Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device down to trick you into buying a new device

[Harry Newton]

1. Primate Labs researcher John Poole first discovered telltale performance
readings in iPhones and iPads.

2. Acclaimed iOS developer Guilherme Rambo+IA8- who followed up Poole's work
managed to unearth Apple's secret power mode in iOS code.

Poole's breakthrough came after he earlier discovered that simply changing
the battery on his iPhone 6S caused performance to almost double -
something he confirmed with multiple tests - and it behaved like a new
phone. Poole had done this on a hunch as iOS only indicated his iPhone 6S
had a battery wear level of 20%.

Consequently Poole went back and plotted the kernel density of Geekbench 4
scores for the iPhone 6S running different versions of iOS. With iOS 10.2.1
(which Apple released to combat the long running 40% Bug) performance
suddenly showed signs of being throttled. This effect become "even more
pronounced" in the recently released (and controversial) iOS 11.2.

Poole redid these tests with an iPhone 7 and discovered Apple had repeated
the trick. Nothing much happened with iOS 10.2.1 (the iPhone 7 was only
four months old at the time) but significant impact showed up in iOS 11.2,
which came two months after the launch of the iPhone 8. Based on his
research, Poole states his believes "the problem is widespread" as a
classic Apple Marketing trick to get people to buy more iOS devices.

Guilherme Rambo+IA8- followed up and found the power mode Poole theorised was
there. Buried in iOS code is 'Powerd'. In a series of tweets he revealed
Powerd is "responsible for controlling the CPU/GPU speed and power usage".

The problem here is not that Powerd exists, the problem is iPhone and iPad
users are being kept in the dark about it and that their devices are
slowing significantly because of it.

So why would Apple MARKETING do this?
Apple MARKETING hasn't responded.

<https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/>
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2017/12/19/apple-ios-11-battery-life-slow-iphone-performance-ipad-problems/#44c61b3b8e7b>
<https://twitter.com/_inside/status/942847979991523328>

[News]

Designed Obsolescence

[Malcolm]

https://truefinderworld.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/apple-reduces-speed-of-iphones-as-batteries-wear-out-report-suggests/


When a battery gets old it may not be able to supply the current needed
to run the phone at full speed. The new iOS slows the CPU in this case
so the phone can still be used, even though its speed is reduced. This
is the opposite of "Designed Obsolescence" as it is extending the
useful life of old devices.

The user can get the battery replaced to return to normal speed. In
any-case, the user does not need to buy a new phone. This does not
seem to be a very effective plot by Apple marketing to sell more new
phones.

[Ant]

Does iOS even notify user of bad/dying old battery?

--
Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas/Season's Greetings!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

[nospam]

In article <xIadnY6jcLEkcaTH...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:

> Does iOS even notify user of bad/dying old battery?

it's obvious

[Your Name]

On 2017-12-20 04:53:13 +0000, Ant said:

> Does iOS even notify user of bad/dying old battery?

*ALL* batteries are dying ... from the second they come off the
production line.

[nospam]

In article <p1csgl$1o4e$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name

<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

>
> > Does iOS even notify user of bad/dying old battery?
>
> *ALL* batteries are dying ... from the second they come off the
> production line.

clearly missing the point, as usual.

[JF Mezei]

Note: the iPhone 6s has a battery problem.

After one year, it becomes susceptive to cold weather which causes
vopltage to drop below a threahold where the iPhone shuts down without
any warning.

The A9 is dual core, so not the fancier multiple speed cores in newer
models (where low battery might result in ths software shifting
processes on less power hungry slower cores).

[nospam]

In article <P5n_B.3422$_b6....@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> Note: the iPhone 6s has a battery problem.
>
> After one year, it becomes susceptive to cold weather which causes
> vopltage to drop below a threahold where the iPhone shuts down without
> any warning.

maybe yours did, but certainly not all of them.

[*Hemidactylus*]

So batteries are human?

[Harry Newton]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 06:59:15 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> It's just their way of optimizing cash extraction from clueless apple
>> fans.
>
> nonsense

You just guess. You trust your intuition more than you trust facts - which
is why you've been proven wrong most of the time.

You have no better chance at being right than flipping a coin.

You don't need no stinking facts. You are definitely a Myers-Briggs highly
intuitive (and hence wrong most of the time) person.

>> They wouldn't sell their new devices if people could continue
>> using their old devices.
>
> yet apple supports devices for 4-5 years, more than double that of
> android device makers. ios 11 runs on an iphone 5s, released in 2013.

Your definition of "support" is skewed. Apple does give people new versions
of the iOS - but those versions have been *proven* to slow down the system
with each successive iOS version (iPhone 6) and with the latest iOS version
(on the iPhone 7).

Did you even look at the *facts* in the reference?
<https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/>

They showed graphs of nothing changing but the iOS version and the phones'
CPUs slowed down marketly with successive iOS releases.

That's great support! :)


>> So they make sure the battery can't easily be
>> replaced
>
> as do many android device makers.

My Android device is circa 2012 and I've replaced the battery more than
once, and the CPU is still NOT slowed down.

The facts appear to be that each successive iOS release slows down the CPU
(with *nothing* else changing). Look at the facts in the reference.
<https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/>

> the battery is also rated for 5 years at 80%, still very usable.

The battery isn't the problem. The problem is that each successive iOS
release slows down the CPU of the phone - with the battery being exactly
the same.

We're talking CPU speeds here.
These are facts.
Read the reference.
<https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/>

>> and they intentionally slow it down with malware
>
> complete nonsense.

It's clear that if you change nothing but the iOS version, each successive
release slows down the CPU of the phone, due to the algorithm inside the
"powerd" secret code.

That's a fact.

Why does each release slow down the CPU of your phone?
Apple MARKETING won't say why.

>> to perpetuate
>> the myth that somehow hardware gets slower over time as the device
>> ages.
>
> it doesn't.

C'mon nospam.
You know most iOS users are as dumb as Jolly Roger, Lewis, and Snit are.
They're so stupid, they can't even comprehend the discussion we're having.

You aren't dumb.
You *know* that the "powerd" code secretly slows down the CPU with each
successive iOS release.

The question is WHY did Apple slow down iPhone CPUs with each successive
release of iOS.

That's a fact.
The only thing we don't know is why.

Why do you think Apple slows down the CPU with each successive iOS version?

[nospam]

In article <p1edie$6vj$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton

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

> >> They wouldn't sell their new devices if people could continue
> >> using their old devices.
> >
> > yet apple supports devices for 4-5 years, more than double that of
> > android device makers. ios 11 runs on an iphone 5s, released in 2013.
>
> Your definition of "support" is skewed. Apple does give people new versions
> of the iOS - but those versions have been *proven* to slow down the system
> with each successive iOS version (iPhone 6) and with the latest iOS version
> (on the iPhone 7).

no they haven't.

<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/no-apple-doesnt-slow-down-old-ipho
nes-to-force-you-to-buy-a-new-one/>
To get to the bottom of it, Futuremark looked at more than 100,000
benchmarking test results of "seven different iPhone models across
three different versions of iOS," the release said. What they found
was that there was no data indicating Apple slowed down older iPhones.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-20 14:27, Harry Newton wrote:

> Your definition of "support" is skewed. Apple does give people new versions
> of the iOS - but those versions have been *proven* to slow down the system
> with each successive iOS version (iPhone 6) and with the latest iOS version
> (on the iPhone 7).

IOS 10.3 introduced faster, leaner file system which improved
performance. And while there have been in the past new IOS releases that
slowed phoens considerably, Apple has been pretty good in the last
couple of major releleases in keeping performance.

>
> Did you even look at the *facts* in the reference?
>https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age </>

Does geekbench turn off multitasking for all other apps? Does it compare
how many apps are allowed background processing when comparing how much
CPU its own app (the benchmark app) gets in terms of CPU?

Note: upgrade to IOS 11 sneakily enabled multi tasking backgroudn
processing for many apps which had to be manually turned off in a not
very obvious place. So by default, apps like mail run continuosiuly in
background and would be taking up CPU.

If the geekpench guys did not factior this into their study, then their
results are not worth much.

> They showed graphs of nothing changing but the iOS version and the phones'
> CPUs slowed down marketly with successive iOS releases.

While more recent Ax chips have low and high power cores, which makes it
possible for the OS to shift processes to slower cores when battery is
low, it isn't clear to me that the A9 has that ability to operate in a
"low power mode".

Also, the no-warning shutdown usually happens when you turn on the
camera (increases power draw beyond what CPU/screen already use, which
causes battery voltate to drop and phone to shut off).


So, unless someone provides evidences that the A9 chip can be put into
some lower power, slower CPU mode, these accusations are baseless.

Does the 6s have bettery problems? yes. But the mere fact that they
continue even with replaced batteries (which are now 1 year old) means
that Apple hasn't slowed down the CPU to solve the problem.

I think the whole accusation that Apple is slowing down phones to force
people to upgrade is silly. Cosnider that Apple still sells the 6s.

