Law firm that extracted $450M settlement in Apple e-books case is going after company for ...

12345679»

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 178
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,028member
    feudalist said:

    I love how uninformed and technically simple-minded folk such as yourself cling to benchmark results as gospel for explaining your uninformed conclusions...

    What is the definition of a performance benchmark?

    It means what a certain piece of technology can achieve performance wise when pushed to it's limit.
    ...

    You are deflecting, attacking and insulting other people. Why?

    This throtling issue is confirmed by Apple, so there is no need to invoke unrelated performance problems.

    Deflecting? Attacking? Wow, someone is overly defensive...

    I presented a bunch of LEGITIMATE information explaining what is actually occurring on MANY of the devices people have erroneously claimed are being throttled by Apple, when in fact this is NOT the case.

    And what do you do? You either failed to read my post, or did read it, and wilfully chose to ignore the facts I presented, as they are FACTS and not conjecture, and instead chose to rebut them with the insinuation that I'm attacking you.

    You are cherry picking Apple's own words to try and back your baseless claims of what is actually going on. You are obviously not open to hearing the TRUTH as to what is actually happening.

    I'm not going to defend Apple for their lack of disclosure, albeit the release notes they released accompanying iOS 10.2.1 I do find to be sufficient for the function introduced. The majority of people just don't read anything, and hence this came as a bit of a shock to most. Apple should've been more upfront with this, and provided a detailed explanation at the time of the initial release.
  • Reply 162 of 178
    feudalist said:

    I love how uninformed and technically simple-minded folk such as yourself cling to benchmark results as gospel for explaining your uninformed conclusions...

    What is the definition of a performance benchmark?

    It means what a certain piece of technology can achieve performance wise when pushed to it's limit.
    ...

    You are deflecting, attacking and insulting other people. Why?

    This throtling issue is confirmed by Apple, so there is no need to invoke unrelated performance problems.

    Deflecting? Attacking? Wow, someone is overly defensive...

    I presented a bunch of LEGITIMATE information explaining what is actually occurring on MANY of the devices people have erroneously claimed are being throttled by Apple, when in fact this is NOT the case.

    And what do you do? You either failed to read my post, or did read it, and wilfully chose to ignore the facts I presented, as they are FACTS and not conjecture, and instead chose to rebut them with the insinuation that I'm attacking you.

    You are cherry picking Apple's own words to try and back your baseless claims of what is actually going on. You are obviously not open to hearing the TRUTH as to what is actually happening.

    I'm not going to defend Apple for their lack of disclosure, albeit the release notes they released accompanying iOS 10.2.1 I do find to be sufficient for the function introduced. The majority of people just don't read anything, and hence this came as a bit of a shock to most. Apple should've been more upfront with this, and provided a detailed explanation at the time of the initial release.
    Oh, so righteous, backed up by truth, alternate truth even. This peace is about one lawsuit regardingreal, confirmed issue. I’m not here to tell you how large number of affected users is. Seamingly, you know that number and that’s zero. There is lack of disclosure and that’s it. You are, sir, easilly fooled. You don’t have one single peace of evidence, all you can think and talk about is apple official damage-control-PR-BS. Even there is something stinking to the roof. It reads like this: we had that shuttdown problem, recalled affected units only to see same sh..t happening again with newer units. Another recall is logical and expected for same issue... but, there is no such thing in next sentence... we developed and secretly, soorryyy folks, pushed sw sollution. Oh, I know. Apple is charity so they decided to make my (and another half billion users) year with allmost free battery replacement just because I have this crazy expectations about ethernal battery longevity. Because, nobody knows nothing about battery wear, it’s like apple invented batteries yesterday, so new, so high tech. So misterious, almost magic. Maybe, even, from future. 
  • Reply 163 of 178
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,325member
    feudalist said:
    …alternate truth…
    This doesn’t exist. Don’t perpetuate newspeak falsehoods.
  • Reply 164 of 178
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    feudalist said:
    …alternate truth…
    This doesn’t exist. Don’t perpetuate newspeak falsehoods.
    It was your girl Kellyanne Conway that perpetuated "alternative facts."
  • Reply 165 of 178
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,028member
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:

    I love how uninformed and technically simple-minded folk such as yourself cling to benchmark results as gospel for explaining your uninformed conclusions...

