Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
This topic is getting massively blown out of proportion on non-tech news sites simply because the words “Apple is intentionally slowing down” are placed in a headline. Many lay people will simply see that headline and immediately jump to nefarious reasons as the cause without reading the content behind the headline. That’s human nature but I’d expect more tempered responses from tech savvy folks who can see the logic behind Apple’s engineering decision. Some the comments in this AI thread are totally unhinged.
The same type of disproportionately negative biased and slanted headline could be applied to SSD and Flash memory wear-leveling techniques that Apple (and every vendor) uses to extend the useful lifetime of memory storage components in it’s products. As solid state memory components get used the wear-leveling processes kick in and degrade the performance of these components in a measurable way. Should Apple give users the ability to disable wear-leveling to obtain better memory performance benchmarks at the risk of reducing the effective lifetime of the memory components in their devices?
Like it or not, engineers who design and build real products from smartphones to locomotives always have to account for wear, tear, and component degradation that occurs with time and usage. All of these things are part of the design margins and component selection. These things are factored into the estimated reliability and availability of the product over its useful lifetime. This is engineering in the real world, not politics, not marketing, not brand loyalty, and not worthy of the proclamations of victimization that are rampant in so many comment sections.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
Agreed (apart from the not reading articles bit - ad hominem so early) that the hardware is unchanged. But the issue as per the Geekbench report is the third state where the performance of the system (hardware, software and an established use pattern) is that after the iOS updates, the update actually does throttle performance without notice and not due to enhanced software load. So those users who were so soundly trashed on forums for indicating they felt their experienced performance was worse were, in at least some cases, correct.
It matters not that the reduction in performance had a putative reason nor that some people just need conspiracies. It matters that it was done silently, without any press, and, worse, ended up adding meat if not actual credence to the planned obsolescence debate. Apple and shareholders would have been content to let this situation persist even absent a conspiracy.
At least Apple can now correct the situation by, as suggested here and elsewhere, opting for transparency and notifying users when the condition exists. Or not - depends on the PR fall out.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
Agreed (apart from the not reading articles bit - ad hominem so early) that the hardware is unchanged. But the issue as per the Geekbench report is the third state where the performance of the system (hardware, software and an established use pattern) is that after the iOS updates, the update actually does throttle performance without notice and not due to enhanced software load. So those users who were so soundly trashed on forums for indicating they felt their experienced performance was worse were, in at least some cases, correct.
It matters not that the reduction in performance had a putative reason nor that some people just need conspiracies. It matters that it was done silently, without any press, and, worse, ended up adding meat if not actual credence to the planned obsolescence debate. Apple and shareholders would have been content to let this situation persist even absent a conspiracy.
At least Apple can now correct the situation by, as suggested here and elsewhere, opting for transparency and notifying users when the condition exists. Or not - depends on the PR fall out.
No -- Poole from Geekbench explicitly said that it was because of system load induced by the benchmarking, and so did our contacts within Apple. Benchmarking by definition is processor intensive, and the power demand from the processor isn't off or on. It's a sliding scale of power consumed.
And yes, I'm not happy about the lack of transparency. I touched on it in the article, in the forums here, and vent notably about it on tomorrow's podcast episode.
Apologies for any slight. We've gotten a great deal of "I READ THE HEADLINE AND..." traffic here. Couple that with headlines elsewhere saying irresponsible things about what's going on, and it's been an interesting few days.
This topic is getting massively blown out of proportion on non-tech news sites simply because the words “Apple is intentionally slowing down” are placed in a headline. Many lay people will simply see that headline and immediately jump to nefarious reasons as the cause without reading the content behind the headline. That’s human nature but I’d expect more tempered responses from tech savvy folks who can see the logic behind Apple’s engineering decision. Some the comments in this AI thread are totally unhinged.
The same type of disproportionately negative biased and slanted headline could be applied to SSD and Flash memory wear-leveling techniques that Apple (and every vendor) uses to extend the useful lifetime of memory storage components in it’s products. As solid state memory components get used the wear-leveling processes kick in and degrade the performance of these components in a measurable way. Should Apple give users the ability to disable wear-leveling to obtain better memory performance benchmarks at the risk of reducing the effective lifetime of the memory components in their devices?