> The facts appear to be that each successive iOS release slows down the CPU
> (with *nothing* else changing). Look at the facts in the reference.
> <https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/>

"slows down the cpu". That is a big accusation that is baseless. Unless
you go in and measure the clock rate to show that Apple lowers the clock
rtate, you are making a baseless accusation.

Also, when you turn off the Jony Ive stuff, like the 3D shadows of app
icon against background iamges on the home screen as you move phone
around, you will find that the phone's performance hasn't changed with
IOS releases since 2015. (with improvement at 10.3 due to new file system).

> The battery isn't the problem. The problem is that each successive iOS
> release slows down the CPU of the phone - with the battery being exactly
> the same.

Please let me know how the OS changes the clock speed for the CPU.

[Wade Garrett]

Same with people;-)

--
There are two distinct classes of men in the nation: those who pay
taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes
- Thomas Paine, 1792 (via @jeff_jacoby)

[Wade Garrett]

Easily countered by lining your hat with a double layer of aluminum foil.

Alternate fix is to dissolve two tablespoons of salt in a two-quart
saucepan of boiling water, remove from stove, drop your phone in and let
it sit until the water cools to room temp. Remove phone, rinse
thoroughly under running cold water, pat dry, and you're good to go again.

--
If "iPhone" is the first word in the sentence, do you capitalize the i?

[Chris in Makati]

That may be a valid explanation, but if true surely it would make
sense for iOS to give the user an indication that it had deliberately
slowed the CPU and recommended the user to have the battery replaced.

If not, then Apple can hardly be surprised that people make
allegations like this.

[Harry Newton]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:05:08 -0500, Wade Garrett wrote:

>> *ALL* batteries are dying ... from the second they come off the
>> production line.
>>
> Same with people;-)

But does each successive release of new people secretly slow down our CPUs?

:)

[Harry Newton]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:45:09 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

> And while there have been in the past new IOS releases that
> slowed phoens considerably, Apple has been pretty good in the last
> couple of major releleases in keeping performance.

More data to back up the claims Apple secretly slows down the CPU with each
successive iOS update.
<https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/18/iphone-battery-performance-issues/>

Apple finally responded to the evidence with a carefully crafted
wonderfully worded statement that would make nospam, the trial lawyer,
proud.
<https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/20/apple-slowing-down-older-iphones-poll/>

See this article where Apple admits it secretly slows down iOS device CPUs:
<https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/20/apple-statement-iphone-performance-battery-age-issues/>

Verbatim quote:
"Panzarino notes that Poole's tests and charts seem accurate and
that Apple hasn+IBk-t denied any of the results."

Verbatim quote:
"Poole ... shared the concern that Apple has created a third state of
iPhone performance *without any notifications for users*, noting that
the feature was most recently applied to the iPhone 7 with iOS 11.2."

A key question will be how to get your CPU speeds back if you made the
mistake of updating your iOS device to a newer iOS release.

[Malcolm]

Replace the battery.

[Harry Newton]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:35:26 -0500, nospam wrote:

> To get to the bottom of it, Futuremark looked at more than 100,000
> benchmarking test results of "seven different iPhone models across
> three different versions of iOS," the release said. What they found
> was that there was no data indicating Apple slowed down older iPhones.

You have no better chance at being right than flipping a coin.

Apple *admitted* they secretly slowed down iOS devices with each successive
iOS release.
<https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/20/apple-slowing-down-older-iphones-poll/>

There is no known way (yet) to recover from the loss of CPU speeds with
each successive release of iOS without actually changing out the battery.

Here's a direct quote for those who want to check their retarded CPU speed.
"you can use an app like CpuDasherX to see your device's clock speed.
Users report that the clock speed shown here is less than what it
should be, adding merit to suggestions that Apple [secretly]
throttles devices [with each successive iOS update]."
<https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/10/iphone-6s-slow-down-battery-fix/>

Here's where you can get CPU DasherX to find out how much your CPU is
secretly throttled with each successive iOS release:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cpu-dasherx/id1168527539?mt=8>

[Harry Newton]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 22:53:13 -0600, Ant wrote:

> Does iOS even notify user of bad/dying old battery?

Apple kept the CPU slowing down *secret* until Poole found out about it.

Everything below is a *direct quote* from:
<https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/20/apple-slowing-down-older-iphones-poll/>

Todd Haselton at CNBC says Apple should replace iPhone batteries at no
charge as to guarantee users a "certain level of performance for the
lifetime of a product."

If Apple is going to drop the performance of a smartphone because of poor
battery life, it should replace an iPhone's battery at no charge. Sure it's
an expensive undertaking for Apple, but a user should be guaranteed a
certain level of performance for the lifetime of a product, until Apple
stops supporting it with new software.

One of the biggest issues to me is how *sneakily* Apple implemented this
so-called "feature." For years users have accused the company of slowing
down older iPhones, but until recently, those claims were without merit.

*Apple retroactively announcing* the battery/performance balancing tactic
certainly doesn't look good in terms of a PR standpoint, either. While it
may be true that Apple really is trying to prolong the life of older
devices with this "feature", it's going to be hard dispel the initial
thought that it's the company pushing people to upgrade every year..."

[Harry Newton]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 01:26:09 -0500, Malcolm wrote:

>> A key question will be how to get your CPU speeds back if you made the
>> mistake of updating your iOS device to a newer iOS release.
>
> Replace the battery.

I agree that's the only *known* way to get your retarded CPU clock speeds
back if you made the common mistake of updating your iOS version.

But perhaps there will be a way to get your CPU speeds back with software?

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-21 01:29, Harry Newton wrote:

> There is no known way (yet) to recover from the loss of CPU speeds with
> each successive release of iOS without actually changing out the battery.

In the case of the 6s, the battery lasts 1 year before problems of cold
shutdowns start. I am about to do the second change, but this time,
Apple would not pay for it, so I am going via iFixit which is cheaper
and less troublesome than the required 3 visits to the Apple store to
get it replaced.


Note that in my experience, I don't notice any slowdown because in the
cold, I just listen to music (or phone idle) and it shuts down without
warning when I turn the camera on. (and then won't start until phone
warmed up).

[JF Mezei]

Note: my iPhone 5s never had problems in cold, and didn't have problems
last week while it was used as backup phone.

(my 6s got sold water in earpiece and it killed the screen which had to
be replaced).

[Harry Newton]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:27:28 +0800, Chris in Makati wrote:

> That may be a valid explanation, but if true surely it would make
> sense for iOS to give the user an indication that it had deliberately
> slowed the CPU and recommended the user to have the battery replaced.
>
> If not, then Apple can hardly be surprised that people make
> allegations like this.

Apparently "CPU DasherX" will tell you how much Apple has secretly
permanently retarded your CPU with each successive iOS update on your
device:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cpu-dasherx/id1168527539?mt=8>

If anyone here made the mistake of updating their iOS version, they may be
able to recover with a software fix to return the CPU speed to the speed it
was when they bought the iOS device.

This is an old article, but it mentions people *try* to change CPU speed:
<http://www.ijailbreak.com/how-to/overclocking-your-iphone-cpu-truth-or-myth/>

The first sentence of the article is (verbatim):
"One of the things iPhone and non-iPhone users dislike about Apple,
is how they limit their hardware."

It mentions an app named "SysInfoPlus" which seems to report CPU speeds:
<http://www.iphone.mysticwall.com/SysInfoPlus/ja/index.html>

Here's a screenshot of "SysInfoPlus" in action reporting iOS CPU speeds:
<http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n196/PAKIS-RULEZ/iphonemaiNjailbreaksysinfo.png>

[Harry Newton]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:13:50 -0500, Wade Garrett wrote:

> Easily countered by lining your hat with a double layer of aluminum foil.

Verbatim quotes.
==========================================
"Apple has acknowledged what many iPhone owners long suspected:
It has slowed older phones."
<http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/21/technology/apple-slows-down-old-iphones/index.html>

"The tech giant issued a rare statement of explanation on Thursday, saying
that it has used software updates to limit the performance of older iPhones
and prevent them from shutting down unexpectedly."

"The inevitable outcome of it will be an inherent slowdown of the average
response times by the system."
==========================================

[Harry Newton]

This app supposedly gives good information on battery status:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battery-life-check-runtimes/id1080930585?mt=8>

This article says that there is a replacement program for the 6s where you
can look up your serial number to see if Apple knows about your problem.
<https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/20/how-to-replace-iphone-battery-speed-up-performance/>

"Apple can even do this on the phone by calling 800.APL.CARE in addition to
visiting an Apple Store or AASP"

"There's also a replacement program for a limited number of iPhone 6s
devices, but it doesn't hurt to check your serial number if you haven't
already."

iPhone 6s Program for the Very Common Unexpected Shutdown Bug Issues
<https://www.apple.com/support/iphone6s-unexpectedshutdown/>

Apple charges $79 for a new battery.
You can DIY an iPhone 6s battery for $30:
<https://www.ifixit.com/Store/iPhone/iPhone-6s-Replacement-Battery/IF314-011-5>

[Harry Newton]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:29:56 -0500, Malcolm wrote:

> The new iOS slows the CPU in this case
> so the phone can still be used, even though its speed is reduced. This
> is the opposite of "Designed Obsolescence" as it is extending the
> useful life of old devices.

