Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display
lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?

o Apple Battery lockout stunt:
o Apple display lockout stunt:

Battery:
o Apple is activating secret software inside the iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max and iPhone XR
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/OqOM4rY-oNY>
"But here's the kicker: users receive the same message even if a genuine
Apple battery was fitted. Quite correctly, iFixit labels the whole thing a
'User-Hostile Choice' and it isn't the first time Apple has taken such
measures"

Display:
o Even if a genuine Apple display is used by your repairer, you will receive the warning messages based on the price of the tools repairers used
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/5Ge0WpaDjjM>
"even if a genuine Apple display is used by your repairer, you will
receive the warning message if the technician didn't purchase their tools
from Apple."

Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display
lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?

--
Apple is drunk on secretly reducing functionality AFTER the product ships!

[nospam]

In article <qo8q5t$rb7$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen _G_ Holder

<_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:

> Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display

lots of products check for a genuine battery, because fake batteries
pose a safety risk and may not function correctly.

<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-e752Xpvp7A/maxresdefault.jpg>

<https://i.stack.imgur.com/rrcPE.jpg>

<https://i2.wp.com/digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/201
4/08/battery-error.jpg>

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:52:28 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display
>
> lots of products check for a genuine battery, because fake batteries
> pose a safety risk and may not function correctly.
>
> <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-e752Xpvp7A/maxresdefault.jpg>
>
> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/rrcPE.jpg>
>
> <https://i2.wp.com/digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/201
> 4/08/battery-error.jpg>

Hi nospam,

I've studied you apologists, nospam, where you only have seven classic
responses to facts.
o One of those traits is to deflect the discussion AWAY from the salient
fact.

The question was simple, nospam, and it wasn't about cameras.
o Adults are not afraid of facts, nospam.

Adults are not afraid to ask a basic question about facts, in fact.

Q: Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display

lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?

--

Bringing TRUTH to these Apple/Android/Mac newsgroups; one fact at a time.

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, snowflake, but it is reasonable to examine what other electronic
device manufacturers do in the case of battery replacement.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:00:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Sorry, snowflake, but it is reasonable to examine what other electronic
> device manufacturers do in the case of battery replacement.

Q: Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?

If so...
o Name just one

You child-like Apple Apologists have no adult response to facts
o You have seven basic response to facts you don't like

The game you apologists play, since you can't find an ANDROID mobile phone
that pulls these hostile battery & display stunts after the phone shipped,
like Apple secretly just did ......

The game apologists play is to scour through tens of thousands of "other
things" (e.g., "electronic devices") and, out of those tens of thousands of
other things, you attempt to find a few that do, what Apple does, then you
say "Aha!".

See.... it's not only Apple that secretly degrades battery & display
o And yet, it's not even close to the point

Find a single ANDROID phone where the battery is secretly locked to the
device AFTER the product ships, and find an ANDROID phone where the display
is similarly afflicted, AFTER the product ships!

Name just one.

--
Discussing TRUTH & LOGIC on mobile phone newsgroups; one fact at a time.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-10-18 4:44 p.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:00:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Sorry, snowflake, but it is reasonable to examine what other electronic
>> device manufacturers do in the case of battery replacement.
>
> Q: Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?
>
> If so...
> o Name just one
>
> You child-like Apple Apologists have no adult response to facts
> o You have seven basic response to facts you don't like
>
> The game you apologists play, since you can't find an ANDROID mobile phone
> that pulls these hostile battery & display stunts after the phone shipped,
> like Apple secretly just did ......
>
> The game apologists play is to scour through tens of thousands of "other
> things" (e.g., "electronic devices") and, out of those tens of thousands of
> other things, you attempt to find a few that do, what Apple does, then you
> say "Aha!".

You attempt to make what Apple does seem unusual...

...when it isn't really.

>
> See.... it's not only Apple that secretly degrades battery & display
> o And yet, it's not even close to the point

No. They don't do that.

>
> Find a single ANDROID phone where the battery is secretly locked to the
> device AFTER the product ships, and find an ANDROID phone where the display
> is similarly afflicted, AFTER the product ships!

The iPhone isn't locked in either of those instances.

>
> Name just one.

Sure...

...right after you "name just one" smartphone that The Verge has scored
higher in the summary than the new iPhones.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:49:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You attempt to make what Apple does seem unusual...
>
> ...when it isn't really.

Hi Alan Baker,

I love when you post because your posts prove the point perfectly.

Apologists always apologize for all of Apple's secret hostile degradations!
o Do any Android phone manufacturers throttle (CPUs, PD Charging, Modems)?