    What is the definition of a performance benchmark?

    It means what a certain piece of technology can achieve performance wise when pushed to it's limit.
    ...

    You are deflecting, attacking and insulting other people. Why?

    This throtling issue is confirmed by Apple, so there is no need to invoke unrelated performance problems.

    Deflecting? Attacking? Wow, someone is overly defensive...

    I presented a bunch of LEGITIMATE information explaining what is actually occurring on MANY of the devices people have erroneously claimed are being throttled by Apple, when in fact this is NOT the case.

    And what do you do? You either failed to read my post, or did read it, and wilfully chose to ignore the facts I presented, as they are FACTS and not conjecture, and instead chose to rebut them with the insinuation that I'm attacking you.

    You are cherry picking Apple's own words to try and back your baseless claims of what is actually going on. You are obviously not open to hearing the TRUTH as to what is actually happening.

    I'm not going to defend Apple for their lack of disclosure, albeit the release notes they released accompanying iOS 10.2.1 I do find to be sufficient for the function introduced. The majority of people just don't read anything, and hence this came as a bit of a shock to most. Apple should've been more upfront with this, and provided a detailed explanation at the time of the initial release.
    Oh, so righteous, backed up by truth, alternate truth even. This peace is about one lawsuit regardingreal, confirmed issue. I’m not here to tell you how large number of affected users is. Seamingly, you know that number and that’s zero. There is lack of disclosure and that’s it. You are, sir, easilly fooled. You don’t have one single peace of evidence, all you can think and talk about is apple official damage-control-PR-BS. Even there is something stinking to the roof. It reads like this: we had that shuttdown problem, recalled affected units only to see same sh..t happening again with newer units. Another recall is logical and expected for same issue... but, there is no such thing in next sentence... we developed and secretly, soorryyy folks, pushed sw sollution. Oh, I know. Apple is charity so they decided to make my (and another half billion users) year with allmost free battery replacement just because I have this crazy expectations about ethernal battery longevity. Because, nobody knows nothing about battery wear, it’s like apple invented batteries yesterday, so new, so high tech. So misterious, almost magic. Maybe, even, from future. 
    OK, seeing as I am dealing with a 13-post troll, now confirmed by that diatribe you just posted, I know I shouldn’t be engaging any further, but I will bite...

    Where did I say anything implying I am righteous?
    Where did I even HINT at claiming the number of iPhone’s genuinely affected by this is zero, or any other number?
    Where did I state ANYTHING that isn’t easily provable and demonstratable to anyone who wants to see it for themselves?
    Where did I state anything implying I am writing Apple PR BS?
    Where is your basis for claiming “we had that shutdown problem, recalled affected units only to see same shit happening with newer units”?

    I stated VERIFIABLE FACTS, presented my case, provided enough information so anyone with even moderate knowledge can determine for themselves, admitted that Apple was wilfully negligent in their handling of the disclosure of this voltage throttling of the system, even though they still did disclose in the iOS 10.2.1 release notes, and awaited a level-headed response to that information.

    Instead, I got presented with poor grammar, irrational interpretations, cherry picking, and complete and utter disregard to all the facts I put forward.

    Let me say this again, in case you have trouble comprehending me... I DO hold Apple accountable for the way they handled the situation in the disclosure of how they were throttling the system. I applaud them from a technical standpoint, however, to come up with a way to keep iPhone’s running instead of crashing when we might need them most, and also retaining most of their performance during day-to-day use.

    In the Android world, those users don’t have such a luxury, and instead have devices who often throttle after only small periods of time because their SoC’s overheat, never getting the performance promised on the spec sheet, and because Android is so poorly designed it crashes on a whim.

    So please, by all means, flame me again for stating facts that you just happen not to like, or even accept as a possibility. Please continue to believe what you will, as it’s most apparent that is what you wish to do...
    Soli
  • Reply 166 of 178
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:

    I love how uninformed and technically simple-minded folk such as yourself cling to benchmark results as gospel for explaining your uninformed conclusions...

    What is the definition of a performance benchmark?

    It means what a certain piece of technology can achieve performance wise when pushed to it's limit.
    ...