This is a perfect sentiment of the wacky brains of the Apple Apologists!

You have to be kidding when you intimate that secretly and permanently
slowing down your CPU benefits the user.

Your premise might be believable if:
1. Apple didn't *secretly* slow it down (& with each successive iOS)
2. If the slowdown wasn't *permanent* (for that phone configuration)
3. Apple didn't take *days* to come up with a good-sounding rationale

The main question now is how to get your CPU performance back.
All Apple has to do is provide the switch.

Does Apple care enough about their customers to give them their original
functionality back?

Heh heh ... what do you think.

[nospam]

In article <p1fkcq$1mmo$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton

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

>
> > To get to the bottom of it, Futuremark looked at more than 100,000
> > benchmarking test results of "seven different iPhone models across
> > three different versions of iOS," the release said. What they found
> > was that there was no data indicating Apple slowed down older iPhones.
> >

> Apple *admitted* they secretly slowed down iOS devices with each successive
> iOS release.

no they didn't, because they don't.

as usual, you misread.

[Harry Newton]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:02:26 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Apple *admitted* they secretly slowed down iOS devices with each successive
>> iOS release.
>
> no they didn't, because they don't.
>
> as usual, you misread.

The facts are all I care about here.
1. Apple kept it a secret.
2. It slows down the CPU.
3. It does that after you download a new iOS (depending on the phone).
4. Apple *admitted* all this.

In essence, Apple's "explanation" is that they secretly (and permanently,
for your configuration) slow down your CPU when you download a newer iOS
release to in order to "protect" you from your battery.

Heh heh ... You, nospam, of course, *believe* their rationale.
But their rationale isn't the point.

The points are the facts.
1. Apple kept it a secret
2. Is slows down your CPU
3. When you download a newer iOS

The only known solution (given any one configuration) is NOT to install the
errant iOS that secretly and permanently slows down your CPU.

[nospam]

In article <p1gvno$1vpn$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton

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

>
>
> The facts are all I care about here.

too bad you don't have any.

> 1. Apple kept it a secret.

they keep a lot of things secret. so do other companies.

> 2. It slows down the CPU.

only sometimes, and to *prolong* the useful life of the phone.

the alternative is premature battery failure, which with lithium ion
batteries, can be fire and flames, as we saw with the galaxy note 7.

> 3. It does that after you download a new iOS (depending on the phone).

nope.

what it does is when the power management determines that the battery
cannot supply as much current as the phone needs at that moment in
time, it's throttled back so as to not cause sudden shutdowns or other
battery failures. at all other times, it runs full bore.

in other words, those who check email or text message won't notice a
difference, while those who play gpu-intensive games might.

your computer does something similar when the cpu or other components
gets too hot. if it didn't, you'd need to replace your computer a lot
more often.

> 4. Apple *admitted* all this.

nope.

[Harry Newton]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:32:42 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> 1. Apple kept it a secret.
>

> they keep a lot of things secret. so do other companies. ]

FACT 1: They kept a big deal secret.

HINT:
Slowing down the CPU you *paid* for is a pretty big thing to keep secret!

>> 2. It slows down the CPU.
>
> only sometimes, and to *prolong* the useful life of the phone.

FACT 2:
Without telling you, they slowed down your CPU.

HINT:
That's a big deal.

> the alternative is premature battery failure, which with lithium ion
> batteries, can be fire and flames, as we saw with the galaxy note 7.

FUD.

>> 3. It does that after you download a new iOS (depending on the phone).
>
> nope.

You are even less accurate than flipping a coin would be.
You don't even know that it only happens with the later iOS versions.

Same phone = older iOS - no CPU slowdown no matter the battery condition.
You don't even realize this - that's how utterly clueless you are.

> what it does is when the power management determines that the battery
> cannot supply as much current as the phone needs at that moment in
> time, it's throttled back so as to not cause sudden shutdowns or other
> battery failures. at all other times, it runs full bore.

FACT:
Apple *admitted* they secretly throttled users CPU speeds.

> in other words, those who check email or text message won't notice a
> difference, while those who play gpu-intensive games might.

FACT:
Apple admitted they secretly throttled users CPU speeds only *after* they
got caught.

> your computer does something similar when the cpu or other components
> gets too hot. if it didn't, you'd need to replace your computer a lot
> more often.

C'mon nospam. Only the iOS gullibles are dumb enough to fall for your
"trial lawyer" line of reasoning.

Equating a completely temporary slowdown to a *permanent* slowdown (for
that phone configuration) is the height of Apple Apologists' behavior.

HINT: It's secret; it's permanent (for that phone configuration).

>> 4. Apple *admitted* all this.
>
> nope.

Again, you are even less accurate than flipping a coin would be.

All the facts above were admitted by Apple - but only after they got caught
secretly and permanently (for that configuration) slowing down users' CPUs.

[nospam]

In article <p1h2t1$548$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harry Newton
<harryn...@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

> FUD.

that's what you do.

> Equating a completely temporary slowdown to a *permanent* slowdown (for
> that phone configuration) is the height of Apple Apologists' behavior.

it's not permanent.

it's dynamic, depending on momentary load and battery health.

for casual use (e.g., texting), there is no slowdown, and texting is
not cpu-intensive anyway, so even if there was throttling, nobody would
notice. the cpu is waiting on the user to tap in a message.

[Harry Newton]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:50:48 -0500, nospam wrote:

> that's what you do.

I'm sorry that the truth is what you fear.

>> Equating a completely temporary slowdown to a *permanent* slowdown (for
>> that phone configuration) is the height of Apple Apologists' behavior.
>
> it's not permanent.

I already asked here and people said the *only* way to get your CPU back is
to put in a new battery.

> it's dynamic, depending on momentary load and battery health.

It's amazing how much of iOS you have no comprehension about if you say
stupid things like that since we already know that unless you change the
configuration (e.g., replace the battery), it's permanent.

> for casual use (e.g., texting), there is no slowdown, and texting is
> not cpu-intensive anyway, so even if there was throttling, nobody would
> notice. the cpu is waiting on the user to tap in a message.

This is just an Apple apologists' apology for Apple having been caught
secretly throttling the CPU that users *paid* for.

FACT:
Apple secretly permanently throttled your CPU - and they just got caught.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-21 09:59, Harry Newton wrote:

> This article says that there is a replacement program for the 6s where you
> can look up your serial number to see if Apple knows about your problem.
> <https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/20/how-to-replace-iphone-battery-speed-up-performance/>

Replacement programme applies once. For me, a year after Apple replaced
battery, the problem started again. When I called Apple, I was told I
would have to pay. So I instead ordered battery from iFixit. (2 separate
orders, one for battery in Canada, and one for the adhesive strips not
available from their canadian store, so had to order from US store).

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-21 14:32, nospam wrote:

> the alternative is premature battery failure, which with lithium ion
> batteries, can be fire and flames, as we saw with the galaxy note 7.

Horseradish. This problem never happened on the 4, 4s, 5, 5s.

Using power from a battery at 40% charge does not hurt the battery nor
damage electronics. The fact that voltage drops momemtarily as you turn
on camera/take picture or incrtease CPU load may result in voltage drop,
but not in depleted battery which still has 40% charge.

The "system" (hardware/firmware) is too agressive in shutting down phone
without warning when the system also knows the battery is far from being
depleted.

Remember that the shutdown happens without warning, so none of the
normal logic detects low battery condition and offers to go into low
power mode. It just shuts.

> what it does is when the power management determines that the battery
> cannot supply as much current as the phone needs at that moment in
> time, it's throttled back

Nospam, the 2 little paragraphs quoted by media from a memo allegedly
from Apple don't provide enough information to make any conclusions on
exactlty what Apple does and what triggers that action.

In my case, I never notice the phone being slower (albeit don't use CPU
intensive apps/games), and it shuts down always when I turn on camera
and/or take picture.

> in other words, those who check email or text message won't notice a
> difference, while those who play gpu-intensive games might.

It could be argued that the types of uses that generate heat from CPU
might in fact keep batterry warm enough to avoid the problem.

> your computer does something similar when the cpu or other components
> gets too hot. if it didn't, you'd need to replace your computer a lot
> more often.

When unit gets too hot, you get a warning on the screen. The phone does
not shut down, and you can still "force" us it when needed. But a
no-warning shitdown won't allow phone to reboot until it has warmed up
again or plugged into mains to give it juice.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-21 14:43, Harry Newton wrote:

> HINT:
> Slowing down the CPU you *paid* for is a pretty big thing to keep secret!

Every modern OS with power management to lenghten battery life will do
power management on the CPUs. In that sense, this is no different.

> FACT 2:
> Without telling you, they slowed down your CPU.