It's well known Apple is (figuratively) drunk on after-the-fact
throttling.f
o Apple throttles CPUs (up to and including the iPhone XR, XS, & XSMax)
o Apple throttles modems (they throttle the Qualcomm modems)
o Apple throttles PD charging speeds (e.g., the iPhone 11 series)
etc.

Apple secretly throttles charging speeds - your money is now wasted
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/10/06/apple-ios-13-problem-iphone-wireless-charging-upgrade-iphone-11-pro-max-update/#39663120eef5>

oApple lied to Congress that iPhones would be safe from throttling
<https://www.engadget.com/2018/11/01/apple-iphone-x-battery-throttling/>
"Despite apologies, updates, and a $5.7 million fine in Italy, Apple's
Batterygate woes refuse to go away. The tech giant previously told Congress
there was no need to throttle last year's iPhones to preserve battery due
to their advanced hardware, but it's now changed tack. With the release of
iOS 12.1, the controversial feature is finding its way on to the iPhone 8,
8 Plus, and iPhone X after all."

--
HINT: Only Apple does (despite nospam's baseless claims to the contrary).

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-10-18 9:38 p.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:49:11 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You attempt to make what Apple does seem unusual...
>>
>> ...when it isn't really.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I love when you post because your posts prove the point perfectly.
>
> Apologists always apologize for all of Apple's secret hostile degradations!
> o Do any Android phone manufacturers throttle (CPUs, PD Charging, Modems)?

I haven't apologized for anything.

>
> It's well known Apple is (figuratively) drunk on after-the-fact
> throttling.f
> o Apple throttles CPUs (up to and including the iPhone XR, XS, & XSMax)

Do you want a phone that just suddenly quits working without warning?

> o Apple throttles modems (they throttle the Qualcomm modems)

No foundation.

> o Apple throttles PD charging speeds (e.g., the iPhone 11 series)
> etc.

In line with the requirements of the charging specifications.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 13:22:36 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> I haven't apologized for anything.

> Do you want a phone that just suddenly quits working without warning?

Hi Alan Baker,

I absolutely love when you apologists prove my point for me, Alan Baker.
o Your own words just proved you try to apologize for Apple design flaws!

And you don't even realize it.

>> o Apple throttles modems (they throttle the Qualcomm modems)
>
> No foundation.

Are you denying that Apple throttled the Qualcomm modems or not?

>> o Apple throttles PD charging speeds (e.g., the iPhone 11 series)
>> etc.
>
> In line with the requirements of the charging specifications.

Are you denying that Apple secretly throttled PD charging speeds or not?

--
Bringing actual TRUTH to Apple & Android newsgroups, one fact at a time.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-10-19 6:06 p.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 13:22:36 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I haven't apologized for anything.
>> Do you want a phone that just suddenly quits working without warning?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I absolutely love when you apologists prove my point for me, Alan Baker.
> o Your own words just proved you try to apologize for Apple design flaws!

Batteries run down. That's not a design flaw, that's just a fact.

>
> And you don't even realize it.
>
>>> o Apple throttles modems (they throttle the Qualcomm modems)
>>
>> No foundation.
>
> Are you denying that Apple throttled the Qualcomm modems or not?

I'm saying that you've provided no proof that they did so.

>
>>> o Apple throttles PD charging speeds (e.g., the iPhone 11 series)
>>> etc.
>>
>> In line with the requirements of the charging specifications.
>
> Are you denying that Apple secretly throttled PD charging speeds or not?

Apple reduced charging speeds for chargers that didn't meet the
appropriate specification.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 00:51:29 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

>> o Your own words just proved you try to apologize for Apple design flaws!
>
> Batteries run down. That's not a design flaw, that's just a fact.

Hi Alan Baker,

I will try to treat you more gently in the future, since only moments ago,
you literally proved beyond doubt you do not own adult cognitive skills.
(See signature for proof since I don't make this stuff up.)

My response to your apology for Apple will be for others to comprehend:

If, as apologist's say, the reason for Apple's secret, drastic, & permanent
CPU throttling is "batteries run down ... that's not a design flaw", then I
ask basic obvious simple questions that an adult would ponder before making
that statement:
1. Why are the iPhones before the iPhone 6 not CPU throttled?
2. Why are the current iPhones (to our knowledge) not CPU throttled?
3. Why aren't any of the iPads (to our knowledge) not CPU throttled?
And...
4. Why did Apple not only throttle CPUs secretly (sans a single whisper)
5. Why did Apple quietly update it in the release notes (much later!)
6. Why did Apple essentially lie to Congress (as in "not _as_ necessary")

These are all facts we'd expect a normally comprehensive adult to know.

