Apple responds to reports of worn batteries forcing iPhone CPU slowdowns

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 173
    Bacillus3 said:
    Why do GPS dependent apps like Waze perform worse in iOS11 ? I have no time for research / survey's, but wouldn't be surprised with some anti-competitive measure to have been taken "in the interest of he UX" "the customer", "the integration level" and alike objectives
    Nothing to do with Waze, my 6S used to crap-out regularly upon opening the camera or apple-maps apps - both things that fire up the GPS chip. Obviously this caused a power-spike that this update tries to take care of.

    Strangely the 5S was not listed - I've noticed it's significantly slower on iOS11 to open the camera and take a photo compared to iOS10, maybe it is included too?
  • Reply 102 of 173
    Apple is in the wrong here and deserves to be hammered. This throttling needs full disclosure with user control. Under the battery settings there is plenty of space to have a full and clear explanation of the reason for reducing performance because of battery life. Once this is explained it should have a toggle switch so that the user can have control. If the reduction in performance is for safety it could make the toggle switch greyed out, with explanation of course. I have no doubt Apple did this secretly fully knowing that this will encourage users to get a new iPhone. The technical reasons I agree with, but it's the secrecy that reveals the motive.
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 103 of 173
    I've been suspecting this for a while now too.. I'm glad there's been an official response from Apple.

    A few months ago I lost my iPhone 7 Plus so I ended up borrowing an iPhone 6 from a friend to use. The phone was really slow! Being used to the iPhone 7 Plus I knew there would be some getting used to with the speed of the old device but I couldn't even do basic functions such as post anything on Instagram videos Stories as it would crash and general web browsing was super slow, there was massive delay between touching the screen and then the UI responding...  There's no point to slow down a phone and render it useless just to save battery when the phone becomes unusable... Something has got to give.. battery replacement on a device that cost 100's of dollars should be an after sales service with a reasonable cost attached.
  • Reply 104 of 173
    danvmdanvm Posts: 795member
    foggyhill said:
    r2d2 said:
    r2d2 said:

    The issue here is transparency, not any conspiracy for Apple to get you to buy new hardware. Get a new battery. Problem solved, the phone is back to the same speed it was when it came out of the box.
    The problem is that without giving any notification about the issue, one could argue that they are knowingly misleading you into buying new hardware. They, themselves, are responsible for keeping the "conspiracy" alive.
    They don't mislead you because they don't replace batteries until they are below 80% in life and well over 520 charge cycles.  The notification that you need a new battery is usually when your device shuts off when it shows it has more than 20% battery life. I don't know of any other mobile device that notifies you when your battery is going bad, not counting a Mac. 
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. They "mislead" people by not informing them that the update will slow your system down if your battery is older or defective. Without this knowledge people may upgrade needlessly as several posters have already stated they did because of this issue. Granted, having a phone suddenly shut down is also a problem, they should have been more open and transparent with their disclosures. If they were trying to avoid bad press, it backfired.
    Getting phones that shut down all over the place and quickly damaging their battery in theory is worse press for Apple would also be blamed for that.
    Advising people... Well, you know what people do with those popups. They nearly always ignore them.

    Most people know that battery degrade over time, so they have to decide between replacing the device or the battery.  Nobody knew Apple slowed down CPU's with an "update", and that battery replacement would fix it.  So in their mind, the only option to fix the slowdown was to replace the device.  Yes, Apple is responsible for this, and it doesn't looks good for their image.  If Apple had notify users with a pop-up, and they ignore it, then you could blame the user.  
    bmwintoxication
  • Reply 105 of 173
    danvmdanvm Posts: 795member
    dysamoria said:
    "It has been conclusively proven that older iPhone hardware with an adequately functioning battery is no slower than it was at launch."
    Stop promoting that PR article. The issue was never whether the CPU was being slowed. The issue was that the performance of the device under newer OS versions was lousy compared to the OS version the phone originally started with. The complaint is that iOS is growing more bloated and that adding questionable features helps sell more phones both by being carrot AND stick. The complaint is that Apple doesn't optimize iOS performance for prior devices (or at all, even, just relying on faster hardware).

    That PR piece defending Apple sets up a straw man to knock down complaints without ever addressing the real issue of iOS being increasingly bloated, version after version.
    Apple doesn’t force users to upgrade to the latest version of iOS. Certainly they encourage it, but one can continue running one’s preferred version of iOS. I’d rather Apple continue to introduce new features in new versions of iOS than focus on continued optimization an old OS for older devices. Technology advances very quickly and one should expect device obsolescence to occur sooner as technological advances progress further. Some will despise this fact but that makes it no less true. 