After the 6s recall was announced, Apple said that the next IOS release
would contain changes to paliate this and report those occurances back
to Apple. It didn't specify how it would paliate, and now we know it is
by limiting CPU use. How this is done isn't clear yet. Can they reduce
the clock speed? or do they just introduce "idle" commands every X
milliseconds to cause CPU to pause and reduce overall consuption ?

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-21 15:09, Harry Newton wrote:

> I already asked here and people said the *only* way to get your CPU back is
> to put in a new battery.

As nobody outside Apple knows what the exact conditions are to trigger
this power-use-limitation logic, then it is wrong to say changing
battery is only way to do this.

It is possible that full speed is allowed when battery is above say 50%
charge.

> It's amazing how much of iOS you have no comprehension about if you say
> stupid things like that since we already know that unless you change the
> configuration (e.g., replace the battery), it's permanent.

Nobody outside Apple knows what triggers this limit in CPU peak use and
whethyer it is always in pl;ace or just limits peaks use or what.

[nospam]

In article <c0Z_B.34155$Wq7....@fx44.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> > the alternative is premature battery failure, which with lithium ion
> > batteries, can be fire and flames, as we saw with the galaxy note 7.
>
> Horseradish.

never cared for it, but thanks for offering.

> This problem never happened on the 4, 4s, 5, 5s.

so what? they had different processors, a different case and thermal
design and ran older versions of ios.

> Using power from a battery at 40% charge does not hurt the battery nor
> damage electronics. The fact that voltage drops momemtarily as you turn
> on camera/take picture or incrtease CPU load may result in voltage drop,
> but not in depleted battery which still has 40% charge.

too much of a voltage drop and the phone can shut off unexpectedly.

users don't like when that happens.

> > what it does is when the power management determines that the battery
> > cannot supply as much current as the phone needs at that moment in
> > time, it's throttled back
>
> Nospam, the 2 little paragraphs quoted by media from a memo allegedly
> from Apple don't provide enough information to make any conclusions on
> exactlty what Apple does and what triggers that action.

it did for anyone who understands english and isn't a troll.

put simply, the power management circuitry actively and continually
monitors the state of the battery so that it's not pushed beyond its
limits.

the alternative is worse. here's one example, where cranking a cpu to
its limits does not end well:
<http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/12/20/cryptocurrency-mining-malware-l
oapi-capable-physically-damaging-phones/>
...The cryptocurrency mining module maintains a load sufficiently
high enough to cause physical damage to a test device after two
days逆he above photo shows a device which overheated to the point
the battery bulged.

[nospam]

In article <o3Z_B.1872$Sk2...@fx05.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> Every modern OS with power management to lenghten battery life will do
> power management on the CPUs. In that sense, this is no different.

yep.

[nospam]

In article <F7Z_B.56325$Cr5....@fx36.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> It is possible that full speed is allowed when battery is above say 50%
> charge.

while they didn't give specifics, it's clear that they're dynamically
adjusting it on a continual basis.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-12-20 20:45, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2017-12-20 14:27, Harry Newton wrote:

...

>> The facts appear to be that each successive iOS release slows down the CPU
>> (with *nothing* else changing). Look at the facts in the reference.
>> <https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/>
>
> "slows down the cpu". That is a big accusation that is baseless. Unless
> you go in and measure the clock rate to show that Apple lowers the clock
> rtate, you are making a baseless accusation.
>
> Also, when you turn off the Jony Ive stuff, like the 3D shadows of app
> icon against background iamges on the home screen as you move phone
> around, you will find that the phone's performance hasn't changed with
> IOS releases since 2015. (with improvement at 10.3 due to new file system).
>
>> The battery isn't the problem. The problem is that each successive iOS
>> release slows down the CPU of the phone - with the battery being exactly
>> the same.
>
> Please let me know how the OS changes the clock speed for the CPU.

It is not impossible for an operating system to slow down the clock, for
some reason: reduce heat, conserve power... whatever. I'm not saying it
does, only that it is possible, specially with a CPU designed for
battery use. Surely they include power saving strategies, and slowing
the clock is one such.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

Sorry guys, but nospam is right this time.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <gp6uge-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:


> >
> > Please let me know how the OS changes the clock speed for the CPU.
>
> It is not impossible for an operating system to slow down the clock, for
> some reason: reduce heat, conserve power... whatever. I'm not saying it
> does, only that it is possible, specially with a CPU designed for
> battery use. Surely they include power saving strategies, and slowing
> the clock is one such.

they absolutely do, as does just about all modern devices.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:40:50 -0500:

>> It is not impossible for an operating system to slow down the clock, for
>> some reason: reduce heat, conserve power... whatever. I'm not saying it
>> does, only that it is possible, specially with a CPU designed for
>> battery use. Surely they include power saving strategies, and slowing
>> the clock is one such.
>
> they absolutely do, as does just about all modern devices.

All high-end phones have essentially similar hardware.

Why is it that the Android manufacturers don't (apparently) feel the need
to secretly and drastically retard the CPU speed?

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 03:21:04 +0100:

> It is not impossible for an operating system to slow down the clock, for
> some reason: reduce heat, conserve power... whatever. I'm not saying it
> does, only that it is possible, specially with a CPU designed for
> battery use. Surely they include power saving strategies, and slowing
> the clock is one such.

All the screenshots from users that I saw in the previously quoted
references show a retarded clock speed that is utterly fantastically huge!

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 20:27:39 -0500:

>> Every modern OS with power management to lenghten battery life will do
>> power management on the CPUs. In that sense, this is no different.
>
> yep.

This need for the manufacturer to secretly retard the CPU never happened on

the 4, 4s, 5, 5s.

Nor, as far as we know, on any Android device.

Only on the iPhone 6s and 7s.

Fancy that.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 20:27:40 -0500:

>> It is possible that full speed is allowed when battery is above say 50%
>> charge.
>
> while they didn't give specifics, it's clear that they're dynamically
> adjusting it on a continual basis.

While we all don't have the full specifics, it seems from *all* the news
reports to be *permanent* (until or unless you swap out the battery).

All the reports say this - so for you to claim otherwise is just you making
stuff up again.

Find a report that says otherwise.

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 20:18:11 -0500:

> After the 6s recall was announced, Apple said that the next IOS release
> would contain changes to paliate this and report those occurances back
> to Apple. It didn't specify how it would paliate, and now we know it is
> by limiting CPU use. How this is done isn't clear yet. Can they reduce
> the clock speed? or do they just introduce "idle" commands every X
> milliseconds to cause CPU to pause and reduce overall consuption ?

All the screen shots I've seen show a CPU speed reduction that is huge.
(see previous references)

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 20:22:44 -0500:

> As nobody outside Apple knows what the exact conditions are to trigger
> this power-use-limitation logic, then it is wrong to say changing
> battery is only way to do this.

I would agree - but you'll note that I asked, and so far, nobody has shown
any evidence that the CPU change is not permanent for the current phone
configuration.

> It is possible that full speed is allowed when battery is above say 50%
> charge.

Maybe so.
But ... I read all the articles, as did most of you.
None say that.

>> It's amazing how much of iOS you have no comprehension about if you say
>> stupid things like that since we already know that unless you change the
>> configuration (e.g., replace the battery), it's permanent.
>
> Nobody outside Apple knows what triggers this limit in CPU peak use and
> whethyer it is always in pl;ace or just limits peaks use or what.

No article I have read yet says anything other than the only remedy to the
CPU slowdown secretly enforced by Apple on older devices is to replace the
battery.

It may be there are other remedies.
I hope there are other remedies.

But none have been documented and brought up in this thread.

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 20:04:42 -0500:

> Replacement programme applies once. For me, a year after Apple replaced
> battery, the problem started again. When I called Apple, I was told I
> would have to pay. So I instead ordered battery from iFixit. (2 separate
> orders, one for battery in Canada, and one for the adhesive strips not
> available from their canadian store, so had to order from US store).

Bummer. Sorry about that.

Reminds me why any phone sans a user-replaceable battery is worthless
(to me).

My S3, as people know, has had many batteries over the years, and it's
still going strong. I have about four batteries on various external
chargers so I can swap them out and go for about 4 days without having to
recharge.

Can't do that on *any* Apple iOS device.
The functionality is "not supported".

And yet, Apple is the most successful consumer mobile platform out there.
Go figure.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-21 23:52, harry newton wrote:

> All the screenshots from users that I saw in the previously quoted
> references show a retarded clock speed that is utterly fantastically huge!

This is a reverse Volkwagen problem. Volkswagen made performance look
better when it detected it was being tested. Apple makes performance
look far worse when it detects an application that wants to use full CPU.

This does not mean that you would notice a slowdown in every day use.

And the unknown variable is whether Apple throttles top CPU speed all
the time, or only when battery drops below a certain percentage. If your
CPU is available at full speed when battery is between 100 and say 50%,
but at max reduced speed below 50%, then you can't claim that apple
cripples the CPU all the time.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-21 23:52, harry newton wrote:

> This need for the manufacturer to secretly retard the CPU never happened on
> the 4, 4s, 5, 5s.

