting power/performance anyway, even
with a healthy battery.

[nospam]

In article <p28elv$oud$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
<ha...@at.invalid> wrote:

> valid facts.

you have none and never did.

you lie and twist things to fit your agenda.

[Jolly Roger]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2017-12-29 23:28, nospam wrote:
>> unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
>> which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.
>
> Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.
>
> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
> and the effects of what they were doing.

Nope. They said what they were doing in the release notes:

"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."

--
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

[Alan Browne]

On 2017-12-30 11:40, nospam wrote:
> In article <otqdnZzo9M62LNrH...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>> unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
>>> which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.
>>
>> Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.
>
> not at all.
>
> apple is doing the same things other companies are doing, and as usual,
> the other companies get a free pass.
>
>> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
>> and the effects of what they were doing.
>
> they could have done a better job explaining things (same for other
> companies), but they do not need to go into gory details because most
> people won't understand it and it will just confuse them,

Horseshit. A simple explanation: "As your battery ages we compensate by
slowing the CPU to keep you going through the day. When you find that
to be too slow, a battery replacement will restore performance".

In the end Apple look deceptive and have to compensate. Really
embarrasing. Right up there with the initial Maps fiasco.

[Alan Browne]

On 2017-12-30 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-29 23:28, nospam wrote:
>>> unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
>>> which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.
>>
>> Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.
>>
>> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
>> and the effects of what they were doing.
>
> Nope. They said what they were doing in the release notes:
>
> "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."

Too vague and opaque. Should have added: "To restore your iPhone to
full performance, the battery may be replaced."

So now Apple have been embarrassed and have to compensate with a
"special" battery offer.

[nospam]

In article <692dnYdxJfjeTNrH...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
> >> and the effects of what they were doing.
> >
> > they could have done a better job explaining things (same for other
> > companies), but they do not need to go into gory details because most
> > people won't understand it and it will just confuse them,
>
> Horseshit. A simple explanation: "As your battery ages we compensate by
> slowing the CPU to keep you going through the day. When you find that
> to be too slow, a battery replacement will restore performance".

average people don't understand battery chemistry or the details of
power performance tradeoffs. giving them more details will only fuel
problems, such as claiming that apple was doing that just to increase
the number battery replacements or force upgrades to new phones.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2017-12-30 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-29 23:28, nospam wrote:
>>>> unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
>>>> which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.
>>>
>>> Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.
>>>
>>> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
>>> and the effects of what they were doing.
>>
>> Nope. They said what they were doing in the release notes:
>>
>> "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."
>
> Too vague and opaque.

Not vague and not opaque. See how opinions work? Everyone can have one!

FACT: Apple did indeed notify users about the feature in the release
notes of iOS 10.2.1.

FACT: "improves power management during peak workloads to avoid
unexpected shutdowns on iPhone" does indeed describe what the feature
does.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 11:40:56 -0500:

> you lie and twist things to fit your agenda.

Heh heh heh ... this is the funniest thing you've ever said.

It's akin to Jolly Roger saying I hurl insults...

You two are the funniest guys on this newsgroup since you both hate what
both of you habitually do - and EVERYONE here knows that you do it.

Thanks for the humor.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 11:40:54 -0500:

>> It would have been trivial for Apple to come clean when they released the
>> iOS 10.2.1 slowdown release,
>
> they did

You Apple Apologists are the oddest people because you continually deny
what Apple already admitted.
<https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/>

[Alan Browne]

On 2017-12-30 13:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2017-12-30, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-30 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-12-29 23:28, nospam wrote:
>>>>> unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
>>>>> which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.
>>>>
>>>> Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
>>>> and the effects of what they were doing.
>>>
>>> Nope. They said what they were doing in the release notes:
>>>
>>> "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."
>>
>> Too vague and opaque.
>
> Not vague and not opaque. See how opinions work? Everyone can have one!
>
> FACT: Apple did indeed notify users about the feature in the release
> notes of iOS 10.2.1.
>
> FACT: "improves power management during peak workloads to avoid
> unexpected shutdowns on iPhone" does indeed describe what the feature
> does.

Does not make it clear enough. This is why (fact) Apple have to roll
out a battery replacement special price in compensation for their
opaqueness. Could easily have been avoided by transparency.

FACT: "We’ve been hearing feedback from our customers about the way we
handle performance for iPhones with older batteries and how we have
communicated that process. We know that some of you feel Apple has let
you down. We apologize. "
- Apple acknowledging they fucked up.

