My 6 Plus is lagging and slow since I upgraded to iOS 11
ZDNet has an article today titled "Here's why your old iPhone feels slow -- and what you can do about it".
All of the whiners who are crying about how Apple spilled their milk, should read it!
ߤ䦬t;/div>
Got here by accident reviewing today’s news. I had to sign up while having a little smile wondering how many posters here chiding people for having the temerity to think their older iPhones might be made to provide slower responses would be contemplating their humble pie. No conspiracy but a shameless lack of transparency and evasion about what was really happening. Perhaps less credulity from some folks including editors would go a little way to more balanced discussion. Enjoy and watch this space.
With a properly performing battery, the phones are just as fast as they ever were. This test, and the GeekBench numbers utterly prove it. The conspiracy theory is bogus. Apple is still not slowing down phones to force you to buy a new one.
Some comments you posted in this article mention,
The phones are literally the same speed as the day they were bought and these metrics are the proof. The difference is the load placed on them by the software.
There is no Cook and Ive plot to turn down the processor and GPU speed. That's insane to even speculate, but yet, here we are.
It does no such thing. The phone's hardware is identical and not throttled in any way.
Does
the software put additional load on the older hardware? Sure. But, that
doesn't mean the phone is slower. It moves the bits from register to
register just as fast as it always has.
So you blame the issue to everything, but the CPU throttling, which was really happening. Since the beginning you were wrong, same as the article.
I'm not sure how many times I need to say that your interpretation about a conspiracy theory to get people to buy new phones is wrong. You do you, I guess.
I'm not talking of any conspiracy from Apple. I'm point out that the article gave different reasons for iPhone's slow down, and even you didn't had any reason to believe that Apple would had throttle CPU's, but they did it. Did they did it to sell more phones? I don't know, neither do you. But it's possible. Remember, in your opinion, there was no chance of Apple throttling CPUs, and they did it.
Your premise relies on a phone with a compromised power source performing the same as a new out of the box one. That's where your theory falls down. You can't expect what is literally a damaged phone with a chemically depleted battery to operate as well as one that is perfectly functional.
I don't expect the battery life of a +2 year phone be the same as new. But neither I expect the CPU performance degrade because of battery issues, and looks like neither you since the article makes no mention of battery issues.
Saying the CPU has "degraded" is disingenuous. You might as well say that most Apple products ship with "degraded" CPUs and GPUs because Apple purposely underclocks most of them in order to main heat thresholds and battery life estimates.
Again, you're claiming that Apple sells nearly every device—including the brand new iMac Pro—with degraded components.
PS: Do you decorate your tinfoil hat for Christmas or would you consider hat to be too much tinsel?
What I said is based in that Apple admitted they throttled CPU's in iPhones with battery issues. And nobody knew or expected it, and that's the reason you saw articles like this, trying to prove that Apple wasn't doing it. So it looks like the customers that claimed their phones were slow, which in your opinion were wearing tinfoil hats, were right all along.
Apple also never sells new devices with an asterisk next to the A-series chip saying that it's not the fastest possible clock rate possible with those chips. Are you saying they should announce this, too, when they're clearly adjusting the chip to idealize it for thermals and battery life? How about the under clocked AMD Radeon Vega 64 GPU in the new iMac Pro?
My 6 Plus is lagging and slow since I upgraded to iOS 11
ZDNet has an article today titled "Here's why your old iPhone feels slow -- and what you can do about it".
All of the whiners who are crying about how Apple spilled their milk, should read it!
ߤ䦬t;/div>
Got here by accident reviewing today’s news. I had to sign up while having a little smile wondering how many posters here chiding people for having the temerity to think their older iPhones might be made to provide slower responses would be contemplating their humble pie. No conspiracy but a shameless lack of transparency and evasion about what was really happening. Perhaps less credulity from some folks including editors would go a little way to more balanced discussion. Enjoy and watch this space.
With a properly performing battery, the phones are just as fast as they ever were. This test, and the GeekBench numbers utterly prove it. The conspiracy theory is bogus. Apple is still not slowing down phones to force you to buy a new one.
Some comments you posted in this article mention,
The phones are literally the same speed as the day they were bought and these metrics are the proof. The difference is the load placed on them by the software.