    Apple doesn't force the user to install an upgrade, but it forces you to keep it, since you cannot rollback to a previous version.  
  • Reply 106 of 173
    danvm said:
    dysamoria said:
    "It has been conclusively proven that older iPhone hardware with an adequately functioning battery is no slower than it was at launch."
    Stop promoting that PR article. The issue was never whether the CPU was being slowed. The issue was that the performance of the device under newer OS versions was lousy compared to the OS version the phone originally started with. The complaint is that iOS is growing more bloated and that adding questionable features helps sell more phones both by being carrot AND stick. The complaint is that Apple doesn't optimize iOS performance for prior devices (or at all, even, just relying on faster hardware).

    That PR piece defending Apple sets up a straw man to knock down complaints without ever addressing the real issue of iOS being increasingly bloated, version after version.
    Apple doesn’t force users to upgrade to the latest version of iOS. Certainly they encourage it, but one can continue running one’s preferred version of iOS. I’d rather Apple continue to introduce new features in new versions of iOS than focus on continued optimization an old OS for older devices. Technology advances very quickly and one should expect device obsolescence to occur sooner as technological advances progress further. Some will despise this fact but that makes it no less true. 

    Apple doesn't force the user to install an upgrade, but it forces you to keep it, since you cannot rollback to a previous version.  
    And of course there was sure as heck nothing in the update notes for any firmware version hinting that devices may be deliberately slowed down by this new “feature” after install.

    This has class action suit written all over it, and for once that action would be justified.  
  • Reply 107 of 173
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,965administrator
    petri said:
    MonicaMT said:

    MonicaMT said:
    This respond does not convince me.I can use a power bank If I do not want my iPhone to shut down.
    I recently bought iPhone X just because my iPhone 6 is too slow to use.If this happens again,I would absolutely choose another mobile phone brand.
    Three full years of a chemical process running day in and day out, and you don't expect your battery to die?
    The battery problem is impersonal,it is unstoppable.But the CPU-slowdown is a man-made plot.
    It is utterly and absolutely nothing of the sort. The only CPU slowdown you may have is in regards to your battery's chemical depletion, and literally nothing else.
    Your previous article on this when the news broke before Apple admitted this contained a bold statement about this definitely not being anything to do with Apple wanting you to buy a new phone.. I called you on it in the comments and you continued with this line that it was just a coincidence and Apple were just selflessly saving us from ourselves.

    Here’s the thing - when we talk about a battery’s “chemical depletion” we’re not talking about some form of user error or act of god - we’re talkign about ageing.  All batteries have a limited lifespan, and all battery chemistry “depletes” as it’s charged and recharged throughout the life of the device - it’s an inevitability.  Given that these batteries are an integral built-in component of the iPhone, it is a given that as an iPhone ages, so too does its battery - you can pretty much measure the age of an iPhone, or at least the amount of “wear” and use that it’s had, by the chemical depletion of its battery.

    So when Apple implement a feature that slows down the processors of iPhones in relation to the level of their battery’s “chemical depletion” they are pretty much literally slowing down older phones.  

    Now it would behoove any “news” outlet such as yourselves reporting on this, to at least ask the question why.  What is Apple’s motivation here and does it stack up?

    The official version is that without this “feature”, iPhones - apparently any iPhones since they state they’re rolling it out to the whole range - would all spontaneously shut down once their batteries were less than optimal.  I saw this happen with my own 6S, I do know that’s a thing.  The thing is though, when that happened to the 6S, Apple declared it was down to faulty batteries and launched a replacement programme.  So how do we square that with this?

    How is it that countless other manufacturers are able to produce hardware that does not spontaneously shut down when batteries age, without this software feature?  

    Surely this shutdown issue is a hardware problem rather than something to fudge in software by crippling performance?  Isn’t it?

    ASSUMING there is nothing that could have been done in hardware to avoid this, not only in the 6S but the 7, 8 and X too (all of which have or are getting this “feature” in time for their own batteries to age) how do we then explain why Apple would introduce it silently with no indication to the user at all that their battery is now defective and crippling the performance of their phone?  How do we explain why Apple would still have been entirely silent on this issue even now if it hadn’t been for some user comparing notes on Reddit?

    Tell me again about Apple’s motivations here?
    Motivation? Device longevity, and it's pretty clear.

