If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
What kind of car do you have that retains safe-modes? ECU's typically fail quickly. If a sensor goes bad the computer will warn you, but when the ECU goes...it's dead.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
What kind of car do you have that retains safe-modes? ECU's typically fail quickly. If a sensor goes bad the computer will warn you, but when the ECU goes...it's dead.
It is no secret or conspiracy that batteries wear out.
When my Apple Watch battery starts to wear out I expect it to need charging more often, not to start losing time.
Yeh, and that's reasonable and what most people would expect. Me included.
But what was apparently happening was as the charge got low (say 30%) the phone would shut down when faced with a need for higher power (a surge from the battery) like for a video and it couldn't be restarted till it was connected to a wall charger.
Mine was doing that before Apple instituted the software enhancement so I took it the Apple Store. They told me: "Your batter tests ok but we think you should pay $79 for a new one!" There was no further explanation so I declined. A few months later it did appear to be weak so I had a third party replace it for about half that -- and it started working fine again.
Tesla constantly, if not regularly, update their cars' software as they see fit, long after the sale. I have no idea what updates are documented, all updates are documented, and to what extent.
Apple's updating the battery management without detailing the update isn't very much off the mark of other updates which do give an alert with "including stability and bug fixes" that go unnamed and detailed.
So yes, if Apple has said what they were going to do, and did it instead of what they did, it would have been a much, much smaller issue, if one at all.
Without any notification, this was at most, at worst an affront to people looking for a payday. I chose not to believe at all that this was Apple trying to make people believe their phone and not its battery needed replacing. I see no evidence of this and nothing of that being presented in court.
ATT was selling unlimited data but throttled throughput at a certain threshold of use. And they didn't tell anybody until it became a known issue. That practice benefited only ATT and not the end-user.
That's not what Apple did. I'd like to know what losses were incurred because of Apple not telling what they did. Without evidence of some sort of profiteering, there is more than enough mitigation to preclude any kind of monetary judgement.
from my point of view, the upgrade extended original designed "service life" with majority of function with minimum impact for the users. It is pain to see the good intention were mis-understood by messes, including the silly law school grads (judge included). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_life IMHO.
... I chose not to believe at all that this was Apple trying to make people believe their phone and not its battery needed replacing. I see no evidence of this and nothing of that being presented in court. ...
That's not what Apple did. I'd like to know what losses were incurred because of Apple not telling what they did. Without evidence of some sort of profiteering, there is more than enough mitigation to preclude any kind of monetary judgement.
Actually, it could be argued, quite the opposite: My phone was shutting down randomly from 30% and, more than once, it did it when I was away from home and needed to use the phone but couldn't until I got home to a wall charger. That was an intolerable safety issue.
But, when they slowed it down to prevent that from happening, another issue popped up: it became, in certain circumstances, barely usable (irritating to use at best because even typing on it was so slow it was difficult because the letters you typed didn't appear until seconds later...)
But, of the two, I would take the slowness any day over a safety issue: the original cell phones were sold as "car phones" and were considered a tool to promote safety -- and that is still a critical feature of every cell phone (and now, cell watch!).
... I chose not to believe at all that this was Apple trying to make people believe their phone and not its battery needed replacing. I see no evidence of this and nothing of that being presented in court. ...
That's not what Apple did. I'd like to know what losses were incurred because of Apple not telling what they did. Without evidence of some sort of profiteering, there is more than enough mitigation to preclude any kind of monetary judgement.
Actually, it could be argued, quite the opposite: My phone was shutting down randomly from 30% and, more than once, it did it when I was away from home and needed to use the phone but couldn't until I got home to a wall charger. That was an intolerable safety issue.
But, when they slowed it down to prevent that from happening, another issue popped up: it became, in certain circumstances, barely usable (irritating to use at best because even typing on it was so slow it was difficult because the letters you typed didn't appear until seconds later...)
But, of the two, I would take the slowness any day over a safety issue: the original cell phones were sold as "car phones" and were considered a tool to promote safety -- and that is still a critical feature of every cell phone (and now, cell watch!).
In my view, CloudTalking was absolutely spot on with his observations in this entire thread. You and Soli have either reading comprehension issues OR do NOT bother to read the actual real-life facts quoted by many people in this forum. And in your case, you are refusing to "analyze" the issues that you faced yourselves with the battery in your own iphone.