There is no Cook and Ive plot to turn down the processor and GPU speed. That's insane to even speculate, but yet, here we are.
It does no such thing. The phone's hardware is identical and not throttled in any way.
Does
the software put additional load on the older hardware? Sure. But, that
doesn't mean the phone is slower. It moves the bits from register to
register just as fast as it always has.
So you blame the issue to everything, but the CPU throttling, which was really happening. Since the beginning you were wrong, same as the article.
I'm not sure how many times I need to say that your interpretation about a conspiracy theory to get people to buy new phones is wrong. You do you, I guess.
I'm not talking of any conspiracy from Apple. I'm point out that the article gave different reasons for iPhone's slow down, and even you didn't had any reason to believe that Apple would had throttle CPU's, but they did it. Did they did it to sell more phones? I don't know, neither do you. But it's possible. Remember, in your opinion, there was no chance of Apple throttling CPUs, and they did it.
Your premise relies on a phone with a compromised power source performing the same as a new out of the box one. That's where your theory falls down. You can't expect what is literally a damaged phone with a chemically depleted battery to operate as well as one that is perfectly functional.
I don't expect the battery life of a +2 year phone be the same as new. But neither I expect the CPU performance degrade because of battery issues, and looks like neither you since the article makes no mention of battery issues.
Saying the CPU has "degraded" is disingenuous. You might as well say that most Apple products ship with "degraded" CPUs and GPUs because Apple purposely underclocks most of them in order to main heat thresholds and battery life estimates.
Again, you're claiming that Apple sells nearly every device—including the brand new iMac Pro—with degraded components.
PS: Do you decorate your tinfoil hat for Christmas or would you consider hat to be too much tinsel?
What I said is based in that Apple admitted they throttled CPU's in iPhones with battery issues. And nobody knew or expected it, and that's the reason you saw articles like this, trying to prove that Apple wasn't doing it. So it looks like the customers that claimed their phones were slow, which in your opinion were wearing tinfoil hats, were right all along.
Apple also never sells new devices with an asterisk next to the A-series chip saying that it's not the fastest possible clock rate possible with those chips. Are you saying they should announce this, too, when they're clearly adjusting the chip to idealize it for thermals and battery life? How about the under clocked AMD Radeon Vega 64 GPU in the new iMac Pro?
After all the issues Apple have created by throttling CPU's, maybe it would be a great idea.
Okay, look, here's the reality. The public perception is that Apple has somehow crippled the hardware with an OS update, forcing users to buy new phones.
Guess what. Newer software means heavier software demands. The phones are literally the same speed as the day they were bought and these metrics are the proof. The difference is the load placed on them by the software.
There is no plot or conspiracy. There is no shadowy cabal demanding that code get bloated to force users to buy a new phone. There is no Cook and Ive plot to turn down the processor and GPU speed. That's insane to even speculate, but yet, here we are. Planned obsolescence as a conspiracy to force hardware sales isn't a thing.
Do you want your phone to be the same as the day you took it out of the box? Never update your software. Problem solved.
Yet this is not true when you use Geekbench 3 or 4.
The question is, why is the benchmark getting different numbers? My Retina iPad, which remains on iOS 9.3.5 has the same Geekbench score as it had on 9.2 But my iPhone 6S gets 1799/3083 on 11.0.2 but 2498/4374 on 9.0.2. One third of the CPU performance has vanished.
But it ends up being 1796/3123 on 10.3.3 and 1161/2373 on 11.0.1 , GeekBench 4 is suggesting the phone is half the speed it should be. Yet if I run it right now on 11.0.2 it gets 2174/3813, still 10% below where the GeekBench website says it should be.
So the question winds up being, why? Did the power management change? Is more running in the background? Are Geekbench or Futuremark's benchmarks rigged in a way to give a certain score on a certain chip? Does the OS cheat one benchmark software and not another?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Apple is doing anything that intentionally degrades the performance of the phone, but if the maximum performance of the phone can only be obtained under very specific circumstances, then what is the point of benchmarking the devices. It all feels familiar to the CPU cheats on old benchmarks and GPU cheats by GPU vendors later on desktops, everyone is out to get the best synthetic score possible, and no real world software actually benefits from this optimization.
Comments