Apple will soon cancel the iPhone X

[Harold Newton]

Apple Leak Reveals Sudden iPhone X Cancellation
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/01/21/apple-iphone-x-buy-sales-specs-new-iphone-release-date/>

"It may be the smartphone of the moment, but a new leak reveals
will soon cancel the iPhone X. And the source could not be more
credible."

"Acclaimed KGI Securities' analyst Ming-Chi Kuo says disappointing
sales of the iPhone X will lead to the cancellation of the model
"with production ceasing in the summer". This would be the first
time Apple has cancelled an iPhone model after just one generation
since the iPhone 5C in 2014."

[sms]

The premium line is not going to be dropped, it will be updated, like
their other lines. If you recall, "the notch" was the result of not yet
being ready with the technology needed to get rid of it,
<http://bgr.com/2018/01/18/iphone-x-notch-replacement-samsung-patent/>.
They were not going to delay the first X model waiting for this, not
with the wildly popular Samsung Galaxy S8 and S8+.

You knew that they would have to bring back a fingerprint sensor, bring
back a home button (under the display), and move to a bezel-less design.
I doubt if that article is correct that the bezel-less display will
not arrive until the 2019 models, because it would result in people
waiting another year to make a purchase.

The rest of that article makes sense. There is a need for a larger
screen X to compete against the wildly popular Samsung Galaxy S8+,
though personally I think that these phones are getting too large. There
is a need for a lower cost large screen iPhone model to compete against
the lower cost Android phones like your beloved LG Stylo 3 Plus,
especially in less wealthy countries. The current price of an LG Stylo 3
Plus, without a contract, is $225. If a 6.1" GSM-only iPhone SE sold for
just 2x that, $450, it would be a big hit, and such a price point is not
impossible, with the 4" SE currently selling for $349. Of course there's
the danger that a larger screen SE could hurt sales of the iPhone 9.

Maybe the SE 6.1" model will gain a second SIM card slot in China and
India, the workarounds to this issue are pretty ridiculous
<https://www.magic-sim.com/compatibility/apple/iphone-8-plus-all-ios-versions/magicsim-elite-iphone-8-plus-dual-sim-adapter>
is just one of many such adapters. The patent has been filed:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley/2016/12/16/is-apple-finally-building-a-dual-sim-iphone-filings-suggest-its-possible/#7968b6421347>
but of course often patents are filed by companies and products don't
follow immediately, or ever. Also, the current iPhone SE lacks courage,
and in less wealthy countries where lower cost iPhones are needed, it
may be a good idea to continue this.

[nospam]

In article <p445fh$ggo$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> >
> > "Acclaimed KGI Securities' analyst Ming-Chi Kuo says disappointing
> > sales of the iPhone X will lead to the cancellation of the model
> > "with production ceasing in the summer". This would be the first
> > time Apple has cancelled an iPhone model after just one generation
> > since the iPhone 5C in 2014."
>
> The premium line is not going to be dropped, it will be updated, like
> their other lines. If you recall, "the notch" was the result of not yet
> being ready with the technology needed to get rid of it,
> <http://bgr.com/2018/01/18/iphone-x-notch-replacement-samsung-patent/>.

the technology is not only ready, but well ahead of anything samsung
has and the notch isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

> They were not going to delay the first X model waiting for this, not
> with the wildly popular Samsung Galaxy S8 and S8+.

apple does not chase market share and is not particularly concerned
with that.

> You knew that they would have to bring back a fingerprint sensor, bring
> back a home button (under the display), and move to a bezel-less design.

they don't have to do any of that, other than no bezel (and only on
some models).

> I doubt if that article is correct that the bezel-less display will
> not arrive until the 2019 models, because it would result in people
> waiting another year to make a purchase.

most articles are wrong.

> The rest of that article makes sense. There is a need for a larger
> screen X to compete against the wildly popular Samsung Galaxy S8+,
> though personally I think that these phones are getting too large. There
> is a need for a lower cost large screen iPhone model to compete against
> the lower cost Android phones like your beloved LG Stylo 3 Plus,
> especially in less wealthy countries.

apple doesn't bother with low tier products.

the iphone se, at $349, is a very big hit, more so than apple expected.
for a little more, there is the larger 6s and 6s+. they also still sell
the 6 in some emerging countries, as well as refurbished phones (the
ones traded in).

> The current price of an LG Stylo 3
> Plus, without a contract, is $225. If a 6.1" GSM-only iPhone SE sold for
> just 2x that, $450, it would be a big hit,

that's called the iphone 6s, for $449. it's not 6.1" but not everyone
wants a giant phone.

> and such a price point is not
> impossible, with the 4" SE currently selling for $349. Of course there's
> the danger that a larger screen SE could hurt sales of the iPhone 9.

no danger whatsoever, nor is that even a concern.

> Maybe the SE 6.1" model will gain a second SIM card slot in China and
> India, the workarounds to this issue are pretty ridiculous

highly unlikely.

what's more likely are esims.

[Harold Newton]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:56:32 -0800, sms wrote:

> The premium line is not going to be dropped, it will be updated, like
> their other lines.

Hi sms,

I loved your factual and astute response, and can't disagree with anything
you wrote (e.g., fingerprint sensor, bezel, notch, home button, size, and
especially cost, as I feel a $1000 price point is not sustainable -
although time will tell).

I even agree on the lack of courage hampering third-world sales, likely
greatly.

The one thing though, that is missing in your assessment, is that darn
fashugenah battery.

As you are aware, the current iPhone X is really an iPhone X/II or an
iPhone V, like it or not - after about a year. Apple is on record that they
*will* throttle them (whether or not they give you a switch just moves the
design flaw result from half CPU speed to risk of shutdown - neither of
which is a viable option for a $1000 phone).

What do you think Apple will do about that fashugenah battery in the next
line of phones to come out that supersedes the iPhone V?

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 7:09 AM, Harold Newton wrote:

> What do you think Apple will do about that fashugenah battery in the next
> line of phones to come out that supersedes the iPhone V?

Apple admitted that what they did was wrong. And if you carefully read
their statement, it's clear that there is no more risk of shutdown with
a new battery or an old battery when there is a "low state of charge."
It's just that the older battery reaches the "low state of charge"
sooner than a new battery.

There is nothing wrong with the battery, or the capacity, of the iPhone
that needs fixing. Just a reminder when the battery capacity is
diminished by a certain percentage that a battery replacement is a good
idea. I find the battery life of my iOS products to be excellent. Apple
seems to do a lot more work on power management and battery charging
optimization than Android manufacturers.

The option to extend run-time by CPU throttling should be there no
matter how new the battery. My Android phones have offered "Battery
Saver" mode for a long time. It's a very noticeable performance hit, but
that's okay.

The automatic throttling due to battery age will be made optional soon.
The benchmarks will not decrease due to an older battery. It was a poor
decision that they should never have expected to go unnoticed, and they
are reversing it. Get over it. Complain about something else, like the
headphone jack.

And one more thing... Even at $89, the iPhone battery replacement
service, with a fresh, recently manufactured, guaranteed, new, OEM
battery, is a good deal compared to most Android phones. Even for
Android phones with removable batteries, the availability of new OEM
batteries, not NOS (new old stock) OEM batteries or no-name batteries of
dubious quality and safety, is terrible. The battery replacement service
at an Apple store is very convenient, and something that Samsung and LG
can't duplicate.

[nospam]

In article <p45a1o$edf$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> And one more thing... Even at $89, the iPhone battery replacement
> service, with a fresh, recently manufactured, guaranteed, new, OEM
> battery, is a good deal compared to most Android phones.

battery replacement was previously $79, now reduced to $29.

> Even for
> Android phones with removable batteries, the availability of new OEM
> batteries, not NOS (new old stock) OEM batteries or no-name batteries of
> dubious quality and safety, is terrible. The battery replacement service
> at an Apple store is very convenient, and something that Samsung and LG
> can't duplicate.

that part is true.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:03:59 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Even for
>> Android phones with removable batteries, the availability of new OEM
>> batteries, not NOS (new old stock) OEM batteries or no-name batteries of
>> dubious quality and safety, is terrible. The battery replacement service
>> at an Apple store is very convenient, and something that Samsung and LG
>> can't duplicate.
>
> that part is true.

You'd cry if you knew how simple & cheap it is to do this on my phone:
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/01/19/battery1.jpg>

Note: The backs are $1, and the batteries are 2300mAh with NFC, and
7,000mAh with NFC, and you'd never guess how little they cost and how easy
they are to replace.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:20:41 -0800, sms wrote:

> Apple admitted that what they did was wrong. And if you carefully read
> their statement, it's clear that there is no more risk of shutdown with
> a new battery or an old battery when there is a "low state of charge."
> It's just that the older battery reaches the "low state of charge"
> sooner than a new battery.

Read this:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/01/18/apple-ios-11-3-release-upgrade-iphone-shutdown-iphone-battery-problem/>

"Apple's Reasoning Still Doesn't Add Up"
"The company blames the natural degradation of lithium-ion batteries,
without addressing why rivals state such measures are unnecessary.
Samsung in particular reiterated to me it can retain 95% lithium-ion
battery capacity for at least two years."

"Apple also hasn't explained why the first six generations of iPhones
were unaffected (even the 2007 original iPhone had a 1400 mAh
lithium-ion battery) or why "protective" stability measures weren't
required in the first nine generations of iOS (throttling began with
the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6S in iOS 10.2.1, released in January 2017)."

You'll also have to more carefully read Apple's so-called "apology" as to
what they exactly apologized for, because it's far clever of a carefully
crafted statement than you seem to be aware of.

Read this from the same report:
"Apple's Transparency Still Sucks"
"Let's be frank, for all Tim Cook's claims of transparency moving
forward, the only reason Apple is doing any of this is because it
was caught out. Furthermore, in speaking to ABC, Cook appears to
be rewriting history".

"But I was paying attention. I review iOS releases, my exclusive broke
the original shutdown problem and here's the "clarity" offered by the
iOS 10.2.1 release notes: "iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves
the security of your device."

"It was no better one year later either. When Apple launched iOS 11.2
in December 2017, the update added potential performance throttling
for the iPhone 7. The iOS 11.2 release notes said: "iOS 11.2 introduces
Apple Pay Cash to send, request and receive money from friends and
family with Apple Pay. This update also includes bug fixes and
improvements."

"Yes Tim, this could've been clearer."

The fact is that iPhone owners have two choices in March:
1. Unexpected shutdowns
2. Full CPU speed
And, temporarily:
3. Neither of those with a new battery that they have to pay for

None of those three choices are what you'd expect of a high-end device,
particularly one that costs five times what similar Android devices cost.

> There is nothing wrong with the battery, or the capacity, of the iPhone
> that needs fixing.

Ummm.... er ... then why do *only* the affected iPhones have this problem?
(See above. Yes, it's *just Apple* that has this problem.)

> Just a reminder when the battery capacity is
> diminished by a certain percentage that a battery replacement is a good
> idea.

I have at least a half dozen batteries for my S3, one of which is 7,000mAh.
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/01/19/battery1.jpg>

However, the problem we see in affected Apple iPhones is *only* in affected
Apple iPhones. It's not in well designed phones, despite the Apple attempt
to defer blame to everyone but themselves, in a very Peter Madsen like way.

There's a *reason* the phones are falling apart, and it's because the
battery isn't the right battery for the phone - or - the phone isn't the
right phone for the battery.

There is no other logical conclusion anyone could make, given that no other
manufacturer has this problem despite Apple's attempts to paint the entire
industry with their design mistake.

> The automatic throttling due to battery age will be made optional soon.

Apple is already on record saying that they strongly ask the users *NOT* to
enable the feature they're forced to put in the phones to allow it to not
be cut in half.

> The benchmarks will not decrease due to an older battery.

This is illogical.
Remember ... the issue was *found* by comparing benchmarks.
Hence, this statement from you is so illogical as to defy logic.

> It was a poor
> decision that they should never have expected to go unnoticed, and they
> are reversing it. Get over it. Complain about something else, like the
> headphone jack.

I'm not complaining. I'm simply stating facts.

If you think that benchmarks aren't *all* a lie (if they depend on CPU),
then you're just ignoring facts.

Putting your head in the sand doesn't make inconvenient facts go away.