    So, the situation is, random battery shutdowns with depleted batteries causing an under voltage condition. There are two options: leave it as-is, and let the devices shut down, or throttle the CPU when under load to prevent the shutdown. Which is better for "us," meaning users who don't treat their devices like appliances, and which is better for the 99.9% of Apple users?

    Also, which scenario sells more phones? Arguably the first, because there's a big, big difference between a slower phone, and a dead one. Apple chose the second.

    So, yeah. It stacks up. Like I said in the main article -- which I'm not sure you read -- is that Apple handed this poorly from a transparency standpoint. 

    How do other vendors do it? They don't. They choose the first. If the device shuts down from low voltage, tough shit. Get another device.

    On a more personal note, I'm working nights for a bit starting today. I'd be happy to continue this conversation -- but responses may have to wait until much, much later.
    edited December 2017 dewmeGeorgeBMacnetmage
  • Reply 108 of 173
    Rene Ritchie says Apple announced they were doing this a year ago. How did they announce it? In iOS 10 release notes? The average consumer doesn’t read release notes. I don’t remember hearing about it on stage at WWDC.
  • Reply 109 of 173
    petri said:
    MonicaMT said:

    MonicaMT said:
    This respond does not convince me.I can use a power bank If I do not want my iPhone to shut down.
    I recently bought iPhone X just because my iPhone 6 is too slow to use.If this happens again,I would absolutely choose another mobile phone brand.
    Three full years of a chemical process running day in and day out, and you don't expect your battery to die?
    The battery problem is impersonal,it is unstoppable.But the CPU-slowdown is a man-made plot.
    It is utterly and absolutely nothing of the sort. The only CPU slowdown you may have is in regards to your battery's chemical depletion, and literally nothing else.
    Your previous article on this when the news broke before Apple admitted this contained a bold statement about this definitely not being anything to do with Apple wanting you to buy a new phone.. I called you on it in the comments and you continued with this line that it was just a coincidence and Apple were just selflessly saving us from ourselves.

    Here’s the thing - when we talk about a battery’s “chemical depletion” we’re not talking about some form of user error or act of god - we’re talkign about ageing.  All batteries have a limited lifespan, and all battery chemistry “depletes” as it’s charged and recharged throughout the life of the device - it’s an inevitability.  Given that these batteries are an integral built-in component of the iPhone, it is a given that as an iPhone ages, so too does its battery - you can pretty much measure the age of an iPhone, or at least the amount of “wear” and use that it’s had, by the chemical depletion of its battery.

    So when Apple implement a feature that slows down the processors of iPhones in relation to the level of their battery’s “chemical depletion” they are pretty much literally slowing down older phones.  

    Now it would behoove any “news” outlet such as yourselves reporting on this, to at least ask the question why.  What is Apple’s motivation here and does it stack up?

    The official version is that without this “feature”, iPhones - apparently any iPhones since they state they’re rolling it out to the whole range - would all spontaneously shut down once their batteries were less than optimal.  I saw this happen with my own 6S, I do know that’s a thing.  The thing is though, when that happened to the 6S, Apple declared it was down to faulty batteries and launched a replacement programme.  So how do we square that with this?

    How is it that countless other manufacturers are able to produce hardware that does not spontaneously shut down when batteries age, without this software feature?  

    Surely this shutdown issue is a hardware problem rather than something to fudge in software by crippling performance?  Isn’t it?

    ASSUMING there is nothing that could have been done in hardware to avoid this, not only in the 6S but the 7, 8 and X too (all of which have or are getting this “feature” in time for their own batteries to age) how do we then explain why Apple would introduce it silently with no indication to the user at all that their battery is now defective and crippling the performance of their phone?  How do we explain why Apple would still have been entirely silent on this issue even now if it hadn’t been for some user comparing notes on Reddit?

    Tell me again about Apple’s motivations here?
    Motivation? Device longevity, and it's pretty clear.

    So, the situation is, random battery shutdowns with depleted batteries causing an under voltage condition. There are two options: leave it as-is, and let the devices shut down, or throttle the CPU when under load to prevent the shutdown. 

    Which scenario sells more phones? Arguably the first, because there's a big, big difference between a slower phone, and a dead one. Apple chose the second.

    So, yeah. It stacks up. Like I said in the main article -- which I'm not sure you read -- is that Apple handed this poorly from a transparency standpoint. 