Like it or not, engineers who design and build real products from smartphones to locomotives always have to account for wear, tear, and component degradation that occurs with time and usage. All of these things are part of the design margins and component selection. These things are factored into the estimated reliability and availability of the product over its useful lifetime. This is engineering in the real world, not politics, not marketing, not brand loyalty, and not worthy of the proclamations of victimization that are rampant in so many comment sections.
Wear levelling on SSD has a Wikipedia page, patents on techniques and extensive published research. Apple’s throttling to handle battery state on a mass market device has been less obviously available for review in the public domain until recent days despite speculation (accurate or not) for years - hence the sometimes over enthusiastic but very broad coverage.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
Agreed (apart from the not reading articles bit - ad hominem so early) that the hardware is unchanged. But the issue as per the Geekbench report is the third state where the performance of the system (hardware, software and an established use pattern) is that after the iOS updates, the update actually does throttle performance without notice and not due to enhanced software load. So those users who were so soundly trashed on forums for indicating they felt their experienced performance was worse were, in at least some cases, correct.
It matters not that the reduction in performance had a putative reason nor that some people just need conspiracies. It matters that it was done silently, without any press, and, worse, ended up adding meat if not actual credence to the planned obsolescence debate. Apple and shareholders would have been content to let this situation persist even absent a conspiracy.
At least Apple can now correct the situation by, as suggested here and elsewhere, opting for transparency and notifying users when the condition exists. Or not - depends on the PR fall out.
No -- Poole from Geekbench explicitly said that it was because of system load induced by the benchmarking, and so did our contacts within Apple. Benchmarking by definition is processor intensive, and the power demand from the processor isn't off or on. It's a sliding scale of power consumed.
And yes, I'm not happy about the lack of transparency. I touched on it in the article, in the forums here, and vent notably about it on tomorrow's podcast episode.
Apologies for any slight. We've gotten a great deal of "I READ THE HEADLINE AND..." traffic here. Couple that with headlines elsewhere saying irresponsible things about what's going on, and it's been an interesting few days.
It’s cool. And appreciate/return the sentiment. Besides at the end of the day our house is full of iPhone 5 handsets with new batteries that zip along nicely years after release.
Wear levelling on SSD has a Wikipedia page, patents on techniques and extensive published research. Apple’s throttling to handle battery state on a mass market device has been less obviously available for review in the public domain until recent days despite speculation (accurate or not) for years - hence the sometimes over enthusiastic but very broad coverage.
Pass the popcorn, please.
Apple, as product designer, is free to engineer whatever “wear compensation” and “aging compensation” features they feel are necessary into their products in order to maximize their product's service life. This is a normal part of the engineering and design of any product that exhibits wear and/or time related degradation. All real product designs involve engineering trade offs. Expect to see many more wear/aging compensation strategies deployed with the growing number of electric vehicles. Lots of recent patent activity in this area.
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.
This explains how they get 90% of the cell phone industry profits though. Sell an original phone with an undersized battery (that makes it cheaper) then update the software to slow down the phones (as opposed to letting the user know to upgrade) . When the user buys a new phone out of frustration with their slow phone, Apple can then pop a $30 battery in and sell it as a refurbished phone in third world countries (like Apple wanted to do with India). Big Profits on both transactions.. did Tim or Angela work as a car salesman in summers in college?
The real question is who approved this in Apple? Did Cook? Or was it one of the recently departed (from the website) apple designers (now that Ive is back).
Nice theory! But bull... ... These are old, worn out (or nearly worn out) batteries. Not undersized batteries.
They were undersized, in order to get those phones just a millimeter thinner. This had the added benefit of making the camera lens stand out and not be flush with the rest of the body, which would have been boring. The phones would have been too thick, and much fewer people would have used them.
Bull... No matter how big a battery Apple put in, you would call it "Undersized". The fact is, the batteries work just fine -- until they wear out. Then you should replace them. That's just the way the world works.
This topic is getting massively blown out of proportion on non-tech news sites simply because the words “Apple is intentionally slowing down” are placed in a headline. Many lay people will simply see that headline and immediately jump to nefarious reasons as the cause without reading the content behind the headline. That’s human nature but I’d expect more tempered responses from tech savvy folks who can see the logic behind Apple’s engineering decision. Some the comments in this AI thread are totally unhinged.
The same type of disproportionately negative biased and slanted headline could be applied to SSD and Flash memory wear-leveling techniques that Apple (and every vendor) uses to extend the useful lifetime of memory storage components in it’s products. As solid state memory components get used the wear-leveling processes kick in and degrade the performance of these components in a measurable way. Should Apple give users the ability to disable wear-leveling to obtain better memory performance benchmarks at the risk of reducing the effective lifetime of the memory components in their devices?