I was thinking about that.

The 5s is a smaller phone with smaller battery, smaller screen, and CPU
which likely consumes less power. The 6s has similar autonomy, but has
greater power consumption supported by bigger battery.


However, both have similar battery chemistry. At low temperatures, both
likely provide the same amps. But in the case of 5s, those amps are
enough for normal function, whereas not for the 6s which need more amps.

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 03:29:51 +0100:

> Sorry guys, but nospam is right this time.

Tell us *what* exactly nospam was "right" about since he was wrong on
almost everything so far.

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:06:39 -0500:

And there's this little nagging fact that as far as anyone knows, no
Android manufacturer felt the need to secretly and drastically and
permanently retard the CPU (for any given battery) like Apple did.

Doesn't this fishiness ring any alarm bells in the Apple Apologists' ears?

[nospam]

In article <p1i319$1i2j$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

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

> >> It is not impossible for an operating system to slow down the clock, for
> >> some reason: reduce heat, conserve power... whatever. I'm not saying it
> >> does, only that it is possible, specially with a CPU designed for
> >> battery use. Surely they include power saving strategies, and slowing
> >> the clock is one such.
> >
> > they absolutely do, as does just about all modern devices.
>
> All high-end phones have essentially similar hardware.

absolutely false.

> Why is it that the Android manufacturers don't (apparently) feel the need
> to secretly and drastically retard the CPU speed?

they do.

<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/in-depth-with-the-snapdragon-81
0s-heat-problems/>
This is a hot chip that throttles early and often, and it makes a
difference.
...
But the two 810-equipped phones weｹve used稀TCｹs One M9 and LGｹs G
Flex 2吃ave definitely run hot, and performance slows down quickly as
you use the phone.

Throttling processor speed in smartphones, tablets, and laptops to
avoid overheating is completely normal, but the 810 runs especially
warm. More interestingly, Samsungｹs Exynos 7420蟻 chip which uses the
same combination of Cortex A53 and A57 CPU cores at roughly the same
maximum clock speed喫s much faster than the 810, and it holds up
better during extended use.

<https://www.mobiledroid.co.uk/blog/thermal-throttling-which-socs-are-wo
rst/>
- Qualcomm dropped the ball with the 810, the criticism was justified
and the figures show the Snapdragon 810 throttles performance
significantly and for CPU throttling it is noticeably worse than the
competition. For GPU it is only similarly bad.

- Apple has done an amazing job of ensuring its cores provide high
performance consistently, with very little degradation of CPU or GPU
performance, this is an area the other manufacturers need to work on.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-21 23:52, harry newton wrote:

> I would agree - but you'll note that I asked, and so far, nobody has shown
> any evidence that the CPU change is not permanent for the current phone
> configuration.

All I have seen is that some geek ran an app that measures the CPU
cycles the app is granted by the OS. (a real measure of CPU speed
requires kernel mode and elevate process priority to "real time" so that
it isn't pre-empted by other processes).

> But ... I read all the articles, as did most of you.
> None say that.

But none explicitely stated that they tested a phone at different
battery levels. When you have a single tester, you treat it as single
source and his/her test may be biased.

Apple may have confirmed it does some power management, but did not
provide details of how/when this kicks in.

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:11:16 -0500:

> Apple may have confirmed it does some power management, but did not
> provide details of how/when this kicks in.

Fair enough so let's wait for salient facts to increase.

At the moment, the salient facts appear to be:
a. Apple got caught secretly slowing down the CPU (apparently drastically)
b. Apple belatedly contrived an "explanation" (which belies logic)
c. The Apple explanation doesn't fit mobile device hardware in general (it
just applies to two of so many platforms that it's not funny)

Those are salient facts.

The elephant in the room is why do only the 6s and 7s devices require the
manufacturer to secretly slow down the CPU (apparently drastically) while
no Android manufacturer nor the other iPhones require a secret CPU
slowdown?

[Jolly Roger]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <p1i319$1i2j$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
> <ha...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> It is not impossible for an operating system to slow down the clock, for
>>>> some reason: reduce heat, conserve power... whatever. I'm not saying it
>>>> does, only that it is possible, specially with a CPU designed for
>>>> battery use. Surely they include power saving strategies, and slowing
>>>> the clock is one such.
>>>
>>> they absolutely do, as does just about all modern devices.
>>
>> All high-end phones have essentially similar hardware.
>
> absolutely false.
>
>> Why is it that the Android manufacturers don't (apparently) feel the need
>> to secretly and drastically retard the CPU speed?
>
> they do.
>
> <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/in-depth-with-the-snapdragon-81
> 0s-heat-problems/>
> This is a hot chip that throttles early and often, and it makes a
> difference.
> ...

> But the two 810-equipped phones we¹ve used‹HTC¹s One M9 and LG¹s G
> Flex 2‹have definitely run hot, and performance slows down quickly as

> you use the phone.
>
> Throttling processor speed in smartphones, tablets, and laptops to
> avoid overheating is completely normal, but the 810 runs especially

> warm. More interestingly, Samsung¹s Exynos 7420‹a chip which uses the

> same combination of Cortex A53 and A57 CPU cores at roughly the same

> maximum clock speed‹is much faster than the 810, and it holds up

> better during extended use.
>
> <https://www.mobiledroid.co.uk/blog/thermal-throttling-which-socs-are-wo
> rst/>
> - Qualcomm dropped the ball with the 810, the criticism was justified
> and the figures show the Snapdragon 810 throttles performance
> significantly and for CPU throttling it is noticeably worse than the
> competition. For GPU it is only similarly bad.
>
> - Apple has done an amazing job of ensuring its cores provide high
> performance consistently, with very little degradation of CPU or GPU
> performance, this is an area the other manufacturers need to work on.

Oops. #trollfail

--
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

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:10:31 -0500:

>> All high-end phones have essentially similar hardware.
>
> absolutely false.

I realize you say this because you lack any formal education so I will only
repeat that Apple doesn't have any secret sauce when it comes to hardware.

In fact, as you very well know, Apple devices are historically in the
bottom of the top ten of current devices out there for the consumer market.

We know this. You know this. You just lack the formal educucation to
process this.

Add the fact that Apple *cripples* some of its hardware (e.g., the Wi-Fi
chip where we showed an Android device half the cost had twice the Wi-Fi
speeds).

New Android phone crushes iPhone X in speed test
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ifFawUQDFhc/YYrfa5JkBAAJ>

>
>> Why is it that the Android manufacturers don't (apparently) feel the need
>> to secretly and drastically retard the CPU speed?
>
> they do.
>
> <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/in-depth-with-the-snapdragon-81
> 0s-heat-problems/>
> This is a hot chip that throttles early and often, and it makes a
> difference.

Again, I realize now that your lack of any formal education is really your
problem in comprehending facts.

I repeat the question clarifying the emphasis on "permanent"....

Why is it that the Android manufacturers don't (apparently) feel the need

to secretly and permanently retard the CPU speed based on battery tests?

And why is it only *some* of the iOS devices which need to be secretly and
permanently throttled?

[nospam]

In article <fa3jkg...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

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

> >>>> It is not impossible for an operating system to slow down the clock, for
> >>>> some reason: reduce heat, conserve power... whatever. I'm not saying it
> >>>> does, only that it is possible, specially with a CPU designed for
> >>>> battery use. Surely they include power saving strategies, and slowing
> >>>> the clock is one such.
> >>>
> >>> they absolutely do, as does just about all modern devices.
> >>
> >> All high-end phones have essentially similar hardware.
> >
> > absolutely false.
> >
> >> Why is it that the Android manufacturers don't (apparently) feel the need
> >> to secretly and drastically retard the CPU speed?
> >
> > they do.
> >
> > <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/in-depth-with-the-snapdragon-81
> > 0s-heat-problems/>
> > This is a hot chip that throttles early and often, and it makes a
> > difference.
> > ...

> > But the two 810-equipped phones we1ve used?HTC1s One M9 and LG1s G
> > Flex 2?have definitely run hot, and performance slows down quickly as

> > you use the phone.
> >
> > Throttling processor speed in smartphones, tablets, and laptops to
> > avoid overheating is completely normal, but the 810 runs especially

> > warm. More interestingly, Samsung1s Exynos 7420?a chip which uses the

> > same combination of Cortex A53 and A57 CPU cores at roughly the same

> > maximum clock speed?is much faster than the 810, and it holds up

> > better during extended use.
> >
> > <https://www.mobiledroid.co.uk/blog/thermal-throttling-which-socs-are-wo
> > rst/>
> > - Qualcomm dropped the ball with the 810, the criticism was justified
> > and the figures show the Snapdragon 810 throttles performance
> > significantly and for CPU throttling it is noticeably worse than the
> > competition. For GPU it is only similarly bad.
> >
> > - Apple has done an amazing job of ensuring its cores provide high
> > performance consistently, with very little degradation of CPU or GPU
> > performance, this is an area the other manufacturers need to work on.
>
> Oops. #trollfail

oops * 2.

as we all know, he has said he has a samsung galaxy s3.

here's what one user has found about the s3:
<https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11883404/how-to-control-cpu-throttl
ing-on-android>
I have heavy duty real time image processing app on android and just
got the Samsung Galaxy S3 (9300).