> And one more thing... Even at $89, the iPhone battery replacement
> service, with a fresh, recently manufactured, guaranteed, new, OEM
> battery, is a good deal compared to most Android phones.

You've got to be kidding. Do you know how much my Samsung S3 2300 mAh
batteries cost? Do you?

You clearly don't becuase if you did, you'd cry over the price you guys pay
for a single Apple battery.

> Even for
> Android phones with removable batteries, the availability of new OEM
> batteries, not NOS (new old stock) OEM batteries or no-name batteries of
> dubious quality and safety, is terrible.

I have absolutely no problem finding batteries for my Android phone, so
what you state is not only wrong, but makes no sense.

You're just making this stuff up.

> The battery replacement service
> at an Apple store is very convenient, and something that Samsung and LG
> can't duplicate.

Why would I need a 'battery replacement service' for a battery that takes
fifteen seconds to replace?

Makes no sense.
Now you're talking like Apple Apologists do.

Not a single lick of sense in your statements. No logic.
All emotion. Not a single factual statement.

Let's not waste time if you're going to just be like nospam or Jolly Roger,
making excuses for Apples design flaws that are obvious to everyone but to
the Apple Apologists.

Trust:
"So iOS 11.3 is indeed The Big One. Obviously it's big for iPhone
owners, but it's equally big for Apple because - done right - it
can do more than just restore iPhones. It can do what Apple
has singularly failed to do with words: it can restore trust."

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/01/18/apple-ios-11-3-release-upgrade-iphone-shutdown-iphone-battery-problem/>

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:20:14 -0500, nospam wrote:

> they don't have to do any of that, other than no bezel (and only on
> some models).

"The current 5.8-inch iPhone X will be discontinued."
"iPhone X would hurt product brand value & lineup of 2H18 new models."

"It would mark the first time in iPhone history that a previous
year's model was not made available at a cheaper price point
once next-gen models are released."

"Apple's next-gen iPhone lineup will feature two devices with edgeless
displays, one being 6.5-inch iPhone with an OLED display and the
other a 6.1-inch iPhone with an LCD display."

Apple reportedly plans to discontinue the first-gen iPhone X later this year
<http://bgr.com/2018/01/22/iphone-x-apple-discontinued-2018-iphone-lineup/>

[nospam]

In article <p45do4$128p$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

>
> You'd cry if you knew how simple & cheap it is to do this on my phone:
> <http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/01/19/battery1.jpg>

not at all. i get more than 2 days on a single charge in typical use,
so there's no need to deal with that shit.

put another way, your battery life sucks so you *have* to carry a bunch
of batteries.

[nospam]

In article <p45dod$128p$4...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

> "The current 5.8-inch iPhone X will be discontinued."

everything will be discontinued at some point.

> "iPhone X would hurt product brand value & lineup of 2H18 new models."

no it wouldn't.

> "It would mark the first time in iPhone history that a previous
> year's model was not made available at a cheaper price point
> once next-gen models are released."

that is completely false.

they've done it at least twice before.

> "Apple's next-gen iPhone lineup will feature two devices with edgeless
> displays, one being 6.5-inch iPhone with an OLED display and the
> other a 6.1-inch iPhone with an LCD display."

another guess on his part.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:03:59 -0500, nospam wrote:

> battery replacement was previously $79, now reduced to $29.

Only for the next few months.

Adding to the already *astronomical total cost of ownership* of iPhones is
thus new yearly battery replacement need.

Over five years, that's about $400 *extra* that you have to add to the
astronomical cost of ownership of iPhones, in addition to the ~$40 tax on
that alone in certain states, and in addition to the ~100 sales tax on the
iPhone X, that's ~$540 in addition to the original ~$1000 for a total cost
of ownership of 1,$550 for a phone that, if you stop feeding it batteries,
will throttle to half the CPU speed or shut down unexpectedly on you.

The total cost of ownership for iPhones is *astronomical* indeed.

[nospam]

In article <p45elk$13s0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > battery replacement was previously $79, now reduced to $29.
>
> Only for the next few months.

where 'next few months' is 11 months, at which point nobody knows what
will happen, not even apple.

> Adding to the already *astronomical total cost of ownership* of iPhones is
> thus new yearly battery replacement need.
>
> Over five years, that's about $400 *extra* that you have to add to the
> astronomical cost of ownership of iPhones, in addition to the ~$40 tax on
> that alone in certain states, and in addition to the ~100 sales tax on the
> iPhone X, that's ~$540 in addition to the original ~$1000 for a total cost
> of ownership of 1,$550 for a phone that, if you stop feeding it batteries,
> will throttle to half the CPU speed or shut down unexpectedly on you.

nonsense.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-21 23:27, Harold Newton wrote:
> Apple Leak Reveals Sudden iPhone X Cancellation
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/01/21/apple-iphone-x-buy-sales-specs-new-iphone-release-date/>
>
> "It may be the smartphone of the moment, but a new leak reveals
> will soon cancel the iPhone X. And the source could not be more
> credible."

Woopty Doo !

"production ceasing in the summer" is actually extremely good
considering that new models are already ramping up production for a
September/October launch. A "bad" model's production would have
stopped in February/April time frame with enough stock to last till Sept.

Perhaps the only significance of this news bit is that the X will not
continue as an "older, more affordable" phone like the 6s and 7 have.

Apple has a good grasp and worldwide experience for market demand at
various price points. It is likely a "recycled" X would still be too
expensive to fill lower price points.

The big question is which model gets dropped? the 6s or the 7?



Pretty amazing how analysts take a piece of news and slant it against
Apple to cause AAPL price to drop. Oh and this happens just before
quarter financial announcements at which point the bad news cease and
analysts let AAPL rise again.


It has always been known that the X would be a low volume highly
expensive phone.

[nospam]

In article <Wes9C.327262$247.2...@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> Pretty amazing how analysts take a piece of news and slant it against
> Apple to cause AAPL price to drop. Oh and this happens just before
> quarter financial announcements at which point the bad news cease and
> analysts let AAPL rise again.

exactly, and it's *very* profitable.

> It has always been known that the X would be a low volume highly
> expensive phone.

no it hasn't, nor has that happened.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-22, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> Pretty amazing how analysts take a piece of news and slant it against
> Apple to cause AAPL price to drop.

What's even sillier is that morons fall for it.

> Oh and this happens just before
> quarter financial announcements at which point the bad news cease and
> analysts let AAPL rise again.

Lather, rinse, repeat, rake in the cash.

> It has always been known that the X would be a low volume highly
> expensive phone.

Yeah, but: troll.

--
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

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-22 13:20, sms wrote:

> a new battery or an old battery when there is a "low state of charge."
> It's just that the older battery reaches the "low state of charge"
> sooner than a new battery.

Nop. Sudden shutdowns can happen at 45% state of charge when phone gets
cold. It still displays 45% charge and then shuts without warning.

This is about battery losing its ability to supply enough amps on
demand. So when you turn on the camera, it darw more amps than the
battery can supply, and when you do that, voltage instantly drope below
threshold, and iPhone shuts down.

Warm phone up, turn it on and battery is at 45%.

So this isn't about reduced autonomy. It is about battery losing ability
to supply peak amps to circuitry. Remember that modern electronics no
longer draw a a steady power but vary greatly in how much power they draw.

> matter how new the battery. My Android phones have offered "Battery
> Saver" mode for a long time.

iPhone has has "low power mode" for quite some time too. But this works
mostly to reduce/eliminate background processing, as opposed to reducing
peak power demand when you use the phone.

> dubious quality and safety, is terrible. The battery replacement service
> at an Apple store is very convenient, and something that Samsung and LG
> can't duplicate.

Not in canada where Apple Canada requires multiple visits to get that 10
minute fix done. If they woudl let one book a battery replacement
on-line and then get email when they had battery in stock, it would save
one of the current 3 visits required.







>

[nospam]

In article <Qpt9C.342551$ET6.1...@fx38.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> On 2018-01-22 13:20, sms wrote:
> > a new battery or an old battery when there is a "low state of charge."
> > It's just that the older battery reaches the "low state of charge"
> > sooner than a new battery.
>
> Nop. Sudden shutdowns can happen at 45% state of charge when phone gets
> cold. It still displays 45% charge and then shuts without warning.

soc isn't the issue. a shutdown can occur at 80% soc, and has.

> This is about battery losing its ability to supply enough amps on
> demand. So when you turn on the camera, it darw more amps than the
> battery can supply, and when you do that, voltage instantly drope below
> threshold, and iPhone shuts down.

yep.

> > matter how new the battery. My Android phones have offered "Battery
> > Saver" mode for a long time.
>
> iPhone has has "low power mode" for quite some time too. But this works
> mostly to reduce/eliminate background processing, as opposed to reducing
> peak power demand when you use the phone.

low power mode shuts off all non-critical processes to reduce *overall*
power demand, not just peak, to maximize battery run time.

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 11:23 AM, Harold Newton wrote:

<snip>

> The fact is that iPhone owners have two choices in March:
> 1. Unexpected shutdowns
> 2. Full CPU speed
> And, temporarily:
> 3. Neither of those with a new battery that they have to pay for

Read the statement carefully. "A battery’s impedance will temporarily
increase at a low state of charge and in a cold temperature environment."

The "unexpected shutdowns" occur when the battery is in a "low state of
charge" as the internal resistance increases. This is true for both old
and new batteries. Older batteries reach a "low state of charge" sooner,
as most people have experienced when their phone batteries don't last as
long as they did when new.

In short:
1. There is nothing wrong with the iPhone battery design.
2. iOS can be be modified to present the user with a choice of full
performance or longer operating time.
3. A new battery at $29, installed, is a good deal.
4. This should not have happened. But it did. The company admitted it
and apologized for it and have offered a reasonable solution.

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 11:23 AM, Harold Newton wrote:

> "It would mark the first time in iPhone history that a previous
> year's model was not made available at a cheaper price point
> once next-gen models are released."

With the price of the X line, there would be no reason to continue
producing last year's model. Once you're spending $1150 for a phone,
you're not going to want last year's model for $100 less. The big sales
of previous year's models was in poorer countries where few people would
buy the X no matter what.

[nospam]

In article <p45sqt$r09$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:


> Read the statement carefully. "A battery零 impedance will temporarily

> increase at a low state of charge and in a cold temperature environment."

if only you would.

> The "unexpected shutdowns" occur when the battery is in a "low state of
> charge" as the internal resistance increases. This is true for both old
> and new batteries. Older batteries reach a "low state of charge" sooner,
> as most people have experienced when their phone batteries don't last as
> long as they did when new.

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

you snipped this part that preceded that sentence:
A battery with a high impedance is unable to provide power quickly
enough to the system that needs it. A battery's impedance can
increase if a battery has a higher chemical age.

no mention of soc.

it goes on,
A battery零 impedance will temporarily increase at a low state of
charge and in a cold temperature environment. When coupled with a
higher chemical age, the impedance increase will be more significant.
These are characteristics of battery chemistry that are common to all
lithium-ion batteries in the industry.

that does mention soc, but that's *in* *addition* to the first part.

> In short:
> 1. There is nothing wrong with the iPhone battery design.

correct

> 2. iOS can be be modified to present the user with a choice of full
> performance or longer operating time.

also true, except that those who choose full performance may experience
sudden shutdown, possibly losing data or even causing hardware damage.

> 3. A new battery at $29, installed, is a good deal.

a very good deal, but only if it's actually necessary.

otherwise, it's $29 that didn't need to be spent.

> 4. This should not have happened. But it did. The company admitted it
> and apologized for it and have offered a reasonable solution.

nope. apple apologized for how they communicated it, not that they did
it.

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 12:57 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> Apple has a good grasp and worldwide experience for market demand at
> various price points. It is likely a "recycled" X would still be too
> expensive to fill lower price points.

Exactly.

> The big question is which model gets dropped? the 6s or the 7?

Good question. If they keep the 6s and drop the 7 that would show a lack
of courage. But if they drop the 6s and keep the 7, it might upset
buyers of lower price-point phones that still want a 3.5mm headphone jack.

In any case, it's a good strategy to have products that are flagship,
mid-tier, and lower-tier. Forget the super-cheap tier where no one is
making much money selling $50-150 phones. A $200-300 price premium can
be maintained over comparably featured Android phones, and much of that
can be recovered by a user that resells their old iPhone to buy a new
model. Used Android phones have very low resale value.