Like it or not, engineers who design and build real products from smartphones to locomotives always have to account for wear, tear, and component degradation that occurs with time and usage. All of these things are part of the design margins and component selection. These things are factored into the estimated reliability and availability of the product over its useful lifetime. This is engineering in the real world, not politics, not marketing, not brand loyalty, and not worthy of the proclamations of victimization that are rampant in so many comment sections.
Yes, it is being misrepresented. I've read two articles this morning with headlines saying: "Apple admits to slowing down older iPhones". And, even in the text, they talk about worn out batteries needing to be governed, but they never quite leave the lie that Apple is slowing "older phones" rather than phones with worn out batteries. There is a BIG difference between the two.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
Agreed (apart from the not reading articles bit - ad hominem so early) that the hardware is unchanged. But the issue as per the Geekbench report is the third state where the performance of the system (hardware, software and an established use pattern) is that after the iOS updates, the update actually does throttle performance without notice and not due to enhanced software load. So those users who were so soundly trashed on forums for indicating they felt their experienced performance was worse were, in at least some cases, correct.
It matters not that the reduction in performance had a putative reason nor that some people just need conspiracies. It matters that it was done silently, without any press, and, worse, ended up adding meat if not actual credence to the planned obsolescence debate. Apple and shareholders would have been content to let this situation persist even absent a conspiracy.
At least Apple can now correct the situation by, as suggested here and elsewhere, opting for transparency and notifying users when the condition exists. Or not - depends on the PR fall out.
Sorry, but Apple controls its ecosystem to create the best user experience possible. They don't report to you. Nor are they obligated to meet your rather arbitrary demands. Deal with it.
You can spew your misrepresentations all you want. It doesn't change the fact that Apple did the right thing for their users -- even if you disapprove.
Wear levelling on SSD has a Wikipedia page, patents on techniques and extensive published research. Apple’s throttling to handle battery state on a mass market device has been less obviously available for review in the public domain until recent days despite speculation (accurate or not) for years - hence the sometimes over enthusiastic but very broad coverage.
Pass the popcorn, please.
Apple, as product designer, is free to engineer whatever “wear compensation” and “aging compensation” features they feel are necessary into their products in order to maximize their product's service life. This is a normal part of the engineering and design of any product that exhibits wear and/or time related degradation. All real product designs involve engineering trade offs. Expect to see many more wear/aging compensation strategies deployed with the growing number of electric vehicles. Lots of recent patent activity in this area.
True! Well, sort of true. This has nothing to do with "extending service life". It was done to stabilize a phone with a worn out battery in order to prevent premature and unexpected power related shut downs that, at best was an inconvenience and, potentially life threatening if a phone shut down during an emergency situation.
This topic is getting massively blown out of proportion on non-tech news sites simply because the words “Apple is intentionally slowing down” are placed in a headline. Many lay people will simply see that headline and immediately jump to nefarious reasons as the cause without reading the content behind the headline. That’s human nature but I’d expect more tempered responses from tech savvy folks who can see the logic behind Apple’s engineering decision. Some the comments in this AI thread are totally unhinged.
The same type of disproportionately negative biased and slanted headline could be applied to SSD and Flash memory wear-leveling techniques that Apple (and every vendor) uses to extend the useful lifetime of memory storage components in it’s products. As solid state memory components get used the wear-leveling processes kick in and degrade the performance of these components in a measurable way. Should Apple give users the ability to disable wear-leveling to obtain better memory performance benchmarks at the risk of reducing the effective lifetime of the memory components in their devices?
Like it or not, engineers who design and build real products from smartphones to locomotives always have to account for wear, tear, and component degradation that occurs with time and usage. All of these things are part of the design margins and component selection. These things are factored into the estimated reliability and availability of the product over its useful lifetime. This is engineering in the real world, not politics, not marketing, not brand loyalty, and not worthy of the proclamations of victimization that are rampant in so many comment sections.
Yes, it is being misrepresented. I've read two articles this morning with headlines saying: "Apple admits to slowing down older iPhones". And, even in the text, they talk about worn out batteries needing to be governed, but they never quite leave the lie that Apple is slowing "older phones" rather than phones with worn out batteries. There is a BIG difference between the two.