FACT: "To address our customers’ concerns, to recognize their loyalty
and to regain the trust of anyone who may have doubted Apple’s
intentions, we’ve decided to take the following steps:"
- Apple acknowledging they fucked up.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 13:00:23 -0500:

> average people don't understand battery chemistry or the details of
> power performance tradeoffs. giving them more details will only fuel
> problems, such as claiming that apple was doing that just to increase
> the number battery replacements or force upgrades to new phones.

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

The problem was that Apple masked this "intolerable performance decay" with
a *secret*, *permanent*, and *drastic* CPU slowdown, which only you don't
admit, since Apple already admitted they didn't tell their customers the
truth.
"Apple acknowledges that it miscommunicated what was happening
with its power management features that were included in software
updates since at least a year ago. Apple has been blamed for not
being more transparent about the sneaky maneuver."
<http://mashable.com/2017/12/28/apple-apology-iphone-performance-battery-throttling/#F9hKxhGyOPqQ>

[Alan Browne]

They don't have to understand much beyond the fact that batteries
perform less well with time and that it's normal to replace the battery
at some point in the product life cycle to maintain performance.

People are not idiots and will accept clear explanations (which don't
need technical minutiae).

Apple failed to be transparent and now it's blown up in their face.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, harry newton <ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
> He who is nospam said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 11:40:56 -0500:
>
>> you lie and twist things to fit your agenda.
>
> Heh heh heh

Laughing won't change reality, demented old man.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2017-12-30 13:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2017-12-30, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-30 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-12-29 23:28, nospam wrote:
>>>>>> unless they have a solid technical understanding of battery technology,
>>>>>> which few people do, they're not going to, nor do they need to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Total Apple defending BS the likes of which only you would come up with.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
>>>>> and the effects of what they were doing.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. They said what they were doing in the release notes:
>>>>
>>>> "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."
>>>
>>> Too vague and opaque.
>>
>> Not vague and not opaque. See how opinions work? Everyone can have one!
>>
>> FACT: Apple did indeed notify users about the feature in the release
>> notes of iOS 10.2.1.
>>
>> FACT: "improves power management during peak workloads to avoid
>> unexpected shutdowns on iPhone" does indeed describe what the feature
>> does.
>
> Does not make it clear enough.

It's perfectly clear enough.

Opinions are fun!

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>

> Apple failed to be transparent and now it's blown up in their face.

Only for the idiot haters. Three months from now the world will have
completely forgotten about this idiotic made-up "scandal". And Apple
will still be ranked high in customer satisfaction and will continue to
rake in the majority of profits.

"APPLE IS DOOMED! DOOOOOOMED, I TELL YOU!!" ~ pathetic trolls

[nospam]

In article <p28kvg$146h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@at.invalid> wrote:

> > you lie and twist things to fit your agenda.
>
> Heh heh heh ... this is the funniest thing you've ever said.

nope. i've said many things far funnier.

what i said above is as you say, 'fact'. no funny whatsoever.

[nospam]

In article <H7GdnQNCIpM8RNrH...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>>> The fact is that Apple were not transparent about what they were doing
> >>>> and the effects of what they were doing.
> >>>
> >>> they could have done a better job explaining things (same for other
> >>> companies), but they do not need to go into gory details because most
> >>> people won't understand it and it will just confuse them,
> >>
> >> Horseshit. A simple explanation: "As your battery ages we compensate by
> >> slowing the CPU to keep you going through the day. When you find that
> >> to be too slow, a battery replacement will restore performance".
> >
> > average people don't understand battery chemistry or the details of
> > power performance tradeoffs. giving them more details will only fuel
> > problems, such as claiming that apple was doing that just to increase
> > the number battery replacements or force upgrades to new phones.
>
> They don't have to understand much beyond the fact that batteries
> perform less well with time and that it's normal to replace the battery
> at some point in the product life cycle to maintain performance.

most people do understand that much.

> People are not idiots and will accept clear explanations (which don't
> need technical minutiae).

they may not be idiots, but they're not technically savvy and don't
understand what goes on under the hood, nor do they need to.

[Alan Browne]

Clarity requires transparency. Their statement is opaque.

What is allegedly clear enough to you is not clear enough to many
others. Probably most others.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-29 22:55, nospam wrote:

> no.
>
> the 6s has a different processor and other components with different
> power draw. it also has a 3d touch display, which is slightly thicker,
> thereby taking up space too.
>
> you're making a lot of assumptions.

Tell that to the folks at iFixit

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+6s+Teardown/48170
##
It turns out the rumors were true—battery capacity is down a bit, likely
in order to make room for new features like the Taptic Engine and
slightly thicker display.