The issues that YOU faced with YOUR iPhone were ALL due to "faulty" battery, worn out quicker than normal for typical batteries for their lifespan. As you pointed out, Apple's solution (of slowing down) didn't help you in many situations when the "user experience" was pathetic due to reduced SoC performance. ALL of this would have been solved IF Apple "acknowledged" the FACT that the battery was at FAULT and replaced it in the first place (which they eventually did after the lawsuits). Even in your case, the issues (slowness, random shutdowns) went away once the battery was replaced which SHOULD HAVE been the actual resolution by Apple themselves from the beginning. This is what CloudTalking is talking about in this entire thread and I completely agree with him.
... I chose not to believe at all that this was Apple trying to make people believe their phone and not its battery needed replacing. I see no evidence of this and nothing of that being presented in court. ...
That's not what Apple did. I'd like to know what losses were incurred because of Apple not telling what they did. Without evidence of some sort of profiteering, there is more than enough mitigation to preclude any kind of monetary judgement.
Actually, it could be argued, quite the opposite: My phone was shutting down randomly from 30% and, more than once, it did it when I was away from home and needed to use the phone but couldn't until I got home to a wall charger. That was an intolerable safety issue.
But, when they slowed it down to prevent that from happening, another issue popped up: it became, in certain circumstances, barely usable (irritating to use at best because even typing on it was so slow it was difficult because the letters you typed didn't appear until seconds later...)
But, of the two, I would take the slowness any day over a safety issue: the original cell phones were sold as "car phones" and were considered a tool to promote safety -- and that is still a critical feature of every cell phone (and now, cell watch!).
In my view, CloudTalking was absolutely spot on with his observations in this entire thread. You and Soli have either reading comprehension issues OR do NOT bother to read the actual real-life facts quoted by many people in this forum. And in your case, you are refusing to "analyze" the issues that you faced yourselves with the battery in your own iphone.
The issues that YOU faced with YOUR iPhone were ALL due to "faulty" battery, worn out quicker than normal for typical batteries for their lifespan. As you pointed out, Apple's solution (of slowing down) didn't help you in many situations when the "user experience" was pathetic due to reduced SoC performance. ALL of this would have been solved IF Apple "acknowledged" the FACT that the battery was at FAULT and replaced it in the first place (which they eventually did after the lawsuits). Even in your case, the issues (slowness, random shutdowns) went away once the battery was replaced which SHOULD HAVE been the actual resolution by Apple themselves from the beginning. This is what CloudTalking is talking about in this entire thread and I completely agree with him.
LOL.... So you accuse me of not analyzing the facts that you a fabricating. Got it.
Comments
The ultimate in planned obsolescence
Apple's updating the battery management without detailing the update isn't very much off the mark of other updates which do give an alert with "including stability and bug fixes" that go unnamed and detailed.
So yes, if Apple has said what they were going to do, and did it instead of what they did, it would have been a much, much smaller issue, if one at all.
Without any notification, this was at most, at worst an affront to people looking for a payday. I chose not to believe at all that this was Apple trying to make people believe their phone and not its battery needed replacing. I see no evidence of this and nothing of that being presented in court.
ATT was selling unlimited data but throttled throughput at a certain threshold of use. And they didn't tell anybody until it became a known issue. That practice benefited only ATT and not the end-user.
That's not what Apple did. I'd like to know what losses were incurred because of Apple not telling what they did. Without evidence of some sort of profiteering, there is more than enough mitigation to preclude any kind of monetary judgement.
IMHO.
In my view, CloudTalking was absolutely spot on with his observations in this entire thread. You and Soli have either reading comprehension issues OR do NOT bother to read the actual real-life facts quoted by many people in this forum. And in your case, you are refusing to "analyze" the issues that you faced yourselves with the battery in your own iphone.
The issues that YOU faced with YOUR iPhone were ALL due to "faulty" battery, worn out quicker than normal for typical batteries for their lifespan. As you pointed out, Apple's solution (of slowing down) didn't help you in many situations when the "user experience" was pathetic due to reduced SoC performance. ALL of this would have been solved IF Apple "acknowledged" the FACT that the battery was at FAULT and replaced it in the first place (which they eventually did after the lawsuits). Even in your case, the issues (slowness, random shutdowns) went away once the battery was replaced which SHOULD HAVE been the actual resolution by Apple themselves from the beginning. This is what CloudTalking is talking about in this entire thread and I completely agree with him.
LOL.... So you accuse me of not analyzing the facts that you a fabricating. Got it.