[Your Name]

It should be pointed out that the iPhone X is actually a "special
edition" (the iPhone 8 is the normal version released in 2017). It
might well be discontinued at the next iPhone update, at least under
that name, but the features will probably ripple down to the normal
iPhone 9 and later models.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:43:34 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>> battery replacement was previously $79, now reduced to $29.
>>
>> Only for the next few months.
>
> where 'next few months' is 11 months, at which point nobody knows what
> will happen, not even apple.

The math is simple, which only Apple can change, but they've stated what
the math is.

1. $1000 for iPhone X
2. ~100 for sales tax
3. Year 1: $30 in December 2018 for a new battery just before the deadline
4. Year 2: $80 for a new battery in December 2019
5. Year 3: $80 for a new battery in December 2020
6. Year 4: $80 for a new battery in December 2021
7. Year 5: $80 for a new battery in December 2022
-----------------------
Total cost of ownership for the five years is $1,450

That's an astronomical total cost of ownership.
Now let's subtract that *vaunted resale value* shall we?

What's the resale value after the 5 years of ownership?
(HINT: the phone is broken and bashed up because it's made out of glass.)

Subtract whatever you think is a realistic resale value and you *still* end
up with an atrocious cost of ownership.

I forget who it was that suggested today that the total cost of ownership
of Apple iPhones is low, but they're mathematically challenged because
their belief system isn't based on mathematical facts, that's for sure.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:41:19 -0800, sms wrote:

> 1. There is nothing wrong with the iPhone battery design.

Your belief system is completely opaque to facts.

"Apple's Reasoning Still Doesn't Add Up"
"The company blames the natural degradation of lithium-ion batteries,
without addressing why rivals state such measures are unnecessary.
Samsung in particular reiterated to me it can retain 95% lithium-ion
battery capacity for at least two years."

"Apple also hasn't explained why the first six generations of iPhones
were unaffected (even the 2007 original iPhone had a 1400 mAh
lithium-ion battery) or why "protective" stability measures weren't
required in the first nine generations of iOS (throttling began with
the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6S in iOS 10.2.1, released in January 2017)."

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/01/18/apple-ios-11-3-release-upgrade-iphone-shutdown-iphone-battery-problem/>

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:48:47 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> 1. There is nothing wrong with the iPhone battery design.
>
> correct

Your belief system is completely opaque to facts.

"Apple's Reasoning Still Doesn't Add Up"
"The company blames the natural degradation of lithium-ion batteries,
without addressing why rivals state such measures are unnecessary.
Samsung in particular reiterated to me it can retain 95% lithium-ion
battery capacity for at least two years."

"Apple also hasn't explained why the first six generations of iPhones
were unaffected (even the 2007 original iPhone had a 1400 mAh
lithium-ion battery) or why "protective" stability measures weren't
required in the first nine generations of iOS (throttling began with
the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6S in iOS 10.2.1, released in January 2017)."

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/01/18/apple-ios-11-3-release-upgrade-iphone-shutdown-iphone-battery-problem/>

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:11:10 -0800, sms wrote:

> Good question. If they keep the 6s and drop the 7 that would show a lack
> of courage. But if they drop the 6s and keep the 7, it might upset
> buyers of lower price-point phones that still want a 3.5mm headphone jack.
>
> In any case, it's a good strategy to have products that are flagship,
> mid-tier, and lower-tier. Forget the super-cheap tier where no one is
> making much money selling $50-150 phones. A $200-300 price premium can
> be maintained over comparably featured Android phones, and much of that
> can be recovered by a user that resells their old iPhone to buy a new
> model. Used Android phones have very low resale value.

IMHO, they should drop all the defective phones, and just come out with a
set of newly designed phones untainted by the poor design which requires a
new $79 + ~$8 tax battery every year just to maintain the CPU speed or
prevent sudden shutdowns.

Apple iPhone cost of ownership has always been astronomical - and adding
$87 per year for the life of the phone (plus another $7 for shipping) adds
$470 to the overall cost of iPhone ownership.

Pay the extra ~$470 to keep the iPhone running ... or ... Apple reduces
your speed in half ... or ... the phone shuts down unexpectedly.

Your choice indeed!

[nospam]

In article <p46dip$fp2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

> IMHO, they should drop all the defective phones, and just come out with a
> set of newly designed phones untainted by the poor design which requires a
> new $79 + ~$8 tax battery every year just to maintain the CPU speed or
> prevent sudden shutdowns.

right after apple overturns the laws of chemistry and physics.

just hire a bunch of people from mit or cal. they're smart enough.

[nospam]

In article <p46dfc$fn0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

>
> >>> battery replacement was previously $79, now reduced to $29.
> >>
> >> Only for the next few months.
> >
> > where 'next few months' is 11 months, at which point nobody knows what
> > will happen, not even apple.
>
> The math is simple, which only Apple can change, but they've stated what
> the math is.

so simple, yet you fail to understand it.

> 1. $1000 for iPhone X
> 2. ~100 for sales tax

tax varies. several states have no sales tax, while others have lower
sales tax than california, some by quite a bit.

> 3. Year 1: $30 in December 2018 for a new battery just before the deadline
> 4. Year 2: $80 for a new battery in December 2019
> 5. Year 3: $80 for a new battery in December 2020
> 6. Year 4: $80 for a new battery in December 2021
> 7. Year 5: $80 for a new battery in December 2022

nope. none of that is required.

tco is $1000 minus whatever the phone can be sold for after 2-3 years
(typical length of ownership), likely around $600 based on historical
prices, resulting in a net cost of about $400, or about $130-$200 per
year for a 2-3 year period.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:51:57 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The math is simple, which only Apple can change, but they've stated what
>> the math is.
>
> so simple, yet you fail to understand it.

Except you can't even logically refute my math except to play games such as
assuming there's no sales tax in California, where you know I live.

>> 1. $1000 for iPhone X
>> 2. ~100 for sales tax
>
> tax varies. several states have no sales tax, while others have lower
> sales tax than california, some by quite a bit.

OK. Change the number. With a total cost of ownership in the $1,450 range,
the sales tax is less than 10 percent of the overall cost.

>
>> 3. Year 1: $30 in December 2018 for a new battery just before the deadline
>> 4. Year 2: $80 for a new battery in December 2019
>> 5. Year 3: $80 for a new battery in December 2020
>> 6. Year 4: $80 for a new battery in December 2021
>> 7. Year 5: $80 for a new battery in December 2022
>
> nope. none of that is required.

You're completely correct. You have three (and only three) choices:
1. Allow your phone to be permanently throttled to half the CPU speed,
2. Or, experience unexpected shutdowns, or,
3. Buy a new battery every year.

Pick one.

> tco is $1000 minus whatever the phone can be sold for after 2-3 years

> (typical length of ownership)...

If 3 year is a *typical* length of ownership, then the iPhones are pieces
of shit because a cell phone should last far longer than a measly three
years.

> likely around $600 based on historical
> prices, resulting in a net cost of about $400, or about $130-$200 per
> year for a 2-3 year period.

At a gross cost of ownership of $1290, subtract your astronomically high
$600 for the now-cracked and shattered back glass iPhone, and your total
cost of ownerhip for just those 3 years is $690 and then you have to *add*
two more years of some phone to equal the five years average cost of
ownership (remember, my S3 is going on 6 years and even though I have four
other Android phones, I have no need to replace it because it's more
powerful now than when it was born given apps have improved over time).

Including resale, the average cost per year was $690/3 = #230, so for five
years of ownership, the astronomically high cost of ownership for iPhones
comes out to $690 + $230 + $230 = 1,150 (by your own numbers!)

By *any* rational math, iPhones have an *astronomical* cost of ownership.

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:51:56 -0500, nospam wrote:

> right after apple overturns the laws of chemistry and physics.

Why is it only you, Jolly Roger, sms, and BKonRamp who believe what
*nobody* else believes?

If the phones weren't defective in the first place, then they wouldn't need
*secret*, *permanent*, & *drastic* throttling.

Even with the "choice" that you'll get in March, Apple hasn't said if this
is a *one-time* choice or a *daily* choice or a *minute-by-minute* choice.

So you still only have three choices:
1. Allow your phone to be throttled to half the cpu speed, or,
2. Endure sudden unexpected shutdowns, or,
3. Bend over and buy a new battery every year.

Pick one.

HINT: Those are the facts - where you intimate that this is "normal" for a
phone, which is so ridiculous that I know even you don't believe what you
say. I think sms actually believes these are "normal choices", and
certainly BKoNRamp and Jolly Roger believe it - but you're not that dumb.

Or are you?

[sms]

On 1/22/2018 9:17 PM, Harold Newton wrote:

<snip>

> If the phones weren't defective in the first place, then they wouldn't need
> *secret*, *permanent*, & *drastic* throttling.

You are well aware of the real reason for the throttling, as is everyone
else here. No upside for you to pretend not to know.

[nospam]

In article <p46gi1$j18$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

> > tco is $1000 minus whatever the phone can be sold for after 2-3 years
> > (typical length of ownership)...
>
> If 3 year is a *typical* length of ownership, then the iPhones are pieces
> of shit because a cell phone should last far longer than a measly three
> years.

that's how long people generally keep cellphones, regardless of brand.

the hardware itself lasts much longer.

<http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/58b898a2be967306018b45dd-1200>

> > likely around $600 based on historical
> > prices, resulting in a net cost of about $400, or about $130-$200 per
> > year for a 2-3 year period.
>
> At a gross cost of ownership of $1290, subtract your astronomically high
> $600 for the now-cracked and shattered back glass iPhone,

another one of your bogus assumptions.

[Johan]

Op 22-jan.-18 om 20:43 schreef nospam:

> In article <p45elk$13s0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton
> <har...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> battery replacement was previously $79, now reduced to $29.
>>
>> Only for the next few months.
>
> where 'next few months' is 11 months, at which point nobody knows what
> will happen, not even apple.
>
>> Adding to the already *astronomical total cost of ownership* of iPhones is
>> thus new yearly battery replacement need.
>>
>> Over five years, that's about $400 *extra* that you have to add to the
>> astronomical cost of ownership of iPhones, in addition to the ~$40 tax on
>> that alone in certain states, and in addition to the ~100 sales tax on the
>> iPhone X, that's ~$540 in addition to the original ~$1000 for a total cost

>> of ownership of 1,$550 for a phonHarry Newtone that, if you stop feeding it batteries,

>> will throttle to half the CPU speed or shut down unexpectedly on you.
>
> nonsense.
>

Harry Newton (or who ever this apple-hater is) is short of memory:
remember Samsung Galaxy Note 7, on market sept. 11-2016, of market oct.
11-2016 (after 1 month!!!!), although it was a great sigaret-lighter!

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:50:32 -0800, sms wrote:

>> If the phones weren't defective in the first place, then they wouldn't need
>> *secret*, *permanent*, & *drastic* throttling.
>
> You are well aware of the real reason for the throttling, as is everyone
> else here. No upside for you to pretend not to know.

Hi sms,

I'm a sentient well educated adult of average intelligence, which is to say
there is *plenty* that I know are facts that you don't seem to *comprehend*
- and yet - I had always assumed you too were an educated sentient adult of
sufficient intelligence to comprehend facts.

I suspect you can't comprehend the facts simply because they go against the
foundation of your belief system.

Yet, these are a baker's dozen pertinent facts:.
1. Apple *secretly* lowered the phones' performance
2. The throttling was found in severely impacted benchmark results
3. Apple *knew* of this - and never even told the Genius employees
4. Genius employees tested the phones & said they were "OK" (usually)
5. People naturally concluded the phone was slow & not the battery was bad
6. Apple only admitted it when *forced* to admit it
7. Apple's admission was an extremely clever Peter Madsen farce
8. For example, Apple *blames* the battery technology
9. And yet, not a single reliable source backs them up on that
10. As another example, Apple told a fib that they *informed* users
11. It was proven that they quietly inserted it well *after* the release
12. And they *never* inserted it for the iPhone 7 secret throttling
13. There are something like 45 lawsuits as a result

Are you a logical sentient intelligent adult or not?
Do you deny *any* of those facts?

Speaking as one sentient adult to another, I reasonably ask...
Which facts above do you deny, and why?