The Lithium-ion pack comes in at 3.8 V, 6.55 Wh, and 1715 mAh. It's a
small but notable decrease from the 1810 mAh battery in last year's
iPhone 6.
##



Note: last year, I experienced problem starting in march/april while
walking at 0°. Then in fall, it started to happen at temperatures as
high as 12° (C). The phone is rated to go down to 0°, which, when you
sell worldwide, isn't enough.

It would not surprise me if internally, someone had warned management
that the battery was too small to power the 6s in cold after a year, but
would have been overriden by marketing who felt the taptic engine was
absolutely necessary.

It would be interesting to know whether at time of 6s launch, they knew
that the 6s would remain on sale until at least fall 2018 and remain a
very popular model, increasing the number of people affected by the
undersized battery.

> It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid
> unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.

Doesn't say anything about preventing CPU from reaching top speed. (and
they didn't manage power peaks for when you turn camera on and take picture)

[Jolly Roger]

Nope. Opinions are fun!

[nospam]

In article <YZQ1C.38662$247....@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > the 6s has a different processor and other components with different
> > power draw. it also has a 3d touch display, which is slightly thicker,
> > thereby taking up space too.
> >
> > you're making a lot of assumptions.
>
> Tell that to the folks at iFixit
>
> https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+6s+Teardown/48170
> ##

> It turns out the rumors were true誼attery capacity is down a bit, likely

> in order to make room for new features like the Taptic Engine and
> slightly thicker display.

*likely*, not definitely. many factors go into the sizing of the
battery, including weight and cost.

> The Lithium-ion pack comes in at 3.8 V, 6.55 Wh, and 1715 mAh. It's a
> small but notable decrease from the 1810 mAh battery in last year's
> iPhone 6.
> ##

it also doesn't matter because the rest of the phone has a different
power consumption profile.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-30 04:43, Harry Newton wrote:

> What matters is that Apple admitted they *secretly*, *permanently*, and

Why do you continue to use "permanently" when you have been given
evidence that this is not permanent?

You have given no evidence that the throttling is done on old batteries
that are charged at 100%. And you , yourself have admitted that changing
battery stops the throttling.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-30 13:00, nospam wrote:

> average people don't understand battery chemistry or the details of
> power performance tradeoffs. giving them more details will only fuel
> problems, such as claiming that apple was doing that just to increase
> the number battery replacements or force upgrades to new phones.

Hint: Apple could have put in Settings -> Battery, a warning that due to
battery age, when it goes below X%, the CPU will be slowed.

Hint: before allowing camera to fire up issue alert "no enough power to
turn on camera, go ahead anyways (and rish shutdown) ?



In normal circumstances, the phone issues an alert when baqttery goes
low and it offers to go into low power mode. It is explicit and you can
decline it.

Why not do the same style of UI when the phone detects the battery is
too old"/cold/weak to allow full CPU speed?

[nospam]

In article <ekR1C.79530$%g5.3...@fx30.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > average people don't understand battery chemistry or the details of
> > power performance tradeoffs. giving them more details will only fuel
> > problems, such as claiming that apple was doing that just to increase
> > the number battery replacements or force upgrades to new phones.
>
> Hint: Apple could have put in Settings -> Battery, a warning that due to
> battery age, when it goes below X%, the CPU will be slowed.

people would have misinterpreted it and complained.

> Hint: before allowing camera to fire up issue alert "no enough power to
> turn on camera, go ahead anyways (and rish shutdown) ?

or just peak limit it. nobody cares if it takes an extra half-second to
launch. they won't even notice.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-12-30 13:00, nospam wrote:
>
>> average people don't understand battery chemistry or the details of
>> power performance tradeoffs. giving them more details will only fuel
>> problems, such as claiming that apple was doing that just to increase
>> the number battery replacements or force upgrades to new phones.
>
> Hint: Apple could have put in Settings -> Battery, a warning that due to
> battery age, when it goes below X%, the CPU will be slowed.

Apple already notifies users in Settings > Battery. I understand you
don't read, but the rest of us do.

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207453>

If you see "Your iPhone battery may need to be serviced"

Learn what to do if you see this notice in Settings > Battery.

What the notice says

On an iPhone using iOS 10.2.1 or later, this notice might appear in
Settings > Battery: “Your iPhone battery may need to be serviced.”

Why the notice appears

Using diagnostics in iOS, we've detected that the battery in your iPhone
may need to be replaced. When a battery gets closer to the end of its
lifespan, the amount of charge and the ability to provide power reduces.
As a result, a battery may need to be charged more and more frequently
and your iPhone might experience unexpected shutdowns.