    You are deflecting, attacking and insulting other people. Why?

    This throtling issue is confirmed by Apple, so there is no need to invoke unrelated performance problems.

    Deflecting? Attacking? Wow, someone is overly defensive...

    I presented a bunch of LEGITIMATE information explaining what is actually occurring on MANY of the devices people have erroneously claimed are being throttled by Apple, when in fact this is NOT the case.

    And what do you do? You either failed to read my post, or did read it, and wilfully chose to ignore the facts I presented, as they are FACTS and not conjecture, and instead chose to rebut them with the insinuation that I'm attacking you.

    You are cherry picking Apple's own words to try and back your baseless claims of what is actually going on. You are obviously not open to hearing the TRUTH as to what is actually happening.

    I'm not going to defend Apple for their lack of disclosure, albeit the release notes they released accompanying iOS 10.2.1 I do find to be sufficient for the function introduced. The majority of people just don't read anything, and hence this came as a bit of a shock to most. Apple should've been more upfront with this, and provided a detailed explanation at the time of the initial release.
    Oh, so righteous, backed up by truth, alternate truth even. This peace is about one lawsuit regardingreal, confirmed issue. I’m not here to tell you how large number of affected users is. Seamingly, you know that number and that’s zero. There is lack of disclosure and that’s it. You are, sir, easilly fooled. You don’t have one single peace of evidence, all you can think and talk about is apple official damage-control-PR-BS. Even there is something stinking to the roof. It reads like this: we had that shuttdown problem, recalled affected units only to see same sh..t happening again with newer units. Another recall is logical and expected for same issue... but, there is no such thing in next sentence... we developed and secretly, soorryyy folks, pushed sw sollution. Oh, I know. Apple is charity so they decided to make my (and another half billion users) year with allmost free battery replacement just because I have this crazy expectations about ethernal battery longevity. Because, nobody knows nothing about battery wear, it’s like apple invented batteries yesterday, so new, so high tech. So misterious, almost magic. Maybe, even, from future. 

    Instead, I got presented with poor grammar, irrational interpretations, cherry picking, and complete and utter disregard to all the facts I put forward.

    Let me say this again, in case you have trouble comprehending me... I DO hold Apple accountable for the way they handled the situation in the disclosure of how they were throttling the system. I applaud them from a technical standpoint, however, to come up with a way to keep iPhone’s running instead of crashing when we might need them most, and also retaining most of their performance during day-to-day use.

    My grammar is poor, yes, because english is my third language. Deal with it. 

    Yes, I do understand you. I’m science inclined, I do my home work and I know everything in public knowledge about this issue. What bothers me is your attitude - you are attacking everybody who happens to write about iphone batteries. You have this premediated stance that there is no defected batteries, just age and wear which is contradicted with simple, verified fact about iphone 7. Yes, there is number of users complaining about slower iphone after major iOS release, yes there is number of units with minor sw related bugs. Yes, there is large number of old iphone’s, but 6’s, 7’s and later are not, by any means, old. It’s just 3 years, max. But there is considerable large number of throtled iphone’s just because apple had to small to sh..y batteries. Deal with it. That’s topic of this conversation and you are just deflecting, it’s not about lack of disclosure witch is despicable but about sh..y customer service. There is no place on Earth where year or so of useful life is considered normal, even for dirt cheap chinese brands. 
    singularity
  • Reply 167 of 178
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,697member
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:

    I love how uninformed and technically simple-minded folk such as yourself cling to benchmark results as gospel for explaining your uninformed conclusions...

    What is the definition of a performance benchmark?

    It means what a certain piece of technology can achieve performance wise when pushed to it's limit.
    ...

    You are deflecting, attacking and insulting other people. Why?

    This throtling issue is confirmed by Apple, so there is no need to invoke unrelated performance problems.

    Deflecting? Attacking? Wow, someone is overly defensive...

    I presented a bunch of LEGITIMATE information explaining what is actually occurring on MANY of the devices people have erroneously claimed are being throttled by Apple, when in fact this is NOT the case.

    And what do you do? You either failed to read my post, or did read it, and wilfully chose to ignore the facts I presented, as they are FACTS and not conjecture, and instead chose to rebut them with the insinuation that I'm attacking you.