What I observe is that the device is doing heavy throttling on the
cpu speed.

...

you can see the cpu speed going to from 1.4GHz to 800Mhz.

that's a 57% drop, only slightly more than *half* it's original speed.

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:59:07 -0500:

> This is a reverse Volkwagen problem. Volkswagen made performance look
> better when it detected it was being tested. Apple makes performance
> look far worse when it detects an application that wants to use full CPU.

Well, the Merc today published a story of a lawsuit filed, which will at
least get us better information in the long run due to the judicial
process.

Two iPhone owners sue Apple over iPhone slowdown admission, seek
class-action status
<https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/21/two-iphone-owners-sue-apple-over-iphone-slowdown-admission-seek-class-action-status/>

They argue Apple installed a new feature to throttle old iPhones without
the owners' permission. They also allege it intentionally interfered with
the phones to damage them, which became a "substantial factor in causing
(iPhone owners) to replace iPhones, buy new batteries, or loss of usage of
their iPhone."

Apple did not immediately respond Thursday to a request for comment.

[Jolly Roger]

Of course. And anyone who actually knows anything about the technologies
involved is not surprised in the least by this "news". Smartphone designers
are *always* looking for ways to eek out the last drop of battery life or
performance. To anyone but the resident nym-switching Apple-hating dimwit
troll currently known as "harry" this is just common fucking sense.

[nospam]

In article <p1i31m$1i2j$4...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

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

> While we all don't have the full specifics

yet you continue to guess.

[harry newton]

He who is Jolly Roger said on 22 Dec 2017 05:53:50 GMT:

> Of course. And anyone who actually knows anything about the technologies
> involved is not surprised in the least by this "news". Smartphone designers
> are *always* looking for ways to eek out the last drop of battery life or
> performance. To anyone but the resident nym-switching Apple-hating dimwit
> troll currently known as "harry" this is just common fucking sense.

It's funny but the more you realize the truth about iOS, the more vitriolic
you get toward the messengers of fact.

You're kind of cute that way...

[Carlos E.R.]

In this thread, he is correct and you are wrong. Sorry.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

I have seen recently an Android phone with old battery just crash and
power off when demanding some operations. The owner had to replace phone.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[sms]

On 12/19/2017 5:58 PM, Harry Newton wrote:

<snip>

> phone. Poole had done this on a hunch as iOS only indicated his iPhone 6S
> had a battery wear level of 20%.

On Android phones you can reduce performance and extend run-time with a
choice in Settings. This is a good way of managing declining battery
capacity as batteries age. Can you do this with the iPhone?

It would be even better if the operating system would display a message
that the battery capacity had fallen below x percent and that replacing
the battery would restore performance and run-time.

[nospam]

In article <p1ja55$ib8$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> On Android phones you can reduce performance and extend run-time with a
> choice in Settings. This is a good way of managing declining battery
> capacity as batteries age. Can you do this with the iPhone?

no, nor is that a setting that is an on/off toggle.

ios devices are *always* adjusting performance versus efficiency, even
with a perfect battery. many products do that. it's stupid not to.

as the battery ages, the maximum performance is lower, but rarely is
that maximum ever reached. most of the time, it's well below that.

and as always, it ain't just apple:
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/in-depth-with-the-snapdragon-81
0s-heat-problems/>
...But the two 810-equipped phones weąve used‹HTCąs One M9 and LGąs G
Flex 2‹have definitely run hot, and performance slows down quickly as
you use the phone.
...
In short, chips throttle, but the 810 throttles more than most, and
it's severe enough that the 810 is actually slower than the 801 or
805 in some CPU-bound tasks over the long haul.

> It would be even better if the operating system would display a message
> that the battery capacity had fallen below x percent and that replacing
> the battery would restore performance and run-time.

it does, but that threshold is when the battery fails internal self
tests and likely *needs* to be replaced, not just aged a little with
several years of useful life left.

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

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-22 10:59, sms wrote:

> On Android phones you can reduce performance and extend run-time with a
> choice in Settings. This is a good way of managing declining battery
> capacity as batteries age. Can you do this with the iPhone?

Settings -> Battery -> Low Power Mode.

And this will kick in with an alert when battery drops below a certain
percentage. (i think 20%).

The problem with cold weather is when sudden increase in power draw
exceeds what the battery can supply and voltage drops below "safe
level". Unit shuts down right away without warning.

Apple may have reduced incidences of this when triggered by CPU, but not
when you turn on camera (which has a peak power draw as camera starts).

> It would be even better if the operating system would display a message
> that the battery capacity had fallen below x percent and that replacing
> the battery would restore performance and run-time.

I agree that if the "new" logic that slows CPU is triggered, there
should be an indication this has happened.

[Carlos E.R.]

Show proof (link) of that. That Androids don't slow the CPU.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[sms]

On 12/19/2017 5:58 PM, Harry Newton wrote:

<snip>

> The problem here is not that Powerd exists, the problem is iPhone and iPad
> users are being kept in the dark about it and that their devices are
> slowing significantly because of it.

The bottom line is that most iPhone owners would rather have had their
battery replaced than buy a new phone if they had known what the cause
of the reduced performance was caused by. This is especially true for
owners of the 6s and 6s Plus. Apple charges only $79 for battery
replacement.

[harry newton]

He who is sms said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 11:59:10 -0800:

The real bottom line is that, in the words of Franklin Roosevelt:
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can
bet it was planned that way."
Where you can substitute "Apple Marketing" for "politics" in the above.

The fact is that Apple *secretly* and *permanently* and (apparently)
drastically slowed down the CPU based merely on the iOS version for
millions of phones (given whatever battery they had).

FACT: Simply updating to the next iOS secretly slows down their CPU.

Since it's done as a secret, there can only be one logical reason to do
this, which everyone has correctly surmised and which Apple will never
admit - and which would be impossible to prove unless a whistleblower
inside of Apple brings out the necessary evidence to prove this beyond a
shadow of a doubt.

But you can rest assured Apple MARKETING *knew* about this - and let it
stand, as did Apple LEGAL - so it will be interesting to see what comes out
of the inevitable lawsuits that are already piling up as we speak.

There is absolutely no doubt that Apple *harmed* their customers with this
sleazy trick - so we will just have to wait to see how this precedes
through the legal apparatus in the USA and elsewhere.

There are already multiple lawsuits in the USA - does anyone know of any
elsewhere (particularly I would think Germany would be involved)?

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 11:54:10 -0500:

> and as always, it ain't just apple:

You are clever nospam, like James Comey is clever, but your trial lawyer
tactics only work on the iOS gullibles.

The iOS gullibles don't know the difference between a fleeting heat-related
slowdown and a permanent battery capacity and iOS related slowdown.

There is no other common consumer grade mobile phone other than the iPhone
6s and 7s which has been found to secretly and permanently and drastically
kill the performance of the CPU based merely on the OS version & battery
capacity.

Remember, the iOS phone doesn't drastically slow down if you are smart
enough NOT to update the iOS by successive releases.

But once you update the iOS version - BAM! Instantly your CPU performance
is *permanently* decreased (for that configuration). Forever.

And it seems to get worse with *each* iOS release based on the graphs
previously shown.

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:48:55 +0100:

>> All high-end phones have essentially similar hardware.
>>
>> Why is it that the Android manufacturers don't (apparently) feel the need
>> to secretly and drastically retard the CPU speed?
>
> I have seen recently an Android phone with old battery just crash and
> power off when demanding some operations. The owner had to replace phone.

I have four new batteries in separate chargers charging right now.
Why couldn't the owner just replace the battery with a newer one?

He could even replace the battery with one three times the capacity of the
original - as I do all the time for my Android phone.

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:46:58 +0100:

>> Tell us *what* exactly nospam was "right" about since he was wrong on
>> almost everything so far.
>
> In this thread, he is correct and you are wrong. Sorry.

Clearly you are just making this up since you can't justify a *single*
statement you make with any cites or message IDs.

I am attributing your lack of ability to back up any adult argument to be
proportional to your similar lack of formal training in Language, the Arts,
and the Sciences.

Am I correct?

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:26:27 +0100:

> Show proof (link) of that. That Androids don't slow the CPU.

You may not be well educated so you are unaware that it would take an
inordinate amount of work to test every Android device out there on my own.

Suffice to say that someone is testing both Android and iOS devices, and
NONE OF US can find any evidence that this secret permanent
battery-capacity-ordained apparently drastic slowdown is happening on any
devices other than the iPhone 6s, and 7s.

The lawsuits are already mounting - where they make news when they do - and
so far, NONE OF US can find anything about Android manufacturers following
the heavy-handed MARKETING tactics that Apple employed here.