This isn't a safety issue, it’s just to let you know that your battery
may need to be replaced. You can continue to use your iPhone until you
have your battery checked. In the meantime, you might notice longer app
launch times, lower frame rates while scrolling, and other reductions in
performance. For more information on iPhone battery performance, see
iPhone Battery and Performance.

All rechargeable batteries are consumables and have a limited lifespan,
eventually needing to be serviced or recycled. There are various factors
that can affect the performance and lifespan of your device’s battery,
including number of charge cycles, chemical aging of your battery, and
exposure to extreme heat or cold. Learn more about maximizing battery
life and lifespan.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <YZQ1C.38662$247....@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei
><jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> > the 6s has a different processor and other components with different
>> > power draw. it also has a 3d touch display, which is slightly thicker,
>> > thereby taking up space too.
>> >
>> > you're making a lot of assumptions.
>>
>> Tell that to the folks at iFixit
>>
>> https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+6s+Teardown/48170
>> ##

>> It turns out the rumors were true‹battery capacity is down a bit, likely

>> in order to make room for new features like the Taptic Engine and
>> slightly thicker display.
>
> *likely*, not definitely. many factors go into the sizing of the
> battery, including weight and cost.

Yet another instance of a troll claiming opinion is fact.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-12-30 04:43, Harry Newton wrote:
>
>> What matters is that Apple admitted they *secretly*, *permanently*, and
>
> Why do you continue to use "permanently" when you have been given
> evidence that this is not permanent?

Because: troll. And you know that.

It's also no secret; but again: troll.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-30 14:03, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Apple already notifies users in Settings > Battery. I understand you
> don't read, but the rest of us do.
>
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207453>
>
> If you see "Your iPhone battery may need to be serviced"

I NEVER saw that warning, and I experienced the shutdowns starting in
early 2016. I had battery replaced in late 2016 and started to
experience problem again this november and again, never saw that
warning. And by then I would have had the softwaree that included this.

[nospam]

In article <QQR1C.54778$9j3....@fx29.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > If you see "Your iPhone battery may need to be serviced"
>
> I NEVER saw that warning,

because your battery didn't fail the self-test.

> and I experienced the shutdowns starting in
> early 2016.

that was a *different* issue.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-12-30 14:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Apple already notifies users in Settings > Battery. I understand you
>> don't read, but the rest of us do.
>>
>> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207453>
>>
>> If you see "Your iPhone battery may need to be serviced"
>
> I NEVER saw that warning

You have a well-established inability to read. That you didn't see it
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-12-29 04:01, harry newton wrote:
> Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries by
> chopping CPU speeds secretly, permanently, and drastically (in half!).

No, they did not.

>
> Apple will offer $29 battery replacements for out of warranty iPhone 6 or
> later devices, up to the end of 2018. After that, you're fucked again.
>
> December 28, 2017
> A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance
> <https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/>

No admission of defective batteries there at all. The word "defective"
doesn't appear.


You are simply an anti Apple activist and troll. And I can say so,
because I'm not an Apple customer, I prefer Android or full computers
with Linux. I'm not biased towards Apple.

Please stop your FUD and trolling campaign.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-12-29 04:01, harry newton wrote:
>> Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries by
>> chopping CPU speeds secretly, permanently, and drastically (in half!).
>
> No, they did not.
>

> No admission of defective batteries there at all. The word "defective"
> doesn't appear.
>
> You are simply an anti Apple activist and troll. And I can say so,
> because I'm not an Apple customer, I prefer Android or full computers
> with Linux. I'm not biased towards Apple.
>
> Please stop your FUD and trolling campaign.

He won't stop. At best, he'll change his name yet again to avoid kill
filters and take some other lame "opportunity" to troll again.

[harry newton]

He who is Alan Browne said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 13:23:29 -0500:

> They don't have to understand much beyond the fact that batteries
> perform less well with time and that it's normal to replace the battery
> at some point in the product life cycle to maintain performance.
>
> People are not idiots and will accept clear explanations (which don't
> need technical minutiae).
>
> Apple failed to be transparent and now it's blown up in their face.

All true and well said.

The truth isn't always good - but it's good to always know the truth.

I commend you on understanding the truth.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 13:29:31 -0500:

> they may not be idiots, but they're not technically savvy and don't
> understand what goes on under the hood, nor do they need to.

I'm going to pose a question that I hope you can rise to the level of an
adult to respond, since Alan Browne's comments are at the adult level (and
Jolly Roger's comments are not).

Let's say a person's phone CPU speed was chopped in half right after an iOS
update, and they make an appointment (which takes weeks where I live) for
the Apple Store Genius Bar support.