[Jolly Roger]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <p46gi1$j18$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton
> <har...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> tco is $1000 minus whatever the phone can be sold for after 2-3 years
>>> (typical length of ownership)...
>>
>> If 3 year is a *typical* length of ownership, then the iPhones are pieces
>> of shit because a cell phone should last far longer than a measly three
>> years.
>
> that's how long people generally keep cellphones, regardless of brand.
>
> the hardware itself lasts much longer.

Yup.

In “Harry’s” make-believe troll world, my 2008 iPhone 3G stopped working in
2009. In reality it’s still in daily use by a family member.

In “Harry’s” make-believe troll world, my iPhone 4 is no longer working. In
reality it’s in daily use today.

>>> likely around $600 based on historical
>>> prices, resulting in a net cost of about $400, or about $130-$200 per
>>> year for a 2-3 year period.
>>
>> At a gross cost of ownership of $1290, subtract your astronomically high
>> $600 for the now-cracked and shattered back glass iPhone,
>
> another one of your bogus assumptions.

In “Harry’s” make-believe troll world, my iPhone 4 with glass back is
broken and had to be repaired at great expense. In reality it’s never been
broken to this day, and is still in daily use.

[sms]

Right, but you are claiming that there is some defect that needs to be
fixed.

There is no defect. There is no problem.

Fully charged batteries, whether old or new, can provide sufficient
power (though as someone else pointed out, there are temperature
extremes that can affect battery performance).

The only necessary change is to provide the user with the option of
higher performance or longer operating time per charge, and to otherwise
throttle only when the battery is in a low state of charge. Perhaps also
provide a suggestion to get a new battery, when battery capacity is
declining below a certain level.

There is no upside for you to fabricate a story that there is some
defect in the iPhone that Apple needs to fix. They admitted number that
what they did was wrong. They are addressing that. iPhone owners are
flocking to Apple stores to get their discounted battery replacement.
Maybe they'll buy something else as long as they're there and feeling
good about the company.

It always make a company look good when they admit a mistake and make it
right. Volkswagen sells more cars than any other car maker in the world
despite the diesel emissions scandal. Apple will continue to sell more
phones than any other phone maker in the world despite the throttling
issue. Samsung bounced back from the Note 7 battery problem (though the
batteries catching fire was not intentional).

You need to stick to the facts.

[nospam]

In article <p47rkt$htj$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> On 1/23/2018 9:08 AM, Harold Newton wrote:
> > Yet, these are a baker's dozen pertinent facts:.

...

> Right, but you are claiming that there is some defect that needs to be
> fixed.
>
> There is no defect. There is no problem.
>
> Fully charged batteries, whether old or new, can provide sufficient
> power (though as someone else pointed out, there are temperature
> extremes that can affect battery performance).

nope. older batteries increasingly cannot supply sufficient current
under high loads.

> The only necessary change is to provide the user with the option of
> higher performance or longer operating time per charge, and to otherwise
> throttle only when the battery is in a low state of charge. Perhaps also
> provide a suggestion to get a new battery, when battery capacity is
> declining below a certain level.

again, soc is not the issue. internal degradation is.

> There is no upside for you to fabricate a story that there is some
> defect in the iPhone that Apple needs to fix. They admitted number that
> what they did was wrong. They are addressing that. iPhone owners are
> flocking to Apple stores to get their discounted battery replacement.
> Maybe they'll buy something else as long as they're there and feeling
> good about the company.
>
> It always make a company look good when they admit a mistake and make it
> right. Volkswagen sells more cars than any other car maker in the world
> despite the diesel emissions scandal.

not anymore, they aren't. vw is now #3. apparently the emissions
scandal has taken its toll.

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2017/08/30/worlds-largest-au
tomakers-july-2017-renault-nissan-still-ahead/>
The Renault-Nissan Alliance continues its strong showing that made it
the world零 largest automaker by half time 2017. As of July, and
according to data supplied by the automakers, the Alliance remains in
the number one position, before Toyota, and last year零 number one
Volkswagen.

> Apple will continue to sell more
> phones than any other phone maker in the world despite the throttling
> issue. Samsung bounced back from the Note 7 battery problem (though the
> batteries catching fire was not intentional).

that part is true.

> You need to stick to the facts.

he only sticks to made up 'facts'.

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:44:36 +0100, Johan wrote:

> Harry Newton (or who ever this apple-hater is) is short of memory:
> remember Samsung Galaxy Note 7, on market sept. 11-2016, of market oct.
> 11-2016 (after 1 month!!!!), although it was a great sigaret-lighter!

Johan,
Please don't talk like idiots talk.

I buy almost as many iOS devices as I do Android devices, as I buy a half
dozen phones a year, on average (I just bought four during Christmas alone
for heaven's sake).

Like Snit and nospam before you, the huge mistake *all* you Apple
Apologists make is you assume everyone thinks like you do.

You won't hear me get 'political', but as an analogy, guess whom I voted
for in the US presidential election. It's not Hilliary (who was running on
a platform of "I have a vagina - vote for me!" ... so the democrats think
I'm a Trump lover.

And yet, I didn't vote for Trump either - who ran on a platform of "I'm a
buffoon who is in it for the publicity". So the republicans think I'm a
Hillary lover.

The problem here is that I think for myself. Since you can *only* think
"Apple is always right", you don't have *any* freedom of thought.

Worse, you think anyone who tells you facts that you don't like, must be an
Android lover or an Apple hater.

The same thing happens in religious discussions, where if I tell a
religious fundamentalist I believe in evolution, they think I don't believe
in God, or if I tell an atheist that I believe in the creation of the laws
of physics that I don't believe in a God-like entity.

You Apple Apologist fundamentalists, act just like religious
fundamentalists, and political right and left wingers - where you can't
*comprehend* anyone with freedom of thought.

*Big Brother has permeated your entire thought process.*

Rest assured, I break news about google flaws, windows flaws, linux flaws,
and, yes, iOS flaws. We've proven this time and again, and even nospam
commented recently on a bug that I reported earlier this week that Google
missed in testing.

The Linux, Windows, and Android users don't object to hearing the truth.

*It's only the Apple Apologists who object to the truth.*

To you, anyone stating the truth, must "hate Apple", which is how *you*
think, and not how reasonable logical factual adults act.
--
PS: I literally voted for Edward Snowden (as a protest vote, of course).

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:28:39 -0500, nospam wrote:

> that's how long people generally keep cellphones, regardless of brand.

I keep my wife longer than most people keep theirs, and I keep my kids and
grandchildren close to me closer than some people seem to keep theirs, and
I keep my cars for *decades* since they work just fine now as they did when
new, and I keep my phone *easily* for five years.

If people get rid of these things sooner than that, then they're just
buying trends or style - since my phone, for example, has far more app
functionality than *any* iPhone (and you know that, e.g., I can load any
launcher I want, as just one example of almost a hundred which you already
know).

> the hardware itself lasts much longer.

We should hope so!
Three years is nothing for cell phone hardware (other than the battery).

> <http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/58b898a2be967306018b45dd-1200>

I must commend you on supplying "a" fact for once, where it's shockingly
short the length of time people hold onto their phones in that graph.

That just means the total cost of ownership is *far higher* than I
estimated, since the California tax alone adds an appreciable amount to the
total cost of ownership when you buy multiple phones cutting short their
five or six year life cycle in your hands.

> another one of your bogus assumptions.

You can't refute the original price.
You can't refute the California sales tax.
You can't refute the cost of batteries.
You can't refute the resale value (you gave it to me yourself).

And yet, you refute the math.

Only an Apple Apologist could do that indeed because you probably actually
think what Apple Marketing tells you to think about total cost of
ownership.

Some moron stated that the iPhone cost of ownership is *low* for heaven's
sake, which is the most mathematically-challenged statement I heard this
week.

Do *none* of the Apple Apologists own a calculator?

[Harold Newton]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:36:40 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> You'd cry if you knew how simple & cheap it is to do this on my phone:
>> <http://wetakepic.com/images/2018/01/19/battery1.jpg>
>
> not at all. i get more than 2 days on a single charge in typical use,
> so there's no need to deal with that shit.
>
> put another way, your battery life sucks so you *have* to carry a bunch
> of batteries.

Like any good defense lawyer, your "spin" is exemplary.

With the stock 2300 mAh battery, I only get a day, if that - but - with the
7,000 mAh battery, I get far longer than you could hope to get.

However, I do appreciate the "spin" you Apple Apologists put on facts,
because, well, you're not used to facts - so they threaten your entire
belief system.

So now I know why facts scare you so much.

There is no utility to the consumer for having a battery locked in place,
compared to one you can easily replace in seconds.

Yet, you argue there is.
Why?

[nospam]

In article <p486p4$1dmt$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > that's how long people generally keep cellphones, regardless of brand.
>
> I keep my wife longer than most people keep theirs, and I keep my kids and
> grandchildren close to me closer than some people seem to keep theirs, and
> I keep my cars for *decades* since they work just fine now as they did when
> new, and I keep my phone *easily* for five years.

moving the goalposts once again.

[sms]

On 1/23/2018 5:44 AM, Johan wrote:

<snip>

> Harry Newton (or who ever this apple-hater is) is short of memory:
> remember Samsung Galaxy Note 7, on market sept. 11-2016, of market oct.
> 11-2016 (after 1 month!!!!), although it was a great sigaret-lighter!

The Note 7 battery issue was obviously not intentional. Samsung recalled
all the defective phones and offered refunds or replacement. The Note 8
came to market the next year.

[Harold Newton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:33:15 -0800, sms wrote:

> You need to stick to the facts.

Nobody needs to tell me what I learned in about two decades of schooling in
a variety of fields. Facts form the basis of my belief system.

> There is no upside for you to fabricate a story that there is some
> defect in the iPhone that Apple needs to fix.

Read this and respond to it with facts please:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/01/18/apple-ios-11-3-release-upgrade-iphone-shutdown-iphone-battery-problem/>

"Apple's Reasoning Still Doesn't Add Up"
"The company blames the natural degradation of lithium-ion batteries,
without addressing why rivals state such measures are unnecessary.
Samsung in particular reiterated to me it can retain 95% lithium-ion
battery capacity for at least two years."

"Apple also hasn't explained why the first six generations of iPhones
were unaffected (even the 2007 original iPhone had a 1400 mAh
lithium-ion battery) or why "protective" stability measures weren't
required in the first nine generations of iOS (throttling began with
the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6S in iOS 10.2.1, released in January 2017)."

> They admitted... that what they did was wrong.

Hehhehheh ... I do not wish to quibble, so I'll let this lie fallow, but, I
only remark that you need to read *exactly* what they apologized for,
bearing in mind that Apple has the best lawyers and marketing people in the
world - and they used them to their fullest in crafting that Peter Madsen
apology.

> They are addressing that.

Let's leave this as an *opinion* on my part that they're *not* addressing
the battery flaw since all they did was push off the problem for one more
year for millions of people by offering 'discounted' batteries.

The problem returns a year later.
And the year after that.
And again, after that.

> iPhone owners are
> flocking to Apple stores to get their discounted battery replacement.

Yeah. So am I. I'm practically begging the kid who I gave a Nexus 5 to, who
was the same kid who got a cracked-screen iPhone 6 for free and she used
that instead (silly kids!) :)

And now she has an iPhone 7 so I am asking her for the iPhone 6 so that I
can get the $40 battery also (although I may go the cheaper iFixIt route
because Apple must also fix the screen for a huge additional fee).

So yeah. Who wouldn't flock to pay $40 to get their CPU back from Apple?

> Maybe they'll buy something else as long as they're there and feeling
> good about the company.

Well, I took plenty of marketing clases, as I'm sure you have also, right?
There's a *lot* to be said for waving the flag and kissing babies.
PR is something Apple is perfect at.

Witness the "make America great" bullshit they've been spouting this past
week, for example, to take the heat off the fire in people's minds for
being screwed to the wall every year for the entire life of their iPhone
ownership life cycle.

> It always make a company look good when they admit a mistake and make it
> right.

Hehhehheh ... you really did NOT read the apology.
Even nospam knows *exactly* what Apple apologized for.

Read it again. And keep your mind clued in to the exact words used, not
your belief system of what you *wish* they had said.

HINT: IMHO, there's no way Apple is gonna admit any wrongdoing before they
settle the lawsuits, which will, most likely, require them to admit
wrongdoing, or, for more money, to be able to not be forced to admit
wrongdoing. Time will tell.