Hence, it's safe to say that nobody yet has found any evidence that Android
phones are secretly and permanently slowed down by the manufacturer based
on operating system and battery condition being the only determinants, as
are the iPhones in question here.

If you find any evidence of what you seek, then we can change our minds -
but until then, the facts remain that only Apple phones seem to require
secret permanent slowdowns by the manufacturer.

[nospam]

In article <p1klei$1c3o$4...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
<ha...@is.invalid> wrote:

> Am I correct?

no

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 23:46:50 -0500:

>> Am I correct?
>
> no

I think I am.

As you are aware, I'm rather well educated - in multiple disciplines -
where it's odd for me to converse with the likes of the people here, many
of whom seem to be completely unaware of how to formulate an argument that
is to be believed.

You, of course, are the canonical case.

You're not stupid. You're just ill educated in the art of adult discussion.

[The Real Bev]

Some have user-replaceable batteries and some don't. There are,
however, youtube videos and aftermarket batteries and special tools. A
friend's kid regularly changes iphone batteries for himself, family and
friends.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I'm sorry I ever invented the Electoral College."
Al Gore 11/08/00

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-12-23 05:18, harry newton wrote:
> He who is Carlos E.R. said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:48:55 +0100:
>
>>> All high-end phones have essentially similar hardware.
>>>
>>> Why is it that the Android manufacturers don't (apparently) feel the
>>> need
>>> to secretly and drastically retard the CPU speed?
>>
>> I have seen recently an Android phone with old battery just crash and
>> power off when demanding some operations. The owner had to replace phone.
>
> I have four new batteries in separate chargers charging right now.
> Why couldn't the owner just replace the battery with a newer one?

Because it is not easy to do.

> He could even replace the battery with one three times the capacity of the
> original - as I do all the time for my Android phone.

Well, you are lucky it fits.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-12-23 05:18, harry newton wrote:

Maybe Android phones are not so advanced and well engineered as Apple's :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <th92he-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> Maybe Android phones are not so advanced and well engineered as Apple's :-P

correct.

[harry newton]

> <https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/>
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2017/12/19/apple-ios-11-battery-life-slow-iphone-performance-ipad-problems/#44c61b3b8e7b>
> <https://twitter.com/_inside/status/942847979991523328>

Latest update from:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/7inu45/psa_iphone_slow_try_replacing_your_battery/>

Since this post has blown up like crazy since I made it, I'm going to
revise it to make it more clear and provide a better explanation.

The original post has been archived to pastebin here.
<https://pastebin.com/JergYngQ>

First, I'll start with Apple's official statement on the matter:
"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."

Now let me clear a few things up.
Who does this affect?
iPhone 6, 6S, SE, and 7 users at the moment, but it will likely continue
for all future iPhones until further notice.

Something to note about the iPhone 7:

With the A10 chip, it has low power and high power cores. The low power
cores are used 90% of the time, and should stay at full speed, so you won't
notice any slowdown except in intensive programs such as benchmarks,
demanding games, video editing, etc.

Am I affected?
Depending on the age of your phone and the amount of battery wear, maybe.

You can check this for sure by using an app called CPUdasher X that is no
longer free, now being $0.99. You can check this by scrolling down to CPU
Frequency.
a. The 6 is supposed to be 1400,
b. The 6S is supposed to be 1848,
c. The 7 is supposed to be 2350.
As far as I know, there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE to this [$1 app].

You can, however, do a geek bench or Antutu test to tell you what your CPU
score is compared to what it should be, but it won't tell you your clock
speed.

How do I fix this?

[It's permanent for any one configuration!]
You must replace your battery! [The best option would have been to never
update your iOS in the first place - but it may be too late for you.]

You can replace the battery in 3 ways:
A. Do it yourself. You can buy a battery for $10-$20 and follow the guide
on iFixit.com to repair your device. This WILL void you warranty, and Apple
will not work on your device ever again, meaning all future repairs will
have to be done by you. You have been warned.

B. Take it to a 3rd party location, such as Experimac of Batteries + Bulbs.
Anywhere is fine, but make sure they have a warranty, and check Apple's
pricing before you decide on the store. This will also void your warranty
with Apple, and they will never repair it again. You have been warned.

C. Take it to Apple. They charge $79 for all devices, and you can take it
into an Apple store with another 1 year warranty after you leave.

I'm replacing my battery myself. How do I know what battery to buy?

Don't EVER buy an unbranded battery. If it's generic, it's likely to be
very low quality, and might not even fix the problem. If it has a name
brand, it's probably fine. I will keep a list of brands that work here and
will update it whenever someone else lists that brand.
* Cooligg
* Mobile Defenders
* iFixit

As for WHY this happens, you can speculate with me here on this post.
[Namely, Apple MARKETING *loves* secretly adding this "feature"!]

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:32:45 +0100:

> Maybe Android phones are not so advanced and well engineered as Apple's :-P

Heh heh heh ... I know you said that with a smile - and you know that I
always state that no mobile device is actually secure (simply because the
weakest links are the same in all of them) ...

But it is pretty funny considering iOS is the most insecure consumer grade
mobile device platform on the planet due to the inability of the user to
make it secure.

Both iOS nad Android come out of the box as highly insecure, where Android
is far more insecure, out of the box, than is iOS.

However, on Android, you can easily make it more secure, which is why
Android is more secure than iOS for someone who takes the effort to make it
secure.

On iOS, no matter how much effort you expend, and despite Apple MARKETING
"facts" ... iOS will *never* be even remotely secure - simply because you
can't turn the insecurities off (where I've proven this time and again, as
you know).

On Google, you *can* turn them off (and notice how differently Google
handled the secret location tracking than how Apple handled the secret CPU
slowdown) ...

Google: Immediately turned it off.
Apple: Defiantly stated they'll slow down even more CPUs in the future!

These are facts. Not Apple Marketing BS.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:56:20 -0500:

>> Maybe Android phones are not so advanced and well engineered as Apple's :-P
>
> correct.

Try to remove the Advertiser ID on Android ... click click ... done.

Try to remove the Advertiser ID on iOS ... click click ... hmmmm... click
click ... drat ... click click click CLICK CLICK! ... can't be done.

[harry newton]

He who is The Real Bev said on Fri, 22 Dec 2017 22:18:44 -0800:

> Some have user-replaceable batteries and some don't. There are,
> however, youtube videos and aftermarket batteries and special tools. A
> friend's kid regularly changes iphone batteries for himself, family and
> friends.

Yes. You are correct. Personally, I no longer buy any phones that don't
have what is commonly referred to as "user-replaceable batteries".

Any phone that doesn't have a user-replaceable battery is worthless.

I'll use it (as I do all my iPads and some of my relatives' iPhones) only
if I get it for free.

Otherwise - without a user-replaceable battery, the device is worthless.

[nospam]

In article <p1m0o1$18fo$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

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


>
> Try to remove the Advertiser ID on Android ... click click ... done.
>
> Try to remove the Advertiser ID on iOS ... click click ... hmmmm... click
> click ... drat ... click click click CLICK CLICK! ... can't be done.

try to understand what an advertiser id is actually used for and what
*can't* be done with it and why removing it makes little to no
difference before you stay more stupid ignorant shit.

[nospam]

In article <p1m0lq$18cq$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

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

> But it is pretty funny considering iOS is the most insecure consumer grade
> mobile device platform on the planet due to the inability of the user to
> make it secure.

complete nonsense.

ios devices are *extremely* secure out of the box, so much so that the
fbi tried to sue apple into unlocking it, and that was with an older
generation device. newer devices are more secure than that one was.

[harry newton]

He who is Carlos E.R. said on Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:13:23 +0100:

>> I have four new batteries in separate chargers charging right now.
>> Why couldn't the owner just replace the battery with a newer one?
>
> Because it is not easy to do.
>
>> He could even replace the battery with one three times the capacity of the
>> original - as I do all the time for my Android phone.
>
> Well, you are lucky it fits.

If you are used to iOS, then *luck* is needed.

If you're used to Android, all you need is $2 for the charger and $9 for
the replacement batteries. Shipping often costs more than the parts.

I posted pictures of my battery-charging setup in the past.
The charger sits on the wall, and you just pop the battery into the
charger.

Any size battery for the Samsung Galaxy S3 fits just perfectly.

So you can expand your battery to any size you want (but you have to spend
the extra $1.99 to get the larger rubber back to fit the huge battery).

Here is a current ad for an Amazon Samsung-branded $8.66 battery:
<https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Galaxy-Replacement-Battery-T-Mobile/dp/B007Y8VJP6>

Here is the $2 wall charger for any size Samsung S3 replacement battery:
<https://www.amazon.com/Hyperion-Charger-Standard-Replacment-Extended/dp/B008FP9WD8>

I would love to be able to have this freedom on iOS but iOS devices are so
restricted that it's like living in a prison to own iPads versus Android
devices which give you complete and total freedom to buy whatever battery
setup you want.