Weeks later, they show up on time, and their phone is *still* running at
half the speeds (since the throttling is permanent and there is no battery
fairy).

Assuming this is the day before the news broke that Apple purposefully
slowed down the guy's phone, when the Genius Bar support guy tests the
phone and it all seems to be good in his tests - here's the adult question
for you...

Q: What do you think the Genius Bar expert recommends the customer do to
get the original performance back?

[Ken Blake]

On 30 Dec 2017 21:35:20 GMT, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On 2017-12-30, Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-12-29 04:01, harry newton wrote:
>>> Apple just admitted they were trying to mask defective batteries by
>>> chopping CPU speeds secretly, permanently, and drastically (in half!).
>>
>> No, they did not.
>>
>> No admission of defective batteries there at all. The word "defective"
>> doesn't appear.
>>
>> You are simply an anti Apple activist and troll. And I can say so,
>> because I'm not an Apple customer, I prefer Android or full computers
>> with Linux. I'm not biased towards Apple.
>>
>> Please stop your FUD and trolling campaign.
>
>He won't stop. At best, he'll change his name yet again to avoid kill
>filters and take some other lame "opportunity" to troll again.

The way to get a troll to stop is to killfile him, not to reply to him
or to post a message about him. If everyone killfiles him, he'll get
no replies, will get bored, and stop trolling.

[nospam]

In article <p291ej$1piu$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

<ha...@at.invalid> wrote:

> Weeks later, they show up on time, and their phone is *still* running at
> half the speeds (since the throttling is permanent and there is no battery
> fairy).

it doesn't work that way.

only the *peak* demands are limited, not the baseline, and it is not
noticeable in most situations, nor is it permanent.

not only was this explained to you (and multiple times), but it's
clearly detailed in apple's statements and that of other reports.

you aren't interested in 'facts'.

[nospam]

In article <faqf4o...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > On 2017-12-29 04:01, harry newton wrote:

> > ...

>
>
> > Please stop your FUD and trolling campaign.
>
> He won't stop. At best, he'll change his name yet again to avoid kill
> filters and take some other lame "opportunity" to troll again.

which he just did.

he's now 'Harold Newton' in csms, not to be confused with harry newton,
aardvarks, and the zillions of others.

[Jolly Roger]

You're naive. You can't force the rest of the world to killfile each and
every nym he creates (and he creates TONS of them), which means there
will inevitably be *someone* who reads and responds to his posts. Also
this particular troll is so dedicated to trolling that he will gleefully
spend hours upon hours daily trolling, and he does so regardless of who
replies.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <p291ej$1piu$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
><ha...@at.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Weeks later, they show up on time, and their phone is *still* running at
>> half the speeds (since the throttling is permanent and there is no battery
>> fairy).
>
> it doesn't work that way.

The old fool has to lie about how it works to support his lie that it's
a permanent slowdown. ; )

> only the *peak* demands are limited, not the baseline, and it is not
> noticeable in most situations, nor is it permanent.
>
> not only was this explained to you (and multiple times), but it's
> clearly detailed in apple's statements and that of other reports.
>
> you aren't interested in 'facts'.

Nor would he know if one slapped him in the face.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2017-12-30, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Yup.

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 13:45:03 -0500:

Hi JF Mezei,
I have removed you from the list of Apple Apologists, so I will treat you
like an adult would treat another adult.

Did you read the description of *how* the Apple software determines the
state of battery charge? I posted the URL in a previous post, where they
look at what they summarize as the "chemical age" of the battery.

The "chemical age" does not change. It's like your age. It's more like an
impedance since it's not a resistance but a combination of capacitance and
resistance which in electrical terms is considered an impedance (j omega
stuff).

If you see me state "there is no battery fairy", that's an allusion to the
fact that the "chemical age" of the battery is something that only gets
worse over time. Recharging a battery or warming up a battery does not
change the chemical age (since the chemical age is independent of those
factors in that it takes those factors into account).

Think of it like your age.
You're never going to get younger.

It's the same with the chemical age of the battery.
So the slowdown is permanent.

Nobody on this planet has said otherwise, except for you (and perhaps the
Apple Apologists) - but we know they just make everything up.

As I repeatedly told you, *every single reference* says the same thing, so
your inability to understand this concept of chemical age is the problem
you have with the word "permanent".

Search for "apple battery chemical age" for examples.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apple+battery+chemical+age>

There's a *reason* Apple uses the term "chemical age" so until you
understand the concept of "aging", you'll never understand that aging is
permanent - hence the CPU slowdown is correspondingly permanent.