    You are cherry picking Apple's own words to try and back your baseless claims of what is actually going on. You are obviously not open to hearing the TRUTH as to what is actually happening.

    I'm not going to defend Apple for their lack of disclosure, albeit the release notes they released accompanying iOS 10.2.1 I do find to be sufficient for the function introduced. The majority of people just don't read anything, and hence this came as a bit of a shock to most. Apple should've been more upfront with this, and provided a detailed explanation at the time of the initial release.
    Oh, so righteous, backed up by truth, alternate truth even. This peace is about one lawsuit regardingreal, confirmed issue. I’m not here to tell you how large number of affected users is. Seamingly, you know that number and that’s zero. There is lack of disclosure and that’s it. You are, sir, easilly fooled. You don’t have one single peace of evidence, all you can think and talk about is apple official damage-control-PR-BS. Even there is something stinking to the roof. It reads like this: we had that shuttdown problem, recalled affected units only to see same sh..t happening again with newer units. Another recall is logical and expected for same issue... but, there is no such thing in next sentence... we developed and secretly, soorryyy folks, pushed sw sollution. Oh, I know. Apple is charity so they decided to make my (and another half billion users) year with allmost free battery replacement just because I have this crazy expectations about ethernal battery longevity. Because, nobody knows nothing about battery wear, it’s like apple invented batteries yesterday, so new, so high tech. So misterious, almost magic. Maybe, even, from future. 

    Instead, I got presented with poor grammar, irrational interpretations, cherry picking, and complete and utter disregard to all the facts I put forward.

    Let me say this again, in case you have trouble comprehending me... I DO hold Apple accountable for the way they handled the situation in the disclosure of how they were throttling the system. I applaud them from a technical standpoint, however, to come up with a way to keep iPhone’s running instead of crashing when we might need them most, and also retaining most of their performance during day-to-day use.

    My grammar is poor, yes, because english is my third language. Deal with it. 

    Yes, I do understand you. I’m science inclined, I do my home work and I know everything in public knowledge about this issue. What bothers me is your attitude - you are attacking everybody who happens to write about iphone batteries. You have this premediated stance that there is no defected batteries, just age and wear which is contradicted with simple, verified fact about iphone 7. Yes, there is number of users complaining about slower iphone after major iOS release, yes there is number of units with minor sw related bugs. Yes, there is large number of old iphone’s, but 6’s, 7’s and later are not, by any means, old. It’s just 3 years, max. But there is considerable large number of throtled iphone’s just because apple had to small to sh..y batteries. Deal with it. That’s topic of this conversation and you are just deflecting, it’s not about lack of disclosure witch is despicable but about sh..y customer service. There is no place on Earth where year or so of useful life is considered normal, even for dirt cheap chinese brands. 
    It's already been explained to you that your method of relating phone use/age to battery "age" is completely flawed (here) but so far in this thread you have ignored that. So let's try again:

    The wear on the battery has very weak relationship to just the passage of time since manufacture. Much more significant is things like number of battery cycles, and/or use at extremes of temperature. The battery is expected to need replacing after 500 cycles and/or due to use at extremes of temperatures, even if it is a "high-quality" battery with no manufacturing issues. This is just chemistry, all lithium-ion batteries do it and there is nothing Apple can do about it! So:

    1. You can't just say if a phone is less that a year old its battery can't have aged.
    2. Even with light-medium use, one would expect a 3 year old phone to have an aged battery that needs to be replaced. I would say I'm a light/medium user; my iPhone 6 is 3 years and 3 months old and the battery has done 814 cycles and needs to be replaced.

    If an iPhone is exhibiting performance issues, there are many, many possibilities for this including:
    1. It's being throttled because the battery has aged as expected, because the battery has been through over 500 charge cycles.
    2. It's being throttled because the battery has aged as expected, due to repeated use at extremes of temperatures, contrary to the manufacturer's guidance.
    3. It's being throttled because the battery has aged prematurely due to a manufacturing defect.
    4. There is a rogue app/apps consuming excessive resources in the background.
    5. iOS bug.
    6. Other hardware defect such as a logic board problem.
    Please could you provide details of your scientifically conducted (i.e., with proper controls) experiment(s) that shows that the phones you are citing as evidence of 3. above being a widespread problem, are actually experiencing that problem and not something else?