    How do other vendors do it? They don't. They choose the first. If the device shuts down from low voltage, tough shit. Get another device.
    Are these faulty batteries that Apple should be replacing or just normal battery degradation through the use of the device? If Apple is all about prolonging the life of devices then they should make it as clear as possible when it might be time to replace the battery and how users can go about doing it. I’m sure most consumers don’t know that the battery issue the issue.
  • Reply 110 of 173
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,965administrator
    petri said:
    MonicaMT said:

    MonicaMT said:
    This respond does not convince me.I can use a power bank If I do not want my iPhone to shut down.
    I recently bought iPhone X just because my iPhone 6 is too slow to use.If this happens again,I would absolutely choose another mobile phone brand.
    Three full years of a chemical process running day in and day out, and you don't expect your battery to die?
    The battery problem is impersonal,it is unstoppable.But the CPU-slowdown is a man-made plot.
    It is utterly and absolutely nothing of the sort. The only CPU slowdown you may have is in regards to your battery's chemical depletion, and literally nothing else.
    Your previous article on this when the news broke before Apple admitted this contained a bold statement about this definitely not being anything to do with Apple wanting you to buy a new phone.. I called you on it in the comments and you continued with this line that it was just a coincidence and Apple were just selflessly saving us from ourselves.

    Here’s the thing - when we talk about a battery’s “chemical depletion” we’re not talking about some form of user error or act of god - we’re talkign about ageing.  All batteries have a limited lifespan, and all battery chemistry “depletes” as it’s charged and recharged throughout the life of the device - it’s an inevitability.  Given that these batteries are an integral built-in component of the iPhone, it is a given that as an iPhone ages, so too does its battery - you can pretty much measure the age of an iPhone, or at least the amount of “wear” and use that it’s had, by the chemical depletion of its battery.

    So when Apple implement a feature that slows down the processors of iPhones in relation to the level of their battery’s “chemical depletion” they are pretty much literally slowing down older phones.  

    Now it would behoove any “news” outlet such as yourselves reporting on this, to at least ask the question why.  What is Apple’s motivation here and does it stack up?

    The official version is that without this “feature”, iPhones - apparently any iPhones since they state they’re rolling it out to the whole range - would all spontaneously shut down once their batteries were less than optimal.  I saw this happen with my own 6S, I do know that’s a thing.  The thing is though, when that happened to the 6S, Apple declared it was down to faulty batteries and launched a replacement programme.  So how do we square that with this?

    How is it that countless other manufacturers are able to produce hardware that does not spontaneously shut down when batteries age, without this software feature?  

    Surely this shutdown issue is a hardware problem rather than something to fudge in software by crippling performance?  Isn’t it?

    ASSUMING there is nothing that could have been done in hardware to avoid this, not only in the 6S but the 7, 8 and X too (all of which have or are getting this “feature” in time for their own batteries to age) how do we then explain why Apple would introduce it silently with no indication to the user at all that their battery is now defective and crippling the performance of their phone?  How do we explain why Apple would still have been entirely silent on this issue even now if it hadn’t been for some user comparing notes on Reddit?

    Tell me again about Apple’s motivations here?
    Motivation? Device longevity, and it's pretty clear.

    So, the situation is, random battery shutdowns with depleted batteries causing an under voltage condition. There are two options: leave it as-is, and let the devices shut down, or throttle the CPU when under load to prevent the shutdown. 

    Which scenario sells more phones? Arguably the first, because there's a big, big difference between a slower phone, and a dead one. Apple chose the second.

    So, yeah. It stacks up. Like I said in the main article -- which I'm not sure you read -- is that Apple handed this poorly from a transparency standpoint. 

    How do other vendors do it? They don't. They choose the first. If the device shuts down from low voltage, tough shit. Get another device.
    Are these faulty batteries that Apple should be replacing or just normal battery degradation through the use of the device? If Apple is all about prolonging the life of devices then they should make it as clear as possible when it might be time to replace the battery and how users can go about doing it. I’m sure most consumers don’t know that the battery issue the issue.
    Normal battery degradation, it looks like.

    Like I said before and in the article, I don't disagree with you on the transparency issue -- but I also argue that most consumers don't even see the performance drop. I bet all of "us" that experience it do, though.