> Volkswagen sells more cars than any other car maker in the world
> despite the diesel emissions scandal.

This is similar.

> Apple will continue to sell more
> phones than any other phone maker in the world despite the throttling
> issue.

Agreed.

But because Apple clearly screws its loyal customers to the wall, doesn't
make Apple's actions right.

> Samsung bounced back from the Note 7 battery problem (though the
> batteries catching fire was not intentional).

At least you're well balanced on the Samsung issue, which we'll note,
that Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid> moron doesn't have a clue.

Much appreciated that you can be factual and balanced.

The first place we disagree is that you didn't seem to read the Apple
apology for what it actually says (not what it intimates - but what it
says) - but that's a minor disagreement.

The biggest disagreement we have is you (and the Apple Apologists) seem to
disagree with this:

[Lewis]

In message <230120180828395477%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <p46gi1$j18$3...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton
> <har...@example.com> wrote:

>> > tco is $1000 minus whatever the phone can be sold for after 2-3 years
>> > (typical length of ownership)...
>>
>> If 3 year is a *typical* length of ownership, then the iPhones are pieces
>> of shit because a cell phone should last far longer than a measly three
>> years.

> that's how long people generally keep cellphones, regardless of brand.

> the hardware itself lasts much longer.

> <http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/58b898a2be967306018b45dd-1200>

My iPhone 4S is still being used by the person I gave it to. So that's
more than 6 years old.

A friend of mine just upgraded his mother's iPhone 3G (not iPhone 3GS
even), so that's 8 years old.

One of my clients has been using an iPhone 4 for several years that he
bought used.

--
>> a Freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really
thinking about a mother.
> no, a Freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears

[Lewis]

In message <fcp9jn...@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In “Harry’s” make-believe troll world, my iPhone 4 with glass back is
> broken and had to be repaired at great expense. In reality it’s never been
> broken to this day, and is still in daily use.

Oh, I forgot one. A friend of mine still uses his old iPhone 4 because
he has an cable for analog video out to his enormous (and get tiny) CRT
TV. It is used to play Netflix and AirVideo content on the television.

--
C is for CLARA who wasted away
D is for DESMOND thrown out of a sleigh

[Lewis]

In message <p47rkt$htj$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/2018 9:08 AM, Harold Newton wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:50:32 -0800, sms wrote:
>>
>>>> If the phones weren't defective in the first place, then they wouldn't need
>>>> *secret*, *permanent*, & *drastic* throttling.
>>>
>>> You are well aware of the real reason for the throttling, as is everyone
>>> else here. No upside for you to pretend not to know.
>>
>> Hi sms,
>>
>> I'm a sentient well educated adult of average intelligence, which is to say
>> there is *plenty* that I know are facts that you don't seem to *comprehend*
>> - and yet - I had always assumed you too were an educated sentient adult of
>> sufficient intelligence to comprehend facts.
>>
>> I suspect you can't comprehend the facts simply because they go against the
>> foundation of your belief system.
>>
>> Yet, these are a baker's dozen pertinent facts:.
>> 1. Apple *secretly* lowered the phones' performance

Lie.

>> 2. The throttling was found in severely impacted benchmark results

Benchmarks are meaningless.

>> 4. Genius employees tested the phones & said they were "OK" (usually)

Because they were.

>> 5. People naturally concluded the phone was slow & not the battery was bad

Slow when under demanding load. Not slow overall.

>> 6. Apple only admitted it when *forced* to admit it

Lie.

>> 7. Apple's admission was an extremely clever Peter Madsen farce

Idiotic lie,

>> 8. For example, Apple *blames* the battery technology

There is no blame, it is a simple fact on how batteries work.

>> 9. And yet, not a single reliable source backs them up on that

Batteries work the way batteries work is a fact backed up by every
single person on the planet that knows how batteries work. Another lie.

>> 10. As another example, Apple told a fib that they *informed* users

Not a fib, absolutely true.

>> 11. It was proven that they quietly inserted it well *after* the release

It was not in the day one notes for 10.2.1.

>> 12. And they *never* inserted it for the iPhone 7 secret throttling

First off, that's a lie because there is no secret throttling. Second of
all, it doens't apply to the 7 yet.

>> 13. There are something like 45 lawsuits as a result

So?

> The only necessary change is to provide the user with the option of
> higher performance or longer operating time per charge, and to otherwise
> throttle only when the battery is in a low state of charge. Perhaps also
> provide a suggestion to get a new battery, when battery capacity is
> declining below a certain level.

I would argue that is not necessary. Also, the choice is not longer
battery versus shorter battery, it is longer battery versus phone
shutdown with maybe even 80% charge because the required power to run
whatever task exceeds what the battery can now provide.

> There is no upside for you to fabricate a story that there is some
> defect in the iPhone that Apple needs to fix. They admitted number that
> what they did was wrong. They are addressing that. iPhone owners are
> flocking to Apple stores to get their discounted battery replacement.
> Maybe they'll buy something else as long as they're there and feeling
> good about the company.

People pitched a screaming fit for one reason and one reason only, it's
Apple. No one is screaming at Samsung or HTC for doing the *exact* same
thing, and far worse.

> You need to stick to the facts.

He is allergic to facts.

--
'If you sow dragons' teeth, you should get dragons. Not fighting
skeletons. What did it say on the packet?' 'I don't know! The myth never
said anything about them coming in a packet!' 'Should have said "Comes
up Dragons" on the packet.'

[nospam]

In article <slrnp6gfd3....@Snow.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> > tco is $1000 minus whatever the phone can be sold for after 2-3 years
> >> > (typical length of ownership)...
> >>
> >> If 3 year is a *typical* length of ownership, then the iPhones are pieces
> >> of shit because a cell phone should last far longer than a measly three
> >> years.
>
> > that's how long people generally keep cellphones, regardless of brand.
>
> > the hardware itself lasts much longer.
>
> > <http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/58b898a2be967306018b45dd-1200>
>
> My iPhone 4S is still being used by the person I gave it to. So that's
> more than 6 years old.
>
> A friend of mine just upgraded his mother's iPhone 3G (not iPhone 3GS
> even), so that's 8 years old.
>
> One of my clients has been using an iPhone 4 for several years that he
> bought used.

yep. people either trade in their older phones, give them to other
people (usually kids) or sell them on ebay/craigslist.

[Harold Newton]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:19:09 -0500, nospam wrote:

> yep. people either trade in their older phones, give them to other
> people (usually kids) or sell them on ebay/craigslist.

Hehhehheh ... wanna know what a "good" condition iPhone 4 is worth?

[nospam]

In article <p4a7l2$f4t$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Harold Newton

<har...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > yep. people either trade in their older phones, give them to other
> > people (usually kids) or sell them on ebay/craigslist.
>
> Hehhehheh ... wanna know what a "good" condition iPhone 4 is worth?

i already know what they're worth, as i regularly see them for sale at
swap meets, along with various other iphones and android phones.

[Harold Newton]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:12:36 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>>> 1. Apple *secretly* lowered the phones' performance
>
> Lie.

That's why you're in the first category of Apple Apologists.
You don't even try to cleverly distort the truth like nospam does.
You just say all facts you don't like are lies.

>
>>> 2. The throttling was found in severely impacted benchmark results
>
> Benchmarks are meaningless.

Nice. Very nice. I love when you and Jolly Roger post because your thought
process gives me insight into how a typical iOS user thinks.

Thanks for letting us know that performance tests are meaningless to you.

>>> 4. Genius employees tested the phones & said they were "OK" (usually)
>
> Because they were.

Also quite insightful indeed. The 45 (and counting) lawsuits will certainly
unanimously disagree with you - so let's see how the judge decides on
whether Apple misled their customers who complained about slow phones.

>
>>> 5. People naturally concluded the phone was slow & not the battery was bad
>
> Slow when under demanding load. Not slow overall.

That's like saying a car throttled from 100mph new to 50mph can tip toe in
a parking lot without its performance being hampered.

What it means is that *all* benchmarks for the affected iPhones must be,
realistically, halved, to get any semblance of a meaningful comparison.

>
>>> 6. Apple only admitted it when *forced* to admit it
>
> Lie.

Hehhehheh... I *love* how you half dozen or so Apple Apologists flatly deny
that which even *Apple* doesn't deny.

Your credibility being shit isn't of any concern whatsoever to you.

>>> 7. Apple's admission was an extremely clever Peter Madsen farce
>
> Idiotic lie,

Ah, the vitriol begins, whenever you're confronted with facts you don't
like. Jolly Roger is infamous for his vitriolic hate-filled rants when he
is confronted with facts that endanger the very underpinnings of his
house-of-cards belief system also.

>>> 8. For example, Apple *blames* the battery technology
>
> There is no blame, it is a simple fact on how batteries work.

You Apple Apologists should be running Apple since you spout the same stuff
that the "unsigned" letter does. Didja ever wonder why Tim Cook did not
sign that letter? Do you think he forgot to sign it?

HINT: It contains huge fibs that we already pointed out earlier.

>>> 9. And yet, not a single reliable source backs them up on that
>
> Batteries work the way batteries work is a fact backed up by every
> single person on the planet that knows how batteries work. Another lie.

Of course. You know batteries better than Samsung, LG, Motorola, Google,
HTC, etc.. Yes. We know that you're an utter genius, Lewis.

The only problem is that *none* of your statements is backed by even an
iota of fact. Your *entire* belief system is built on a fact-free house of
cards.

What's amazing is that you are a *typical* iOS user, so, you don't even
understand what I'm telling you.

>>> 10. As another example, Apple told a fib that they *informed* users
>
> Not a fib, absolutely true.

Bummer. Apple Marketing & Legal & Executives all apologized for nothing
then. You really should be in charge of Apple because you seem to know
better than they do.

That's another thing I love about you Apple Appologists - you have a *very
high* opinion of your ability to discern fact from fiction.

Poor Apple executives. They should have asked *you* before they wrote that
silly mistaken apology.

>>> 11. It was proven that they quietly inserted it well *after* the release
>
> It was not in the day one notes for 10.2.1.

We already showed that it *never* made it to the iOS 11.2 notes and that it
wasn't inserted into the release notes for 10.2.1 until well *after* the
release. And even then, it said almost nothing that anyone but the Apple
Apologists could possibly discern as throttling the CPU, shutting down the
flash, slowing frame rates, etc.

>>> 12. And they *never* inserted it for the iPhone 7 secret throttling
>
> First off, that's a lie because there is no secret throttling.

Of course not. Apple apologized for nothing. What I love about you Apple
Apologists is that you'll deny anything that doesn't fit into your belief
system, even when even Apple admitted it.

> Second of all, it doens't apply to the 7 yet.

Read this, just published minutes ago...

Apple confirms iOS 11.3 will let you turn off controversial throttling of older iPhones
<https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16927226/apple-ios-11-3-fix-slow-iphone-battery-throttling>
"iOS tells the iPhone 6, 6S, SE, and 7 to curtail peak performance
as the devices get older and their batteries age."

>>> 13. There are something like 45 lawsuits as a result
>
> So?

Ah. It's nothing. Those lawsuits claiming that Apple *secretly*,
*drastically*, and *permanently* destroyed their cell phone's performance
must be all frivolous and sans merit.

What I *love* about you Apple Apologists is that you know even more than
Apple does. You're *that* prescient!

>> The only necessary change is to provide the user with the option of
>> higher performance or longer operating time per charge, and to otherwise
>> throttle only when the battery is in a low state of charge. Perhaps also
>> provide a suggestion to get a new battery, when battery capacity is
>> declining below a certain level.
>
> I would argue that is not necessary. Also, the choice is not longer
> battery versus shorter battery, it is longer battery versus phone
> shutdown with maybe even 80% charge because the required power to run
> whatever task exceeds what the battery can now provide.

Read this, just published minutes ago...

Apple confirms iOS 11.3 will let you turn off controversial throttling of older iPhones
<https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16927226/apple-ios-11-3-fix-slow-iphone-battery-throttling>

"The company says iOS 11.3 will launch this spring. An initial beta
is available today, but the battery features haven't yet been
implemented. Once they're added, Apple says users will be able
to "see if the power management feature that dynamically manages
maximum performance to prevent unexpected shutdowns, first introduced
in iOS 10.2.1, is on and can choose to turn it off." The update also
shows more detailed information on battery health for the iPhone 6
and later."

