Apple responds to reports of worn batteries forcing iPhone CPU slowdowns

12345679»

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 173

    petri said:
    dewme said:
    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. 

    Maintenance is required on older equipment. 
    edited December 2017 GeorgeBMaccornchip
  • Reply 162 of 173

    Soli said:
    petri said:
    rjd185 said:
    Remy said:
    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?

    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/202204/futuremark-analysis-debunks-rumor-that-apple-slows-older-iphones-down-on-purpose-with-ios/p1
    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. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 163 of 173
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member

    petri said:
    dewme said:
    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. 

    Maintenance is required on older equipment. 
    Along those lines, Top Gear (UK) Had many “challenges” over th years where the 3 hosts would buy old cars. One of the tests tehy’d perform is how many BHP they still have in comparison to the original specs. It’s kind of amazing just how far they dropped.


    Pro Tip: For those that don’t know, it’s a good habit to have the air presser checked and topped off monthly—just create a repeating calander event. This helps with gas mileage, traction, and saves on longterm wear and tear. I’m sure more than a few people reading this went out to their car this morning to see a low pressure warning on the dash until they drove a mile or so. That’s too late and not seeing a a warning doesn’t mean your tire pressure is ideal. Most places do it for free since they want your business when it comes to their profitable services. CostCo’s Tire Center does it and uses nitrogen. While the air you breath is about 78% nitrogen already (dinitrogen, actually), the benefit of this inert gas is that it's less likely to permeate through the tires and more consistent pressure over a range of temperatures (but if you keep your tires at the ideal pressure then using mixture has little importance).
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 164 of 173
    petri said:
    dewme said:
    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.
    One is designed to distort facts and make Apple look bad.  (Or maybe just lazy reporting that does the same).
    One is factual and shows what Apple did, and why -- and demonstrates their commitment to providing the highest level of customer satisfaction they can.

    Yes, there is a BIG difference.
  • Reply 165 of 173
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,190member
    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.
    Or just replace it. It’ll cost you $25 and 15 min.
  • Reply 166 of 173
    GG1GG1 Posts: 218member
    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.
    Thank you for the response. Very informative.
  • Reply 167 of 173
    So I live in rural Alaska. We get only 3g. With this slowdown my 6 plus goes to 1x. So it is a big deal for me. Wish I had my old Apple 5 back but wanted the bigger screen. Hope a new battery fixes the problem. If not I’m done with Apple firever
  • Reply 168 of 173
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,534member
    jkswor said:
    So I live in rural Alaska. We get only 3g. With this slowdown my 6 plus goes to 1x. So it is a big deal for me. Wish I had my old Apple 5 back but wanted the bigger screen. Hope a new battery fixes the problem. If not I’m done with Apple firever
    This is the first time I've seen anyone claiming it's affecting your cellular network performance.
    StrangeDaysapplepieguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 169 of 173
    jkswor said:
    So I live in rural Alaska. We get only 3g. With this slowdown my 6 plus goes to 1x. So it is a big deal for me. Wish I had my old Apple 5 back but wanted the bigger screen. Hope a new battery fixes the problem. If not I’m done with Apple firever
    This is nonsense. Now everyone is going to attribute anything they don’t like about their old phones to conspiracy. 
    applepieguy
  • Reply 170 of 173
    Nonsense is it. Phone service is fine. Texting is fine. Using internet or streaming not so fine. This never was a problem till I downloaded all the new iso's.  and got the iPhone 6 Plus iPhone 5 was great but for screen size. My iPad works fine  we use a hotspot to access internet. It definitely has slowed 
  • Reply 171 of 173
    An unanswered question is: Does Apple slow down older phones regardless of the wear level of the battery in that phone? To add a data point, I did a test on my iPhone 6s. The battery shows 18% wear level, so it is marginal, but Apple would consider it a pass. When the phone had about 75% battery charge, I checked the CPU clock and it was at approx. 1800 MHz. I ran Geekbench 4 and I got a single core result of 2532. All as expected. A few minutes later the battery charge dropped to 63%. So, I checked the CPU clock: it dropped to 911MHz. I re-ran Geekbench and got a single-core score of 1452. So, I can only conclude that Apple may be throttling the speed based on the remaining charge of older phones regardless of the wear level of the battery. I would be curious to compare these results with someone who had installed a brand new battery in their older phone. Is it the wear level or simply the remaining charge that triggers the throttling? If it is the latter, then why are they throttling only older phones and not the new ones? That becomes supportive of the conspiracy theory that they slow down older phones to cajole us to upgrade. A counter point might be that older batteries at the same remaining charge as new batteries output less power and thus trigger the throttling. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 172 of 173
    nhtnht Posts: 4,388member
    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.
    I feel like someone with 8 posts is trolling me.

    my iPhone 6 still plays well.
  • Reply 173 of 173
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,190administrator
    wassimj said:
    An unanswered question is: Does Apple slow down older phones regardless of the wear level of the battery in that phone? To add a data point, I did a test on my iPhone 6s. The battery shows 18% wear level, so it is marginal, but Apple would consider it a pass. When the phone had about 75% battery charge, I checked the CPU clock and it was at approx. 1800 MHz. I ran Geekbench 4 and I got a single core result of 2532. All as expected. A few minutes later the battery charge dropped to 63%. So, I checked the CPU clock: it dropped to 911MHz. I re-ran Geekbench and got a single-core score of 1452. So, I can only conclude that Apple may be throttling the speed based on the remaining charge of older phones regardless of the wear level of the battery. I would be curious to compare these results with someone who had installed a brand new battery in their older phone. Is it the wear level or simply the remaining charge that triggers the throttling? If it is the latter, then why are they throttling only older phones and not the new ones? That becomes supportive of the conspiracy theory that they slow down older phones to cajole us to upgrade. A counter point might be that older batteries at the same remaining charge as new batteries output less power and thus trigger the throttling. 
    The temporary throttling under load doesn't seem to be absolutely based on measured charge/discharge cycles, it appears to be based on output voltage which is reliant on more than just C/D. Operating environment and other factors can play a part in that as well.
    edited December 2017 Soli
Sign In or Register to comment.