Any one of which, but certainly all of which, refute apologists' belief
systems (which, clearly, anyone can tell, are based on the "apple apology",
which, we must point out, NOBODY SIGNED at Apple!

Given that you just proved, only moments ago, you lack adult cognitive
skills, and yet, you brazenly deny facts out of hand, I note these facts
for the actual adults who read this thread who do own basic cognitive
skills.

>> Are you denying that Apple throttled the Qualcomm modems or not?
>
> I'm saying that you've provided no proof that they did so.

Alan,

As I noted, you clearly do not comprehend facts adults should comprehend.
o Apple admits to throttling Qualcomm modems in their iPhones, Alan.

We've discussed this Qualcomm throttling many times, Alan Baker.
o It was all over the news when the throttled iPhones released, Alan.

You apologists always prove by what you write that you're immune to fact.

>> Are you denying that Apple secretly throttled PD charging speeds or not?
>
> Apple reduced charging speeds for chargers that didn't meet the
> appropriate specification.

Alan,

Are you immune to the fact that the charging speeds were higher at the time
that Apple released the iPhone 11, and that Apple secretly reduced those
third-party charging speeds for the iPhone 11 AFTER the product shipped?

Simple question for you, Alan Baker:
a. What was the PD charging speed at the time the iPhone 11 shipped?
b. What is the PD charging speed today for that same iPhone 11?

For the adults on this newsgroup, notice Apologists are immune to facts.
o Yet, they brazenly deny facts (simply because they don't like them)
o Worse, they endlessly clamor that a Usenet post didn't prove it
o When the news is filled to the brim with _all_ these facts.

Why do the Apologists like Alan Baker prove to be immune to facts?
o I don't know why.

I suspect it may be that they bought into an imaginary product message
o Much like a child buys into the imaginary Santa Claus messaging

Where they deny any and all facts that don't fit their imaginary beliefs.

Unfortunately for the score of apologists on the Apple newsgroups
o Adults don't buy into imaginary belief systems; adults speak of facts.

Adults form a belief system which is based on facts which means adults must
first understand even the most basic of facts, before forming their belief
systems, and, in particular, adults must comprehend basic facts before
brazenly denying the belief systems that others have formed based on facts.

--
Unfortunately, apologists instantly & brazenly deny basic facts even exist:
(1) <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/qpGAlg5IyUM/2Y_6GlexDgAJ>
(2) <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/qpGAlg5IyUM/_BZ4vHPXDgAJ>
(3) <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.system/qpGAlg5IyUM/4IWqQ6T0DgAJ>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-10-20 10:27 a.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 00:51:29 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> o Your own words just proved you try to apologize for Apple design flaws!
>>
>> Batteries run down. That's not a design flaw, that's just a fact.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> I will try to treat you more gently in the future, since only moments ago,
> you literally proved beyond doubt you do not own adult cognitive skills.
> (See signature for proof since I don't make this stuff up.)
>
> My response to your apology for Apple will be for others to comprehend:
>
> If, as apologist's say, the reason for Apple's secret, drastic, & permanent
> CPU throttling is "batteries run down ... that's not a design flaw", then I
> ask basic obvious simple questions that an adult would ponder before making
> that statement:
> 1. Why are the iPhones before the iPhone 6 not CPU throttled?

Because Apple hadn't thought of the answer yet.

> 2. Why are the current iPhones (to our knowledge) not CPU throttled?

What is the source of this alleged "knowledge".

> 3. Why aren't any of the iPads (to our knowledge) not CPU throttled?

Same question.

> And...
> 4. Why did Apple not only throttle CPUs secretly (sans a single whisper)
> 5. Why did Apple quietly update it in the release notes (much later!)
> 6. Why did Apple essentially lie to Congress (as in "not _as_ necessary")

Sorry, but I do not accept that your quotes are accurate without a source.

>
> These are all facts we'd expect a normally comprehensive adult to know.
>
> Any one of which, but certainly all of which, refute apologists' belief
> systems (which, clearly, anyone can tell, are based on the "apple apology",
> which, we must point out, NOBODY SIGNED at Apple!
>
> Given that you just proved, only moments ago, you lack adult cognitive
> skills, and yet, you brazenly deny facts out of hand, I note these facts
> for the actual adults who read this thread who do own basic cognitive
> skills.
>
>>> Are you denying that Apple throttled the Qualcomm modems or not?
>>
>> I'm saying that you've provided no proof that they did so.
>
> Alan,
>
> As I noted, you clearly do not comprehend facts adults should comprehend.
> o Apple admits to throttling Qualcomm modems in their iPhones, Alan.