Is there a ”BIG” difference, or is it in fact the case that older phones tend to have worn out batteries and vice versa, and that in effect it is older phones that are being slowed down? There is, again, a difference.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
You keep trotting out this quote with your bit in bold about the battery as if that answers everything, except that nobody was ever asking whether their old phone with a “non depleted battery” was being slowed down. Why? Because there was absolutely no logical reason for them to suspect the state of their battery had anything to do with the performance of their phone. Apple sure as hell never hinted at that before now. Nor is it likely or even possible that anyone’s older phone would have a “non depleted battery” unless they had replaced it, and again - why would they have done that?
The question was - “does Apple deliberately slow down older iPhones?”
And the answer is an emphatic and undeniable “yes”.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
You keep trotting out this quote with your bit in bold about the battery as if that answers everything, except that nobody was ever asking whether their old phone with a “non depleted battery” was being slowed down. Why? Because there was absolutely no logical reason for them to suspect the state of their battery had anything to do with the performance of their phone. Apple sure as hell never hinted at that before now. Nor is it likely or even possible that anyone’s older phone would have a “non depleted battery” unless they had replaced it, and again - why would they have done that?
The question was - “does Apple deliberately slow down older iPhones?”
And the answer is an emphatic and undeniable “yes”.
Don't conflate a battery that is being used with one that can cause automatic shutdowns. These are very different situations and it's disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
You keep trotting out this quote with your bit in bold about the battery as if that answers everything, except that nobody was ever asking whether their old phone with a “non depleted battery” was being slowed down. Why? Because there was absolutely no logical reason for them to suspect the state of their battery had anything to do with the performance of their phone. Apple sure as hell never hinted at that before now. Nor is it likely or even possible that anyone’s older phone would have a “non depleted battery” unless they had replaced it, and again - why would they have done that?
The question was - “does Apple deliberately slow down older iPhones?”
And the answer is an emphatic and undeniable “yes”.
Nope. The question was "does Apple deliberately slow down older iPhones in a conspiracy to get us to buy new ones."
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
Low value, bullshit post. Typical for a 1-post troll.
Apple clearly explained the throttles are momentary for peak power draws on old, expired batteries, and not a constant slowing down of old phones.
iPhones have the longest useful lifespan in the biz, and the highest resale values. All going against your pet troll tropes.
This topic is getting massively blown out of proportion on non-tech news sites simply because the words “Apple is intentionally slowing down” are placed in a headline. Many lay people will simply see that headline and immediately jump to nefarious reasons as the cause without reading the content behind the headline. That’s human nature but I’d expect more tempered responses from tech savvy folks who can see the logic behind Apple’s engineering decision. Some the comments in this AI thread are totally unhinged.
The same type of disproportionately negative biased and slanted headline could be applied to SSD and Flash memory wear-leveling techniques that Apple (and every vendor) uses to extend the useful lifetime of memory storage components in it’s products. As solid state memory components get used the wear-leveling processes kick in and degrade the performance of these components in a measurable way. Should Apple give users the ability to disable wear-leveling to obtain better memory performance benchmarks at the risk of reducing the effective lifetime of the memory components in their devices?
Like it or not, engineers who design and build real products from smartphones to locomotives always have to account for wear, tear, and component degradation that occurs with time and usage. All of these things are part of the design margins and component selection. These things are factored into the estimated reliability and availability of the product over its useful lifetime. This is engineering in the real world, not politics, not marketing, not brand loyalty, and not worthy of the proclamations of victimization that are rampant in so many comment sections.
Yes, it is being misrepresented. I've read two articles this morning with headlines saying: "Apple admits to slowing down older iPhones". And, even in the text, they talk about worn out batteries needing to be governed, but they never quite leave the lie that Apple is slowing "older phones" rather than phones with worn out batteries. There is a BIG difference between the two.
Is there a ”BIG” difference, or is it in fact the case that older phones tend to have worn out batteries and vice versa, and that in effect it is older phones that are being slowed down? There is, again, a difference.
“Older cars” are slowed down unless you refill their gas tanks. “Older cars” can’t stop properly unless you replace their brake pads. Etc.
Users: My old iPhone is kinda slow now.
APPLE: (silence)
Users: OK, now my 1-year-old iPhone is sluggish as well... this is getting old.
APPLE: (silence) OK...yeah, that's us.
USERS: (silence)
APPLE: Don't worry, we're doing it for you. Old batteries can lose charge faster.