    This all said, in my off-time today, I'm dredging out my old physical chemistry degree, coupling it with some help from some electronics geniuses I know, and running some calculations based on what we know about the battery from a cathode/anode standpoint. It may or may not say anything about expected life/use, but it's worth a shot.
    edited December 2017 GeorgeBMacrogifan_new
  • Reply 111 of 173
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,965administrator
    GG1 said:
    So if I slap on an Apple 6s battery case, does this issue go away? I presume so, but I'm curious for confirmation.
    It does not. The battery case charges the internal battery, but an external power supply be it an AC adapter or a battery, can't solve the battery discharge low voltage situation.
    netmageGG1
  • Reply 112 of 173
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,185member
    This has quickly reached a point where the facts of the situation no longer matter. People who are unavoidably attracted to conspiracy theories or have a paranoia, or deep loathing and/or jealousy, about Apple as a company will latch on to this and assign to Apple whatever evil motivation best fits their personal quirks. Perhaps the decision for the throttling came from an Apple marketing executive standing on a grassy knoll??? You never know! Others will thank Apple for their kindness, caring, and support of their elderly devices that now require careful spoon feeding of their much needed chemical nutrients. Some folks may simply take what Apple has stated at face value ... how dare these miscreants idly stand by with so much good conspiracy fodder available for the taking!

    At this point it's a "Design Your Own Narrative" time. Any one is is as good as the next. Facts be damned.
  • Reply 113 of 173
    This is disastrous PR for Apple. And it feeds the meme that Apple is an arrogant company. 

    They will —in fact, they will have to — backtrack on this, and offer a mea culpa. 
  • Reply 114 of 173
    macxpress said:
    I know people will bitch about this, but I think it makes sense for Apple to do. I'd much rather have more battery life than a faster phone. If you don't have the battery life, then the speed of your phone doesn't matter so much anymore. When your battery starts to crap out, something has to give. So Apple could do nothing about it and just let the phone be the same speed and listen to people complain that their battery dies too quickly, or they can do something about it which is what they did. Either way, Apple is probably gonna catch crap. 
    Yeh,  except:  I don't think they did it to "prolong battery life".
    My experience with it was:  My phone would be sitting at 30% charge and within seconds of starting a video the battery would drop to 0% charge and the phone would shut down with a dead battery.  As soon as I put it on a charger, the charge jumped right back to 30%.
    Sitting at home that irritating.

    But it could also be dangerous:
    If I was outside in the cold (say running alone in a remote area) where I depended on my phone to call for help if needed, the phone would also suddenly shut down with a dead battery and become a brick until I could get home to charge it.  (Often it would not even restart from my car's charging system).   That was beyond irritating and became dangerous.

    Apple did the right thing to protect their customers by preventing that from happening.
  • Reply 115 of 173
    Seems to me the choice is allow for full-speed all the time and the iPhone to conk out when under load, possibly taking the hardware with it, or throttling down when the battery is old or depleted.

    More transparency would have been good, though.
    Yes, transparency (about the 'slowdown') would have been good.

    What would have been better is transparency about the sudden shut down problem:
    My 6+ was experiencing sudden shut downs and becoming unreliable.  I took it the Apple Store and the battery tested OK, but near the 'needs replacement' line.  Regardless, they told me to replace the battery -- which made no sense:   Not only was the battery testing OK, but it was shutting down from 30% charge.  When I questioned them on their logic for replacing a supposedly good battery they refused to respond.

    They clearly knew about the problem but refused to acknowledge it.
  • Reply 116 of 173
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,821member
    clarker99 said:
    Double edged sword. Throttle the device, your not being transparent and are intentionally forcing upgrades. Tell people when the battery is faulty/needs to be replaced and they will claim Apple are intentionally forcing battery replacements or upgrades. 

    The narrative is always anti-Apple.


    People are going to be a lot more pissed spending $700 to $1000 on a phone than $ 79 on a battery.
  • Reply 117 of 173
    MonicaMT said:
    My iPhone 6 plays very well before iPhone8/8 plus/X was published.But after that...I recently bought an iPhone X because of this.
    I'm just curious that why is this such a coincidence???
    Feel like somebody stole 1,149 USD from me.
    Because the resource-heavier iOS 11 came out literally the same day as the iPhone 8. That's it. iPhone 6 units with a new battery are conclusively the same performance that they were the day that they were launched.