Yet you cannot produce a quote and source to support that claim.

>
> We've discussed this Qualcomm throttling many times, Alan Baker.
> o It was all over the news when the throttled iPhones released, Alan.

Then it should be easy for you to have supported your claim...

...but you have not.

>
> You apologists always prove by what you write that you're immune to fact.
>
>>> Are you denying that Apple secretly throttled PD charging speeds or not?
>>
>> Apple reduced charging speeds for chargers that didn't meet the
>> appropriate specification.
>
> Alan,
>
> Are you immune to the fact that the charging speeds were higher at the time
> that Apple released the iPhone 11, and that Apple secretly reduced those
> third-party charging speeds for the iPhone 11 AFTER the product shipped?

I'm aware that Apple became aware that some chargers were not following
the appropriate spec.

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 10:50:36 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

>> 1. Why are the iPhones before the iPhone 6 not CPU throttled?
> Because Apple hadn't thought of the answer yet.

Hi Alan Baker,

If any adult needed to know what Apple apologists always seem to do...
o That response is it.

Apple Apologists don't seem to own an adult response to facts.

>> 2. Why are the current iPhones (to our knowledge) not CPU throttled?
> What is the source of this alleged "knowledge".

Notice I'm supposed to provide the Apple Apologist with proof of what
doesn't exist now.

Notice there isn't a single reliable news article on the planet that says
the most recent iPhones (i.e., iPhone 11 series) are throttled ... and yet
... the Apple Apologist demands proof of what doesn't exist - exists?

The Apple Apologists seem to prove have no adult response to facts.

Hint:
I happen to know what does exist though, which is rumor, which I've posted
prior, but which isn't appropriate here when discussing known facts.

>> 3. Why aren't any of the iPads (to our knowledge) not CPU throttled?
>
> Same question.

Again, the Apple Apologists even attempt to deny that which doesn't exist.

The Apple Apologists have absolutely no defense to facts.

>> And...
>> 4. Why did Apple not only throttle CPUs secretly (sans a single whisper)
>> 5. Why did Apple quietly update it in the release notes (much later!)
>> 6. Why did Apple essentially lie to Congress (as in "not _as_ necessary")
>
> Sorry, but I do not accept that your quotes are accurate without a source.

And yet, the news has reported (and we have reported that news) all these
facts.

While Apple Apologists have seven basic responses to facts, Alan Baker
shows us, in spades, that one of those seven basic responses to facts,
o Is to simply deny all facts they don't like.

While it's clear Apple Apologists like Alan Baker have no adult response to
facts, the question for adults on these newsgroups is how can an adult have
an intelligent discussion about facts with these Apple Apologists?

>> As I noted, you clearly do not comprehend facts adults should comprehend.
>> o Apple admits to throttling Qualcomm modems in their iPhones, Alan.
>
> Yet you cannot produce a quote and source to support that claim.

Let me ask the adults on this newsgroup if ANY ONE OF YOU is unaware that
Apple throttled the Qualcomm modems (so as to match the Intel speeds).

Is any adult on this newsgroup unaware of that well-publicized fact?

>> We've discussed this Qualcomm throttling many times, Alan Baker.
>> o It was all over the news when the throttled iPhones released, Alan.
>
> Then it should be easy for you to have supported your claim...
> ...but you have not.

Alan,
You Apple Apologists seem to have extremely short memory spans.
o Do you even realize we've discussed this very topic MANY TIMES Alan?

I think we maybe have an 8th trait of the Apple Apologists
o Selective Amnesia

>> Are you immune to the fact that the charging speeds were higher at the time
>> that Apple released the iPhone 11, and that Apple secretly reduced those
>> third-party charging speeds for the iPhone 11 AFTER the product shipped?
>
> I'm aware that Apple became aware that some chargers were not following
> the appropriate spec.

The fact is that the iPhone 11 shipped with 3rd party charging speeds which
are, today, only a month or so later, vastly decreased - and - those
companies haven't even been told why since they followed all the standards
(according to statements they made publicly & which Apple did not refute,
to my knowledge).

In fact, when those statements were made, Apple refused to comment.
(All of this I reported in detail, Alan Baker.)

Methinks Apple Apologists exhibit a certain strain of selective amnesia.