> People pitched a screaming fit for one reason and one reason only, it's
> Apple. No one is screaming at Samsung or HTC for doing the *exact* same
> thing, and far worse.

The problem is that you don't have facts to back up your opinion.
That's fine, as long as you state that your opinion flies in the face of
*all* the published facts.

If you simply stated the truth, which is that your opinion is only
supported by Apple Marketing implications, then it would be fine.

You Apple Apologists can't form a belief system that is contrary to what
Big Brother tells you to think. I find that amusing. Don't you?

>> You need to stick to the facts.
> He is allergic to facts.

hehhehheh ...

The key trait of *all* Apple Apologists is that facts threaten the entire

foundation of your belief system.

Which, by the way, is why I stick to the facts.

[Snit]

On 1/23/18, 1:43 PM, in article p486p2$1dmt$2...@gioia.aioe.org, "Harold

You prefer Android and loath people who disagree with the lies you push to
back your preference. Then you lie and insist it is your preference people
do not like. Nope. It is your lies.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[sms]

An iPhone 4, almost nothing. But beginning with the LTE versions, quite
a bit, easily $150 if in excellent condition.

[nospam]

In article <p4akp5$8jh$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> >> yep. people either trade in their older phones, give them to other
> >> people (usually kids) or sell them on ebay/craigslist.
> >
> > Hehhehheh ... wanna know what a "good" condition iPhone 4 is worth?
>
> An iPhone 4, almost nothing. But beginning with the LTE versions, quite
> a bit, easily $150 if in excellent condition.

nope.

[Lewis]

And an iPhone will be worth *something* unlike an Android malware magnet
of the same age.

--
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

[Harold Newton]

World's top insider is probably wrong about why Apple is discontinuing the iPhone X
<http://bgr.com/2018/01/23/iphone-x-discontinued-not-why-ming-chi-kuo-says/>

"On the surface, this would be an odd move for Apple, which has in
the past continued to sell previous-generation flagship iPhones
each year when new models are released. But if you dig a bit
deeper, the move would make plenty of sense."

"iPhone X would hurt product brand value & lineup of 2H18 new models
if it continues to sell at a lower price after 2H18 new models
launch: Lowering iPhone X's price after the 2H18 new models launch
would be a negative to product brand value given 3D sensing and
OLED display are features of the new high-price model."

"Additionally, to sell iPhone X at a lower price may have a
negative impact on shipments of the new 6.1+IDM- LCD iPhone in 2H18."

"Apple will release three new iPhones later this year. The first
will be an upgraded version of the 5.8-inch OLED iPhone X and
the second will be a larger "Plus" version of the phone with
a 6.5-inch OLED display. The third will be sized between them
with a "notched" 6.1-inch LCD screen, but priced below both
OLED iPhone models."

"If we assume a price point that is $100 below the upcoming new
iPhone X successor, there would be nowhere to price the
iPhone X without decimating iPhone margins in the process."

[Harold Newton]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:24:22 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>> An iPhone 4, almost nothing. But beginning with the LTE versions, quite
>> a bit, easily $150 if in excellent condition.
>
> And an iPhone will be worth *something* unlike an Android malware magnet
> of the same age.

What's amazing is that your entire belief system is built upon a house of
cards.

None of you Apple Apologists seem to comprehend how to use a calculator.

HINT: The total cost of ownership of iPhones is astoundingly astronomical!

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-25 11:25, Harold Newton wrote:
> World's top insider is probably wrong about why Apple is discontinuing the iPhone X
> <http://bgr.com/2018/01/23/iphone-x-discontinued-not-why-ming-chi-kuo-says/

Another asusequent article says that Apple will streamline its product
lineup in 2018. There will be a premium successor to the X, and a low
cost successor to the 8, possibly without 3d touch, and the SE.

[Harold Newton]

My prediction is something *nobody* else predicts, so, you have to
understand that before I make it.

My prediction is that Apple wants to get rid of the flawed phones, and
dropping the X is getting rid of the most expensive of the flawed phones.
Nobody was going to buy it who had any sense anyway, since who wants to pay
for a phone that is just going to be cut in half in a year, every year.

The problem is that Apple has to get rid of those less expensive flawed
phones also.

I suspect, there will be a successor in the near future to *all* the
severely flawed phones, such that they can completely drop the existing
line of severely flawed phones as soon as possible as the current crop of
flawed phones is a legal and goodwill weight around Apple's neck.

That's a prediction - which time will prove out as being prescient or not.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-25 15:33, Harold Newton wrote:

> My prediction is that Apple wants to get rid of the flawed phones,

Yes. But the way Apple did it with the 6 was to give carriers incentives
to allow their customers to upgtade from the 6 to the 6s at low/no cost.
Apple itself didn't offer specials and handled the repairs of the 6 on a
one by one basis (a friend has had his 6 fixed 3 times, and one of those
involved getting a new 6, all at Apple's cost).


Apple accountants will decide what the PR costs of the battery-gate is,
what the costs of handling the repairs are, and what the costs of
providing low cost upgrades is and decide what the best course of action is.

We won't know until September what Apple has decided.

[nospam]

In article <MssaC.193354$ww.5...@fx27.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> But the way Apple did it with the 6 was to give carriers incentives
> to allow their customers to upgtade from the 6 to the 6s at low/no cost.

the 6 wasn't flawed and apple didn't offer any incentives.

>
> We won't know until September what Apple has decided.

that part is true.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-25 17:26, nospam wrote:

> the 6 wasn't flawed and apple didn't offer any incentives.

There was a screen repair program because the screen/touch screen often
failed. There were strructural weakness to the bezel which was fixed
with a strenghtened 6s bezel.

And for the carriers to offer 0 down upgrades for owners of the 6
(previous year) to get a 6s means that carriers got incentives from
Apple. Those without a 6 didn't get the $0 down offers for the 6s at
that time.

[nospam]

In article <KitaC.204760$%a1.4...@fx35.iad>, JF Mezei

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

>
> > the 6 wasn't flawed and apple didn't offer any incentives.
>
> There was a screen repair program because the screen/touch screen often
> failed.

that doesn't make the entire product line flawed, nor did it result in
incentives to upgrade.

most people didn't have the issue.

> There were strructural weakness to the bezel which was fixed
> with a strenghtened 6s bezel.

no there weren't.

bending the iphone 6 required a *lot* of force (you can see people
straining in the various videos). it's not something that would happen
in normal use. the 6s uses a stronger aluminum, but it also has
force-touch.

many android phones bend with a lot less effort:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU6Tv-OfXk0&t=2m35s>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTIaUH6PIvo&t=2m57s>

> And for the carriers to offer 0 down upgrades for owners of the 6
> (previous year) to get a 6s means that carriers got incentives from
> Apple. Those without a 6 didn't get the $0 down offers for the 6s at
> that time.

carriers can offer whatever incentives *they* want.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-25 18:19, nospam wrote:

> bending the iphone 6 required a *lot* of force (you can see people
> straining in the various videos).

While this is true, you need to consider that the lack of structural
support by bezel controbuted to screen failures for the 6 due to flex.

[nospam]

In article <FmxaC.61118$k%2.2...@fx33.iad>, JF Mezei

nope.

[Harold Newton]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:38:21 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>> bending the iphone 6 required a *lot* of force (you can see people
>>> straining in the various videos).
>>
>> While this is true, you need to consider that the lack of structural
>> support by bezel controbuted to screen failures for the 6 due to flex.
>
> nope.

It's really telling that Apple Apologists can't ever admit fact.
Facts don't form the foundation of the Apple Appologists' belief system.

[sms]

On 1/25/2018 2:01 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> Apple accountants will decide what the PR costs of the battery-gate is,
> what the costs of handling the repairs are, and what the costs of
> providing low cost upgrades is and decide what the best course of action is.

More likely the marketing people will decide the best course of action
because the one-time cost of repairs are of little concern, the key
issue is how to turn this into a marketing success.

The battery issue is out of the news. Bringing in a phone to an Apple
store gets a person into the Apple store. There's a big opportunity to
gain sales of other products while people are in the store and feeling
good about the low-cost battery replacement, and their speeded-up old
iPhone.

The cost of low-cost upgrades is hard to determine. First, they aren't
losing money on a $29 upgrade unless the customer was going to spend $79
on a battery upgrade had they not offered the lower price, they are just
making less money, and most people never replace a battery. Second, if
sales of other products increase at Apple stores, how do they know how
many of those sales are a result of getting all those iPhone owners into
an Apple store and how many would have occurred anyway?

Already, most people seem to have forgotten about the throttling, and
are now happy to get a new battery at a bargain price.

And of course there was no flaw with the iPhone X. There were design
trade-offs, made for specific reasons. Those people I know with the
iPhone X have quickly gotten use to using face recognition and to the
removal of the home button. Perhaps the next generation will bring back
the fingerprint sensor and the home button, perhaps not. Every
additional sensor, button, connector, etc., increases manufacturing
cost, warranty repair cost, and decreases reliability. The goal is to
minimize all possible points of failure.

[Harold Newton]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:03:01 -0800, sms wrote:

> Already, most people seem to have forgotten about the throttling, and
> are now happy to get a new battery at a bargain price.

That's true, which is why it was sheer genius of Apple to push the problem
into the next year for many millions of iPhone owners!

The smartest thing Apple ever did is to offer the cheap batteries
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/vd4lnpN5ZrU>

> And of course there was no flaw with the iPhone X.

Apple clearly said the iPhone X was going to be throttled.

> There were design trade-offs, made for specific reasons.

The design tradeoff resulted in a flaw.

HINT: Apple *themselves* admitted the initial evidence of the sudden
shutoff was, at first, a complete mystery to them, until the figured it out
by the second pass - and then the solution Apple already said, will occur
on *all* the current iPhones, including the iPhone X (which has to be
considered an iPhone V as a result).

> Those people I know with the
> iPhone X have quickly gotten use to using face recognition and to the
> removal of the home button.

Yup. I have a guy I hike with who constantly tells me how fast it
recognizes his face. I jokingly retort that's because his face is ugly, and
iPhones love ugly people! :)

> Perhaps the next generation will bring back
> the fingerprint sensor and the home button, perhaps not.

The face id is a marketing gimmick.
If it works on the fools, they'll keep it.

When it stops working as a marketing gimmick, they'll do something else.

> Every
> additional sensor, button, connector, etc., increases manufacturing
> cost, warranty repair cost, and decreases reliability. The goal is to
> minimize all possible points of failure.

I doubt that's their goal, simply because adding a courageous headphone
jack or a button doesn't effectively reduce the costs, size, or
reliability.... particularly for a phone that has, oh, what? 100% markup?

(What's Apple's hardware margin? It's huge. So costs can't be an issue.)

It's 100% marketing gimmickry.
That's why it works so well on the typical iOS consumer.

They believe stuff like this, which nospam could have written...
<https://offer.cutthecordfreetv.com/misc-16767959>

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-26 10:03, sms wrote:

> The battery issue is out of the news.

Don't bet on it. Don't be surprised if Samsung starts to have ads about
how you have to replace iPhone batteries every year.

> Already, most people seem to have forgotten about the throttling, and
> are now happy to get a new battery at a bargain price.

The throttling isn't the issue. Shutdowns in cold are. And throttling
does not prevent shutdowns caused by turning camera on.

>
> And of course there was no flaw with the iPhone X.

We'll see how well it behaves with regards to its battery. Apple has not
said that the problem was fixed, it said that the throttling will kick
in for newer phones as they get older.

[Harold Newton]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:45:07 -0500, JF Mezei wrote:

>> The battery issue is out of the news.
>
> Don't bet on it. Don't be surprised if Samsung starts to have ads about
> how you have to replace iPhone batteries every year.

I think both you and sms are correct in that the "news" will concentrate on
"what's new" and that people will concentrate on the pain that they're
feeling.

For the people, the "pain" was ameliorated greatly by giving them a new
one-year lease on their iPhone's life, which I suspect was a key goal of
Apple - which was to push the pain out until they have a solution for that
pain.

That "solution" for that pain dovetails into my conjecture that Apple will
replace the *entire* flawed line - and perhaps sweeten the deal with a
juicy tradein of that flawed phone - or extend the battery deal (which, by
all accounts, has been a success for Apple).