    Its possible that your iPhone 6 was dealing with this battery down-clock -- which can be fixed by a new battery. It's also possible that you didn't like the added hit on system resources the the advancing software demanded.
    That's all true...
    But there's a third reason as well:  My 6+ became unbearably slow with LOTS of battery drain upon the install of OS 11.0.   But, slowly the phone sped up and the battery stopped draining until today, 3 months later, it is once again running well.   I suspect the improvement was from multiple tweaks to the OS combined with tweaks to various apps like FaceBook and YouTube.
    (But weirdly, Apple's own Numbers is still running slow)
  • Reply 118 of 173
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,077member
    r2d2 said:
    sdw2001 said:
    The issue continues to not be a Apple-led conspiracy to force users to buy new hardware. Apple is not slowing down older devices to convince users to buy a new one. If it did, the throttling would be permanent, and a new battery would not solve the issue.


    I'm going to take issue with that.  Apple IS slowing down older devices, ostensibly to prevent shutdowns.  The throttling is absolutely permanent as long as the battery is not replaced.  I can't think of anyone who is going to replace their battery.  Apple may claim it doesn't throttle older hardware to force users to upgrade, but that is the net effect.  we know that because they just told us.  

    There are other comment sections on other sites where people have reported replacing their batteries and the performance throttling has continued. It seems to be permanent.

    That's even more interesting.  What I don't get is the debate--of course Apple is slowing down older devices.  They admitted it.  That problem may or may not be fixable with a new battery.  But honestly, who is going to do that?  If your phone is less than a year old, you're going to be handed a new phone for the most part.  If it's more, you're likely on some kind of upgrade program anyway.  I have a 7 Plus that is like 14 months old.  It's got a few issues.  If it had this one (and who knows...sometimes I think it does slow down randomly), I'm sure as hell not going to replace the battery.  I'm getting a new phone next month anyway!  
  • Reply 119 of 173
    macxpress said:
    I know people will bitch about this, but I think it makes sense for Apple to do. I'd much rather have more battery life than a faster phone. If you don't have the battery life, then the speed of your phone doesn't matter so much anymore. When your battery starts to crap out, something has to give. So Apple could do nothing about it and just let the phone be the same speed and listen to people complain that their battery dies too quickly, or they can do something about it which is what they did. Either way, Apple is probably gonna catch crap. 
    Yeh,  except:  I don't think they did it to "prolong battery life".
    My experience with it was:  My phone would be sitting at 30% charge and within seconds of starting a video the battery would drop to 0% charge and the phone would shut down with a dead battery.  As soon as I put it on a charger, the charge jumped right back to 30%.
    Sitting at home that irritating.

    But it could also be dangerous:
    If I was outside in the cold (say running alone in a remote area) where I depended on my phone to call for help if needed, the phone would also suddenly shut down with a dead battery and become a brick until I could get home to charge it.  (Often it would not even restart from my car's charging system).   That was beyond irritating and became dangerous.

    Apple did the right thing to protect their customers by preventing that from happening.
    I’m with you up to a point, I experienced this fault (and I use the word fault advisedly) on my 6S after just a year.  

    As you say this was not about eking our more battery life from an elderly device - this was a relatively new device which claimed to have perhaps 30-40% charge spontaneously shutting down and refusing to reboot until plugged in. This appears to be the issue that Apple are now “fixing” fixing with this software feature, despite  Apple admitting at the time it had a faulty batch of batteries and offering a replacement programme. 

    At best what seems to have happened is Apple realising that battery issue was much more widespread, balking at the idea of a much wider recall, and quietly implementing this software fix instead - presumably on the basis that owners of older phones are less likely to make a fuss about slower phones than crashing ones.

    To swallow the beneficent Apple narrative that they’re simply protecting us all and interested in the “longevity” of our devices, you first have to rationalise the fact that they kept quiet about all this and didn’t take the opportunity to advertise and sell a few battery upgrades, and you also have to accept it as a fact of life that older phones - any older phones - will spontaneously shut down after a year or so of battery life, and that this is a perfectly acceptable and common hardware characteristic .  Personally I’m struggling to see any evidence of that.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 120 of 173
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,077member
    k2kw said:
    clarker99 said:
    Double edged sword. Throttle the device, your not being transparent and are intentionally forcing upgrades. Tell people when the battery is faulty/needs to be replaced and they will claim Apple are intentionally forcing battery replacements or upgrades. 

    The narrative is always anti-Apple.


    People are going to be a lot more pissed spending $700 to $1000 on a phone than $ 79 on a battery.

    I actually don't think that's true in most cases.  Most people (especially those of us who would post here) are getting a new phone every 1-2 years anyway through an upgrade program.   If you're buying it upfront/unlocked (cash) that might be different.  Even then you have a year until you'll be out of pocket on repair or replacement.  
Sign In or Register to comment.