USERS: ...er... yeah, we know.
APPLE: You see, the lithium-ion batteries... (bla bla) ...cold conditions... (bla bla) ...device unexpectedly... (bla bla bla)...electronic components!
USERS: So... you secretly made my iPhone slower and less responsive 100% of the time to avoid a shutdown that could occur maybe 1% of the time?
APPLE: Exactly!
USERS: Because... you're interested in prolonging the life of my device?
APPLE: See! You get it!
USERS: ...and my iPhone feels sluggishly obsolete for 10 hours/day, instead of smooth and quick for 8 hours/day?
APPLE: (silence)
You're conflating three different things, including the additional demand that newer system software puts on older devices, and the fact that the shutdown is far, far more prevalent than 1 percent.
Believe what you want.
Like the Futuremark benchmarks for example which definitively demonstrated no such artificial slowdown was present and were grounds to insist those who experienced otherwise should take their conspiracy theories elsewhere I guess?
Yes. And like I said in this article that you very clearly didn't read, it still proves that there is no conspiracy.
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
You keep trotting out this quote with your bit in bold about the battery as if that answers everything, except that nobody was ever asking whether their old phone with a “non depleted battery” was being slowed down. Why? Because there was absolutely no logical reason for them to suspect the state of their battery had anything to do with the performance of their phone. Apple sure as hell never hinted at that before now. Nor is it likely or even possible that anyone’s older phone would have a “non depleted battery” unless they had replaced it, and again - why would they have done that?
The question was - “does Apple deliberately slow down older iPhones?”
And the answer is an emphatic and undeniable “yes”.
Don't conflate a battery that is being used with one that can cause automatic shutdowns. These are very different situations and it's disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise.
Being disingenuous is the name of their game when they post this nonsense. It’s part of their neurosis for driving their desired narrative.
Comments
Believe what you want.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/202204/futuremark-analysis-debunks-rumor-that-apple-slows-older-iphones-down-on-purpose-with-ios/p1
They still prove that a properly functioning phone with a non-depleted battery is not slowed in any way. Even the new benchmarks from the GeekBench founder proves that.
The same type of disproportionately negative biased and slanted headline could be applied to SSD and Flash memory wear-leveling techniques that Apple (and every vendor) uses to extend the useful lifetime of memory storage components in it’s products. As solid state memory components get used the wear-leveling processes kick in and degrade the performance of these components in a measurable way. Should Apple give users the ability to disable wear-leveling to obtain better memory performance benchmarks at the risk of reducing the effective lifetime of the memory components in their devices?
Like it or not, engineers who design and build real products from smartphones to locomotives always have to account for wear, tear, and component degradation that occurs with time and usage. All of these things are part of the design margins and component selection. These things are factored into the estimated reliability and availability of the product over its useful lifetime. This is engineering in the real world, not politics, not marketing, not brand loyalty, and not worthy of the proclamations of victimization that are rampant in so many comment sections.
It matters not that the reduction in performance had a putative reason nor that some people just need conspiracies. It matters that it was done silently, without any press, and, worse, ended up adding meat if not actual credence to the planned obsolescence debate. Apple and shareholders would have been content to let this situation persist even absent a conspiracy.
At least Apple can now correct the situation by, as suggested here and elsewhere, opting for transparency and notifying users when the condition exists. Or not - depends on the PR fall out.
Pass the popcorn, please.
I've read two articles this morning with headlines saying: "Apple admits to slowing down older iPhones". And, even in the text, they talk about worn out batteries needing to be governed, but they never quite leave the lie that Apple is slowing "older phones" rather than phones with worn out batteries. There is a BIG difference between the two.
You can spew your misrepresentations all you want. It doesn't change the fact that Apple did the right thing for their users -- even if you disapprove.
The question was - “does Apple deliberately slow down older iPhones?”
And the answer is an emphatic and undeniable “yes”.
Apple clearly explained the throttles are momentary for peak power draws on old, expired batteries, and not a constant slowing down of old phones.
iPhones have the longest useful lifespan in the biz, and the highest resale values. All going against your pet troll tropes.
“Older cars” are slowed down unless you refill their gas tanks. “Older cars” can’t stop properly unless you replace their brake pads. Etc.
Maintenance is required on older equipment.
Being disingenuous is the name of their game when they post this nonsense. It’s part of their neurosis for driving their desired narrative.