As for "the news", I suspect two things will hit the news in the future,
pretty hard:

1. When those iPhone X (divided in half making them an iPhone V) one-year
performance benchmark results are published ... and ...

2. When those 45 (and counting) lawsuits are eventually settled.

I suspect that the lawsuits will dovetail into Apple offering a tradein
deal of a non-flawed phone for the highly flawed phones - which will be a
win for everyone concerned.

A. Apple will get all the highly flawed phones off the market, and,
B. Consumers will have been (for the most part) made whole again.

>> Already, most people seem to have forgotten about the throttling, and
>> are now happy to get a new battery at a bargain price.
>
> The throttling isn't the issue. Shutdowns in cold are. And throttling
> does not prevent shutdowns caused by turning camera on.

JF Mezei is correct, where it's odd that sms doesn't see that there are
only three options:
1. Let Apple cut the phone in half, or,
2. Risk shutdowns at any time, or,
3. Replace the battery every year (raising HW costs by about $400).

Even sms has to admit his only choice is to "pick one".

>> And of course there was no flaw with the iPhone X.
> We'll see how well it behaves with regards to its battery. Apple has not
> said that the problem was fixed, it said that the throttling will kick
> in for newer phones as they get older.

You are correct.

The only data we have is that Apple *clearly* said the iPhone X is
affected.

I suspect that's one reason they may be planning to drop the iPhone X, and,
I predict that Apple will be forced, by reality, to drop the entire line of
current phones much sooner than they would have planned otherwise.

Time will tell...

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-26 15:15, Harold Newton wrote:

> I suspect that's one reason they may be planning to drop the iPhone X,

They were going to drop the X anyways, with a successor to the 8 taking
over the midrange and a new "X" for the premium market.

How much of "battery-gate" the can solve with the 2018 models remains to
be seen since those models would have been under development for quite
some time. But if the replacement for the 8 s to be bigger, it means
bigger battery and hence more amps capacity a year later.

Apple would have been aware of the battery issue since early 2016. So it
is technically possible that the pipeline leading to the 2018 models
started off with the need to fix this.

[nospam]

In article <7JOaC.3475$x_2...@fx06.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> They were going to drop the X anyways, with a successor to the 8 taking
> over the midrange and a new "X" for the premium market.

nobody outside of a very small number of people at apple knows what
they're going to do.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-26 18:25, nospam wrote:

> nobody outside of a very small number of people at apple knows what
> they're going to do.
>

The same Apple-predicting guy who wrote the article about Apple ending
the X also wrote an article discussing product strategy and predicted
that 6s/7/8 will be replaced by a new midrange, bigger phone, but
without 3d Touch, and by a successor to the X in the premium pricing range.

[nospam]

In article <nqRaC.349768$ET6....@fx38.iad>, JF Mezei

he didn't say the x would be canceled, he's still guessing at what
might happen and he doesn't have a perfect record.

others are saying apple will *add* two new models:
<http://www.theinvestor.co.kr/view.php?ud=20180126000414>
[ET NEWS] Apple is seeking to diversify parts suppliers for its OLED
iPhone lineup this year, launching two new models adding to the
current iPhone X, according to industry sources on Jan. 26.

also, what they might be planning now could change by next fall. if
they can't get critical parts in quantity, then their plans could
easily change.

[sms]

On 1/26/2018 3:20 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

> They were going to drop the X anyways, with a successor to the 8 taking
> over the midrange and a new "X" for the premium market.

I don't think that they really intended the 8/8 Plus becoming a
mid-range product. But since it was not much of an upgrade from the 7/7
Plus, and because Android flagships had much better specifications, that
is how the market viewed it.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-26 21:31, nospam wrote:

> he didn't say the x would be canceled, he's still guessing at what
> might happen and he doesn't have a perfect record.

Yes. There is no point in continuing the X when Apple comes out with the
Xs to replace it. There is only room for 1 premium phone for rich people.

And it is a smart move.

When phone evolved quickly, last year's model would have far less
features than this year's model. So the feature differences mad for
compeling case for a price difference between the less capable last year
phone and this year,s new phone.

But with the slowing evolution, next year's phone isn't sufficiently
different to warrant a big price difference.

If the Xs is only minilally better than the X, and Apple keeps the X,
people will buy the cheaper X because the added features of Xs are not
worth the price premium.

So it is smart for Apple to move to having 3 distinct product lines
which evolve in sync, keeping the difference gap between each which
makes it possible to offer phones at a large price range.

The 8s won't be significantly different form the 6s, 7 and 8. There is
no point in keeping all of them. Might as well make a single midrange
and share compunents such as the CPU/radio with the other models to
reduce/streamline procurement/manufacturing costs.


http://www.nasdaq.com/article/is-the-apple-inc-iphone-x-a-success-in-the-us-cm911389


iPhone 8 -- 24%.
iPhone 8 Plus -- 17%.
iPhone X -- 20%.
All other iPhones (iPhone SE, iPhone 6s-series, iPhone 7-series) -- 39%.

[nospam]

In article <p4gq6m$1qt$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

>
> > They were going to drop the X anyways, with a successor to the 8 taking
> > over the midrange and a new "X" for the premium market.
>
> I don't think that they really intended the 8/8 Plus becoming a
> mid-range product.

it's a high end product.

> But since it was not much of an upgrade from the 7/7
> Plus, and because Android flagships had much better specifications,

actually, it's a very nice upgrade from the 7/7+ and android flagships
do *not* have 'much better specifications'. they're comparable, a
little better in some ways and a little worse in others.

> that
> is how the market viewed it.

that's what matters

[nospam]

In article <InSaC.322259$%g5.2...@fx30.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> > he didn't say the x would be canceled, he's still guessing at what
> > might happen and he doesn't have a perfect record.
>
> Yes. There is no point in continuing the X when Apple comes out with the
> Xs to replace it. There is only room for 1 premium phone for rich people.

that's *assuming* there will only be one single x class phone to
replace it.

the rumours are calling for multiple x phones.

also, some of the technology may filter down to other models.

[Your Name]

From AppleInsider.com ...

Latest supply chain rumor suggests Apple could continue
to sell current iPhone X model into 2019
------------------------------------------------------
Rumors from Apple suppliers are now at odds with one another
as a new report contradicts earlier claims that the current
iPhone X would be completely replaced by a new model later
this year. Instead, it is suggested that Apple could stick
with its usual strategy of continuing to sell previous
year's models.

<http://appleinsider.com/articles/18/01/26/latest-supply-chain-rumor-suggests-apple-could-continue-to-sell-current-iphone-x-model-into-2019>

[Steven Scharf]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 7:30:48 PM UTC-8, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-01-26 21:31, nospam wrote:
>
> > he didn't say the x would be canceled, he's still guessing at what
> > might happen and he doesn't have a perfect record.
>
> Yes. There is no point in continuing the X when Apple comes out with the
> Xs to replace it. There is only room for 1 premium phone for rich people.

I'd take issue with the idea that the iPhone X is for "rich people."

I know quite a few people with the X, and none of them are "rich." It's all about how middle class people decide how to spend their discretionary income.

[Harold Newton]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 06:46:02 -0800 (PST), Steven Scharf wrote:

> I'd take issue with the idea that the iPhone X is for "rich people."
>
> I know quite a few people with the X, and none of them are "rich."
> It's all about how middle class people decide how to spend their
> discretionary income.

I would tend to agree with you, in that it's a "cultural" trait that is
akin to the guy in fancy clothes but his education, grammar, punctuation,
and diction are atrocious, in that he "thinks" he's traded "up" to the next
level of society - simply because he has purchased one of the "trappings"
of that next level of society.

[Lewis]

In message <nWIaC.799$at7...@fx43.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-01-26 10:03, sms wrote:

>> The battery issue is out of the news.

> Don't bet on it. Don't be surprised if Samsung starts to have ads about
> how you have to replace iPhone batteries every year.

that would be great, Samsung needs to pay Apple some more money, and a
libel suit would be a welcome change.

>> Already, most people seem to have forgotten about the throttling, and
>> are now happy to get a new battery at a bargain price.

> The throttling isn't the issue. Shutdowns in cold are. And throttling
> does not prevent shutdowns caused by turning camera on.

You re the only person whining about shutdowns in cold. Batteries don't
work well in cold. This is true now, and has always been true.

> We'll see how well it behaves with regards to its battery. Apple has not
> said that the problem was fixed, it said that the throttling will kick
> in for newer phones as they get older.

There is no problem.

--
"Kill yourself and roll a rogue. We'll wait"

[sms]

Someone buying a flagship phone for over $1000 is not going to want to
buy an older model just to save $100-200 unless the newer model is
decontented in some significant way, making the older model more desirable.

People still buy the iPhone 6S/6S Plus because of both the lower price
and because it has a headphone jack. Apparently the 6S/6S Plus are still
being manufactured, even though they are two generations old.

"Into 2019" can mean many things. If there is inventory of an older
product of course it is sold, at a reduced price, until the inventory is
gone. But will it continue to be manufactured? Keeping a manufacturing
line running for a low-volume older product is not something high-volume
consumer-electronic manufacturers like to do, but for a high-volume
older product it's no problem.

It's likely that the iPhone X next generation, whatever it's called,
will not be decontented, and instead will be much improved and that
there will be a larger screen version to compete against the Samsung
Galaxy S9+ and other large screen Android phones.

The subject line of this thread is so ridiculous. Companies stop
manufacturing old products, and bring out new products, all the time.
The subject should have read, "Apple will soon come out with new
products to replace old products," but that's not as catchy as what was
written.

[sms]

Some people can't believe that anyone would spend $4000 on a bicycle,
$5000 for a camera, or $70,000 on a car. But people like to spend their
money in different ways. It should not be up to anyone else to tell
people that spending an extra few hundred dollars on a fancy phone is
something that they should not do.

[Harold Newton]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 07:34:23 -0800, sms wrote:

> Someone buying a flagship phone for over $1000 is not going to want to
> buy an older model just to save $100-200 unless the newer model is
> decontented in some significant way, making the older model more desirable.

And, someone spending $1000 is also buying a "luxury" item, where they are
purchasing cachet - so they don't want to have to explain every day to
someone why they have to spend an extra $400 over five years for a new
battery every year just so that it isn't turned into an iphone V by iOS.

Every stranger I run into with one in their hands gets that question from
me, where they have to explain to me how they like having a $1000 iPhone V.

[sms]

You may not have heard yet, but Apple is modifying iOS to allow the user
to choose between throttling for longer operating time per charge or
higher performance with lower operating time per charge.

So you'll need to go back and explain this to all those mythical
strangers they you allegedly stop on the street to talk to about their
iPhone X.

[sms]

On 1/27/2018 8:24 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <nWIaC.799$at7...@fx43.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2018-01-26 10:03, sms wrote:
>
>>> The battery issue is out of the news.
>
>> Don't bet on it. Don't be surprised if Samsung starts to have ads about
>> how you have to replace iPhone batteries every year.
>
> that would be great, Samsung needs to pay Apple some more money, and a
> libel suit would be a welcome change.
>
>>> Already, most people seem to have forgotten about the throttling, and
>>> are now happy to get a new battery at a bargain price.
>
>> The throttling isn't the issue. Shutdowns in cold are. And throttling
>> does not prevent shutdowns caused by turning camera on.
>
> You re the only person whining about shutdowns in cold. Batteries don't
> work well in cold. This is true now, and has always been true.

That is true, but all phones have at least one temperature sensor
inside. Throttling CPU speed due to extremely hot or extremely cold
temperatures would certainly be acceptable. The big issue is automatic
throttling based solely on the age of the battery. They are correcting
this. It's old news.

[Harold Newton]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 08:45:38 -0800, sms wrote:

> You may not have heard yet, but Apple is modifying iOS to allow the user
> to choose between throttling for longer operating time per charge or
> higher performance with lower operating time per charge.

Apple screwed its loyal high-paying customers to the wall.
The iPhone X is just a very expensive iPhone V.

You must realize that I am the one who broke *all* that news to the
newsgroup, from the first proof that Apple was throttling (hence all iPhone
benchmarks are outright lies) to the first proof that Apple apologized to
the first proof that Tim Cook said they'd add the feature in the upcoming
release, to the first proof that the beta doesn't contain it.