[nospam]

In article <p1m1c2$19eu$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

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

> >> He could even replace the battery with one three times the capacity of the
> >> original - as I do all the time for my Android phone.
> >
> > Well, you are lucky it fits.
>
> If you are used to iOS, then *luck* is needed.

nope.

higher capacity batteries are typically larger and likely will *not*
fit and/or may not be compatible with the charging circuitry.

> If you're used to Android, all you need is $2 for the charger and $9 for
> the replacement batteries. Shipping often costs more than the parts.

<https://www.amazon.com/Replacement-iPhone-Battery-1440mAh-87007642/dp/B
00XVQA3UM>

$10.55 and shipping is free.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:59:17 -0500:

> higher capacity batteries are typically larger and likely will *not*
> fit and/or may not be compatible with the charging circuitry.

As usual, you're always dead wrong.

Your limitations are that you only see what's inside the iOS prison.
I realize it's not because you're stupid - as you're actually devilishly
smart - your lack of ability to converse as an adult is mainly, I posit,
because you lack a formal education in the math & sciences particularly
(where being wrong all the time is a bad thing).

Even you being wrong all the time is covered in the arts & sciences though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Anyway, despite the fact you're always wrong, you also have a bad memory.

I have already posted pictures of my huge battery in my S3, which says:
* ZeroLemon NFC Enabled Li-ion battery for Galaxy S3
* Capacity 7000mAh (www.zerolemon.com)

I have two sizes of rubber backs, which, since they were only $1 each, I
got a bunch of them in both sizes (so I could keep them in my glovebox
along with a spare charged battery in each car).

I think you are always dead wrong because you never learned in a formal
education (e.g., science & enginering) that just guessing like you always
do will only garner at best a 50% accuracy of results.

Your lack of ability to see outside your iOS prison shell is well known:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

>> If you're used to Android, all you need is $2 for the charger and $9 for
>> the replacement batteries. Shipping often costs more than the parts.
>
> <https://www.amazon.com/Replacement-iPhone-Battery-1440mAh-87007642/dp/B00XVQA3UM>
>
> $10.55 and shipping is free.

As always, you find terrible price-to-performnce examples, where that
battery you found is not even close to an easily replaced internal battery
like mine is, and even so, it's a puny 1,440mAh almost worthless size,
whereas mine is five times the capacity, at 7,000mAh, and it fits *inside*
the phone in seconds.

On iOS, with effort, a special tool kit, and lots of time, you can replace
your battery with nospam's puny battery which is 1/5th the capacity of what
I do every day on Android.

On Android, in a split second, I can pop in a battery which is five times
the capacity of the puny battery that nospam referenced above for my phone.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:43:15 -0500:

>> Try to remove the Advertiser ID on Android ... click click ... done.
>>
>> Try to remove the Advertiser ID on iOS ... click click ... hmmmm... click
>> click ... drat ... click click click CLICK CLICK! ... can't be done.
>
> try to understand what an advertiser id is actually used for and what
> *can't* be done with it and why removing it makes little to no
> difference before you stay more stupid ignorant shit.

I realize you're not stupid and that you're actually devishly clever such
that the iOS gullibles are dumb enough to believe what you say, but you
always conveniently purposefully forget that there are dozens of similar
examples.

In almost all cases, if not all, iOS is more secure out of the box than
Android, but, iOS remains insecure all the time - whereas Android is
*simple* to make more secure.

As another example, you don't need *any* account to load any free software
you want on an Android phone. That means you NEVER log into anything and
you can use your phone for years (just like I do all the time).

You can't do that on iOS where Apple tracks *everything*.

Apple MARKETING does a great job making the user *feel* safe - but the
restrictions on iOS are such that it's easily proven with example after
example to be far less safe than is Android.

Mind you, no consumer mobile device is safe from prying eyes, simply
because they all share the same major weaknesses, but properly configured,
an Android device is far safer from prying eyes than any iOS device can
ever hope to be.

Facts are facts. You don't like facts. But that doesn't change that they
are facts.

Try to load & run free apps on iOS without *any* user account anywhere.
It's easy on Android - impossible on iOS.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 23 Dec 2017 11:43:15 -0500:

> complete nonsense.

I realized only belatedly that your utter lack of proving anything you say
(which is why you're wrong most of the time - because you may as well flip
a coin) - is that you have no formal education in the math and sciences -
where your guessing, which makes you wrong half the time, is an "F".

> ios devices are *extremely* secure out of the box, so much so that the
> fbi tried to sue apple into unlocking it, and that was with an older
> generation device. newer devices are more secure than that one was.

No consumer grade mobile device is "extremely secure".

For you to even intimate that is utter foolishness. None are.
There are so many holes in mobile devices that people who know such things,
and who have a need to know, like Edward Snowden, don't even carry them
around with them.

Phones are the most insecure things you can put in your pocket other than a
letter insulting some up-and-coming Mexican drug lord.

The iOS phone is so full of vulnerabilities out of the box that it isn't
funny (e.g., Apple tracks every app you load and use while Google can't if
you load it and set it up right). Apple advertisers track everything you
do, while Google advertisers can't if you set it up right.

You're not dumb - but you're not educated - which means you're so
unscientific that you'll *never* comprehend these simple facts.

And yet, they are facts.

[nospam]

In article <p1m79r$1k5t$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton

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

> > ios devices are *extremely* secure out of the box, so much so that the
> > fbi tried to sue apple into unlocking it, and that was with an older
> > generation device. newer devices are more secure than that one was.
>
> No consumer grade mobile device is "extremely secure".

wrong.

an iphone with a long passphrase will require many billions of years to
crack, and with a medium length passphrase, it will take longer than
the lifetime of the perpetrator and all of the cops.

on android, not everything is encrypted (certainly not on your outdated
s3), so it's easy pickings.

the fbi has no problem at all accessing locked android phones. it's the
iphones they can't access.

[JF Mezei]

On 2017-12-23 13:29, harry newton wrote:

> The iOS phone is so full of vulnerabilities out of the box that it isn't
> funny (e.g., Apple tracks every app you load and use while Google can't if
> you load it and set it up right).

You are truly speaking without knowledge. Suggest you read the IOS Guide
to Security.

https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

Apple may have the image of happy-go-lucky focused on Jony Ive's pastel
colours and unreadable text, but deep down, there has been some very
serious work on security. Every file's content has different encryption
key, so even if you manage to get decryption key for a file with known
content, that key is useless to get to other files.

TouchID data is encrypted at the button using a key that is known only
to the secure enclave. So the data that travels on the ribbon cable to
the motherboad is gibberish, and the CPU simply passes gibberish data to
the secure enclave as it has no means to decrypt it. Only Apple's
repair folks has the means to change the TouchID button and update the
secure enclave to have the new keys for the new button. What this means
is that NOTHING (hardware or software) can intercept the fingerprint
data. Nothing can inject data to fake the onwer's fingerprints to
iunlock phone (since they wouldn't have the keys needed to encrypt the
data so secure enclave would treat it as valid).

> Apple advertisers track everything you
> do, while Google advertisers can't if you set it up right.

Advertising is a small part of the iPhone/IOS ecosystem and only on
specific apps. And if you think Google doesn't track what you do on
Android, you need to grow up. The whole point of Android is so that
Google can track you and "sell" you at higher price to advertisers.

Apple has remained pretty good about privacy.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2017-12-23 17:48, harry newton wrote:
> He who is Carlos E.R. said on Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:13:23 +0100:
>
>>> I have four new batteries in separate chargers charging right now.
>>> Why couldn't the owner just replace the battery with a newer one?
>>
>> Because it is not easy to do.
>>
>>> He could even replace the battery with one three times the capacity
>>> of the
>>> original - as I do all the time for my Android phone.
>>
>> Well, you are lucky it fits.
>
> If you are used to iOS, then *luck* is needed.
>
> If you're used to Android, all you need is $2 for the charger and $9 for
> the replacement batteries. Shipping often costs more than the parts.

The batteries for mine are 18€ at least. With the kit for removal, it is
45€. The procedure is not simple, I might damage the NFC antenna at
least. And yes, it is Android.

A cheap charger starts at 5€, but I prefer a good one, so about double.


Again, you are lucky that your battery is easy to replace.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

I'd love all phones to have this feature. It is sound engineering.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <hlA%B.112003$Wq7....@fx44.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> On 2017-12-23 13:29, harry newton wrote:
> > The iOS phone is so full of vulnerabilities out of the box that it isn't
> > funny (e.g., Apple tracks every app you load and use while Google can't if
> > you load it and set it up right).
>
> You are truly speaking without knowledge.

indeed.

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:05:19 -0500:

>> You are truly speaking without knowledge.
>
> indeed.

If you were formally trained in the sciences or engineering, your dismal
record of flipping a coin to decide your "facts" would earn you an "F",
where in graduate school, anything lower than a "B" is failing.

I finally realized why you're so smart, but so very wrong.

You have no formal education in the factual sciences.