--
Sadly, it appears this Apple Apologist is a poster child for them all.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-10-20 1:02 p.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 10:50:36 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> 1. Why are the iPhones before the iPhone 6 not CPU throttled?
>> Because Apple hadn't thought of the answer yet.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> If any adult needed to know what Apple apologists always seem to do...
> o That response is it.
>
> Apple Apologists don't seem to own an adult response to facts.
>
>>> 2. Why are the current iPhones (to our knowledge) not CPU throttled?
>> What is the source of this alleged "knowledge".
>
> Notice I'm supposed to provide the Apple Apologist with proof of what
> doesn't exist now.
>
> Notice there isn't a single reliable news article on the planet that says
> the most recent iPhones (i.e., iPhone 11 series) are throttled ... and yet
> ... the Apple Apologist demands proof of what doesn't exist - exists?
>
> The Apple Apologists seem to prove have no adult response to facts.
>
> Hint:
> I happen to know what does exist though, which is rumor, which I've posted
> prior, but which isn't appropriate here when discussing known facts.

So since you now admit you have no knowledge, why do you assume anything?

>
>>> 3. Why aren't any of the iPads (to our knowledge) not CPU throttled?
>>
>> Same question.
>
> Again, the Apple Apologists even attempt to deny that which doesn't exist.
>
> The Apple Apologists have absolutely no defense to facts.

Same question.

>
>>> And...
>>> 4. Why did Apple not only throttle CPUs secretly (sans a single whisper)
>>> 5. Why did Apple quietly update it in the release notes (much later!)
>>> 6. Why did Apple essentially lie to Congress (as in "not _as_ necessary")
>>
>> Sorry, but I do not accept that your quotes are accurate without a source.
>
> And yet, the news has reported (and we have reported that news) all these
> facts.

The provide the source for your "not as necessary" quote.

>
> While Apple Apologists have seven basic responses to facts, Alan Baker
> shows us, in spades, that one of those seven basic responses to facts,
> o Is to simply deny all facts they don't like.
>
> While it's clear Apple Apologists like Alan Baker have no adult response to
> facts, the question for adults on these newsgroups is how can an adult have
> an intelligent discussion about facts with these Apple Apologists?
>
>
>>> As I noted, you clearly do not comprehend facts adults should comprehend.
>>> o Apple admits to throttling Qualcomm modems in their iPhones, Alan.
>>
>> Yet you cannot produce a quote and source to support that claim.
>
> Let me ask the adults on this newsgroup if ANY ONE OF YOU is unaware that
> Apple throttled the Qualcomm modems (so as to match the Intel speeds).

Let me ask you to provide a source.

>
> Is any adult on this newsgroup unaware of that well-publicized fact?
>
>>> We've discussed this Qualcomm throttling many times, Alan Baker.
>>> o It was all over the news when the throttled iPhones released, Alan.
>>
>> Then it should be easy for you to have supported your claim...
>> ...but you have not.
>
> Alan,
> You Apple Apologists seem to have extremely short memory spans.
> o Do you even realize we've discussed this very topic MANY TIMES Alan?

Provide a source.

>
> I think we maybe have an 8th trait of the Apple Apologists
> o Selective Amnesia

Provide a source.

>
>>> Are you immune to the fact that the charging speeds were higher at the time
>>> that Apple released the iPhone 11, and that Apple secretly reduced those
>>> third-party charging speeds for the iPhone 11 AFTER the product shipped?
>>
>> I'm aware that Apple became aware that some chargers were not following
>> the appropriate spec.
>
> The fact is that the iPhone 11 shipped with 3rd party charging speeds which
> are, today, only a month or so later, vastly decreased - and - those
> companies haven't even been told why since they followed all the standards
> (according to statements they made publicly & which Apple did not refute,
> to my knowledge).

Your very own source on this subject described precisely why.

Do you deny that?

[Arlen Holder]

FACTUAL UPDATE to...
o Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery

& display lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the
iPhones recently?

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/aMg1dK2A_DY/jPeIzPE1CwAJ>

Facts:
o iFixIt: iPhone SE 2020 Teardown
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eap-ZhOsS9M>

o iFixIt: Here Are the Parts You Can Swap Between the New iPhone SE and iPhone 8
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/lFwgJu0Hw2g>

Direct quote from IFixIT:
"And, sadly, this seemingly throwback phone has some very modern Apple
roadblocks inside. You can't even swap one genuine iPhone SE 2020 battery
for another without triggering a 'not a genuine Apple battery' service
warning."

Hence, the factual question remains:
*Does any Android phone OEM pull these hostile battery lockout stunts?*

See also:
o All new iPhones might be forced to have a removable battery (Android too)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4Ja4FP5eL5s/odJEWVmEBQAJ>
--
The main reason for the A13 is most Apple CPUs are fatally compromised.
(e.g., checkm8)