You seem to forget Apple *never* gives you a real choice.
1. You can let them halve your iPhone X to an iPhone V, or,
2. You can just risk the phone shutting down whenver it feels like it, or,
3. You can pay an additional half the price of the phone for batteries!

Pick one.

> So you'll need to go back and explain this to all those mythical
> strangers they you allegedly stop on the street to talk to about their
> iPhone X.

You really think I'm shy?

You think I don't ask *every* iPhone X user I see in public what they feel
regarding the fact they paid $1000 for an iPhone V, plus $400 extra for
batteries, plus another $50 for the mandatory case to protect it, plus the
$150 tax alone on that stuff?

Then I tell them I bought 4 excellent Android phones (equivalent to iPhone
7 Plus) for less than the price they are paying for batteries alone!

In fact, I tell them that for just the *tax* alone they paid, I get an
Android phone that is *better* in almost all ways than an iPhone 7 Plus.

IMHO, Apple knows the embarrassment the iPhone X causes anyone who owns it
to have to *defend* it from such obvious facts that they're idiots for
paying through the nose for half a phone they *thought* they would get.

Nobody but fools bought the iPhone X ... and anyone who buys it in the
future is simply proving they're fools.

[sms]

On 1/26/2018 7:30 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-01-26 21:31, nospam wrote:
>
>> he didn't say the x would be canceled, he's still guessing at what
>> might happen and he doesn't have a perfect record.
>
> Yes. There is no point in continuing the X when Apple comes out with the
> Xs to replace it. There is only room for 1 premium phone for rich people.
>
> And it is a smart move.
>
> When phone evolved quickly, last year's model would have far less
> features than this year's model. So the feature differences mad for
> compeling case for a price difference between the less capable last year
> phone and this year,s new phone.
>
> But with the slowing evolution, next year's phone isn't sufficiently
> different to warrant a big price difference.
>
> If the Xs is only minilally better than the X, and Apple keeps the X,
> people will buy the cheaper X because the added features of Xs are not
> worth the price premium.
>
> So it is smart for Apple to move to having 3 distinct product lines
> which evolve in sync, keeping the difference gap between each which
> makes it possible to offer phones at a large price range.
>
> The 8s won't be significantly different form the 6s, 7 and 8. There is
> no point in keeping all of them. Might as well make a single midrange
> and share compunents such as the CPU/radio with the other models to
> reduce/streamline procurement/manufacturing costs.

<snip>

With the next generation it should be:

Flagships
---------
iPhone 9 versus ?. Currently there are no small-screen Android
flagships. Surprising, since some users prefer smaller, sub 5" screen,
phones. The smaller Android phones are low-end.
iPhone 9 Plus versus Samsung S9
iPhone 9 Plus XL versus Samsung S9+

Midrange
--------
iPhone SE versus Moto G6 Plus
iPhone SE Plus versus Moto G6S Plus

(Looking only at U.S. quad-carrier phones).

[nospam]

In article <p4kqhv$b49$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> Someone buying a flagship phone for over $1000 is not going to want to
> buy an older model just to save $100-200 unless the newer model is
> decontented in some significant way, making the older model more desirable.

nonsense. some will want to save money and buy a less expensive phone.
that's why there are several iphone models at various price points
available, from $349 and up.

> People still buy the iPhone 6S/6S Plus because of both the lower price
> and because it has a headphone jack. Apparently the 6S/6S Plus are still
> being manufactured, even though they are two generations old.

they don't buy the 6s because it has an analog headphone jack. very,
very few people care about an outdated analog headphone jack, which is
going away eventually.

most people use either the headphones in the box which plug into the
bottom of the phone (aka a digital headphone jack), bluetooth headsets
or the built in speakers.

they buy the 6s because it's $449, or the se for $349.

> "Into 2019" can mean many things. If there is inventory of an older
> product of course it is sold, at a reduced price, until the inventory is
> gone.

nope. apple's channel inventory is typically a few weeks.

> But will it continue to be manufactured? Keeping a manufacturing
> line running for a low-volume older product is not something high-volume
> consumer-electronic manufacturers like to do, but for a high-volume
> older product it's no problem.

that depends on a lot of things.

> It's likely that the iPhone X next generation, whatever it's called,
> will not be decontented, and instead will be much improved and that
> there will be a larger screen version to compete against the Samsung
> Galaxy S9+ and other large screen Android phones.

future versions of the iphone x will *add* more functionality, just as
every iphone before it has done.

> The subject line of this thread is so ridiculous. Companies stop
> manufacturing old products, and bring out new products, all the time.
> The subject should have read, "Apple will soon come out with new
> products to replace old products," but that's not as catchy as what was
> written.

yep. it's linkbait.

[Jolly Roger]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/2018 8:24 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <nWIaC.799$at7...@fx43.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2018-01-26 10:03, sms wrote:
>>
>>>> The battery issue is out of the news.
>>
>>> Don't bet on it. Don't be surprised if Samsung starts to have ads about
>>> how you have to replace iPhone batteries every year.
>>
>> that would be great, Samsung needs to pay Apple some more money, and a
>> libel suit would be a welcome change.
>>
>>>> Already, most people seem to have forgotten about the throttling, and
>>>> are now happy to get a new battery at a bargain price.
>>
>>> The throttling isn't the issue. Shutdowns in cold are. And throttling
>>> does not prevent shutdowns caused by turning camera on.
>>
>> You re the only person whining about shutdowns in cold. Batteries don't
>> work well in cold. This is true now, and has always been true.
>
> That is true, but all phones have at least one temperature sensor
> inside.

Irrelevant.

> Throttling CPU speed due to extremely hot or extremely cold
> temperatures would certainly be acceptable.

Throttling won’t help with cold temperatures.

> The big issue is automatic
> throttling based solely on the age of the battery.

The only real issue here is pure human stupidity.

> They are correcting
> this. It's old news.

They are giving stupid people what they want. The rest of us won’t be
stupidly turning the feature off because it extends the runtime of dying
batteries and prevents spontaneous shutdowns.

--
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

[Your Name]

On 2018-01-28 15:34:23 +0000, sms said:
> On 1/26/2018 7:52 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> From AppleInsider.com ...
>>
>>    Latest supply chain rumor suggests Apple could continue
>>    to sell current iPhone X model into 2019
>>    ------------------------------------------------------
>>    Rumors from Apple suppliers are now at odds with one another
>>    as a new report contradicts earlier claims that the current
>>    iPhone X would be completely replaced by a new model later
>>    this year. Instead, it is suggested that Apple could stick
>>    with its usual strategy of continuing to sell previous
>>    year's models.
>>
>> <http://appleinsider.com/articles/18/01/26/latest-supply-chain-rumor-suggests-apple-could-continue-to-sell-current-iphone-x-model-into-2019>
>>
>
> Someone buying a flagship phone for over $1000 is not going to want to
> buy an older model just to save $100-200 unless the newer model is
> decontented in some significant way, making the older model more
> desirable.

Well, if the newer model is "decontented" then I guess Apple will
include a sad emoji as the wallpaper. ;-)

> People still buy the iPhone 6S/6S Plus because of both the lower price
> and because it has a headphone jack. Apparently the 6S/6S Plus are
> still being manufactured, even though they are two generations old.

Apple also sells the iPhone SE, which is basically an slightly tweaked
version of the even older iPhone *5S* (it has the same CPU chip as the
iPhone 6S).

[nospam]

In article <p4lbgg$1ip7$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name

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

> Apple also sells the iPhone SE, which is basically an slightly tweaked
> version of the even older iPhone *5S* (it has the same CPU chip as the
> iPhone 6S).

it's *much* more than a 'slightly tweaked' 5s with a faster cpu.

it's basically an iphone 6s in a 5s-size enclosure.

[Harold Newton]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:31:08 -0500, nospam wrote:

> it's *much* more than a 'slightly tweaked' 5s with a faster cpu.

The "faster CPU" is utterly meaningless when it's halved in a year.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-28 10:47, sms wrote:

> Some people can't believe that anyone would spend $4000 on a bicycle,
> $5000 for a camera, or $70,000 on a car.

The $4000 bicycle will last far longer than the el cheapo $300 bike you
get at hardware store. The high end Shimano Dura Ace parts will last a
LOT longer in terms of wear and tear than the el-cheapo bike. So if you
ride your bike a lot, it starts to make a significant difference above
and beyond the "look".

Where Apple has been different from the andoid marketplace is that with
the exception of the 5C, all its models started off as THE premium high
quality model (the SE started off as a 5S and got updated compionents
inside).

So the longevity expectation whether you buy an X or an SE isn't all
that different. Apple doesn't make el-cheapo disposable phones. Spending
more on a phone doesn't yield a longer expectation of keeping the phone.


And here is the real potential problem for Apple based on the rumours. I
call this the "seat pre-selection syndrome".

Seat=Pre-=Selection was a great cost saving measure for airlines,
greatly reducing the time needed to process passengers at airports.

BUT, at one point, when passengers stopped paying for business/first
class, airlines decided that to push people to the premium servive they
had to differentiate premium service from coach. Instead of adding to
the premium service, they cut features from coach, such as
set-pre-selection. (It didn't take time for them to put it back but only
at time of web check-in since they wouldn't save any money if pax still
had to interface with airside staff to get boarding pass with seat
assigned).



The danger here is that to differentiate between the iPhone Xs and the
8s, Apple is rumoured to removed features such as 3D touch from the 8s.
Apple knows that when features are similar, there isn't much to compell
people to spend hundreds more for the premium model.


If Apple starts to remove featrures from the midrange phones to push
people to the premium model, other manufactuers will have no problems
putting those features on their mid range phones and stealing customers
from Apple.

Apple knows what the price limit for "high volume" phone is. In
previous years, Apple saw the effect of higher priced phones in
countries where currency dropped. Apple decided to raise prices to
maintain margins at expense of volume. They know at what price people
stop buying the premium phone because it is too expensive. And they are
seeing this in USA with the X this year with the older phones getting
greater market share within Apple's portfolio.


So Apple will have to play a very careful game here, creating "premium"
models for low volume, without cannibalising features on the high volume
mid range models that become the mainstay of sales volume.

People will stop wondering about what new features will be in the X
replacement, they will want to kwnow what will be removed/added to the
replacement for the 8.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-28 11:51, sms wrote:

> That is true, but all phones have at least one temperature sensor
> inside. Throttling CPU speed due to extremely hot or extremely cold
> temperatures would certainly be acceptable.

iPhone's temperature sensor only used to shutdown the phone in very hot
temperatures and display a "too hot" in a red triangle warning. It has
no such warning when cold.

In fact, the cold weather shutdowns when you turn on camera come with no
warning and no throttlinga sthge phoen thinks all is fine with battery
suffiencly charged until the camera starts to draw power at which point
it is too much and phone shuts down without warning.

> The big issue is automatic
> throttling based solely on the age of the battery. They are correcting
> this. It's old news.

Apple has not documented what triggers the throttling. So we don't know
if it is age, or comnination of charge level, age, and current battery
draw or what.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-28 13:06, nospam wrote:

> future versions of the iphone x will *add* more functionality, just as
> every iphone before it has done.

There comes a point when continued addition of costs to the hardware
yields no value to the consumer. The HUGE taptic engine is neat, but
could have remained as a small vibrator for tactile feedback.

The problem is that adding features in software still does not grant the
premium phone extra value because all phones benefit from it.

Apple's biggest problem now is figuring out the balance in
features/parts cost between the high volume midrange, and the luxury
premium phone.

[nospam]

In article <9xubC.455451$oY6.2...@fx26.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> The danger here is that to differentiate between the iPhone Xs and the
> 8s, Apple is rumoured to removed features such as 3D touch from the 8s.

nonsense.

[nospam]

In article <pDubC.538013$iX.2...@fx39.iad>, JF Mezei

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

> There comes a point when continued addition of costs to the hardware
> yields no value to the consumer. The HUGE taptic engine is neat, but
> could have remained as a small vibrator for tactile feedback.

nope to both.

for every feature, *someone* finds a use for it.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-28 20:21, nospam wrote:

> for every feature, *someone* finds a use for it.

When that feature takes up valuable real estate inside a phone and adds
to cost of production, if not enough people use it, then it may not be
worth putting it in.