    Edited for formatting and grammar.
    edited January 9 Soli
  • Reply 168 of 178
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,028member
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:

    I love how uninformed and technically simple-minded folk such as yourself cling to benchmark results as gospel for explaining your uninformed conclusions...

    What is the definition of a performance benchmark?

    It means what a certain piece of technology can achieve performance wise when pushed to it's limit.
    ...

    You are deflecting, attacking and insulting other people. Why?

    This throtling issue is confirmed by Apple, so there is no need to invoke unrelated performance problems.

    Deflecting? Attacking? Wow, someone is overly defensive...

    I presented a bunch of LEGITIMATE information explaining what is actually occurring on MANY of the devices people have erroneously claimed are being throttled by Apple, when in fact this is NOT the case.

    And what do you do? You either failed to read my post, or did read it, and wilfully chose to ignore the facts I presented, as they are FACTS and not conjecture, and instead chose to rebut them with the insinuation that I'm attacking you.

    You are cherry picking Apple's own words to try and back your baseless claims of what is actually going on. You are obviously not open to hearing the TRUTH as to what is actually happening.

    I'm not going to defend Apple for their lack of disclosure, albeit the release notes they released accompanying iOS 10.2.1 I do find to be sufficient for the function introduced. The majority of people just don't read anything, and hence this came as a bit of a shock to most. Apple should've been more upfront with this, and provided a detailed explanation at the time of the initial release.
    Oh, so righteous, backed up by truth, alternate truth even. This peace is about one lawsuit regardingreal, confirmed issue. I’m not here to tell you how large number of affected users is. Seamingly, you know that number and that’s zero. There is lack of disclosure and that’s it. You are, sir, easilly fooled. You don’t have one single peace of evidence, all you can think and talk about is apple official damage-control-PR-BS. Even there is something stinking to the roof. It reads like this: we had that shuttdown problem, recalled affected units only to see same sh..t happening again with newer units. Another recall is logical and expected for same issue... but, there is no such thing in next sentence... we developed and secretly, soorryyy folks, pushed sw sollution. Oh, I know. Apple is charity so they decided to make my (and another half billion users) year with allmost free battery replacement just because I have this crazy expectations about ethernal battery longevity. Because, nobody knows nothing about battery wear, it’s like apple invented batteries yesterday, so new, so high tech. So misterious, almost magic. Maybe, even, from future. 

    Instead, I got presented with poor grammar, irrational interpretations, cherry picking, and complete and utter disregard to all the facts I put forward.

    Let me say this again, in case you have trouble comprehending me... I DO hold Apple accountable for the way they handled the situation in the disclosure of how they were throttling the system. I applaud them from a technical standpoint, however, to come up with a way to keep iPhone’s running instead of crashing when we might need them most, and also retaining most of their performance during day-to-day use.

    My grammar is poor, yes, because english is my third language. Deal with it. 

    Yes, I do understand you. I’m science inclined, I do my home work and I know everything in public knowledge about this issue. What bothers me is your attitude - you are attacking everybody who happens to write about iphone batteries. You have this premediated stance that there is no defected batteries, just age and wear which is contradicted with simple, verified fact about iphone 7. Yes, there is number of users complaining about slower iphone after major iOS release, yes there is number of units with minor sw related bugs. Yes, there is large number of old iphone’s, but 6’s, 7’s and later are not, by any means, old. It’s just 3 years, max. But there is considerable large number of throtled iphone’s just because apple had to small to sh..y batteries. Deal with it. That’s topic of this conversation and you are just deflecting, it’s not about lack of disclosure witch is despicable but about sh..y customer service. There is no place on Earth where year or so of useful life is considered normal, even for dirt cheap chinese brands. 
    Ok, now you’ve shown your true colours... I have been providing facts and relevant information regarding these issues, and trying to bring some rational to the FUD being purpotrated by people who honestly don’t have a clue about this.

    A prime example, Mr. H above repeated his comment to you, and it is very informative, just like my information was, and yet all you do is disregard it, and lash out at those of us who are bringing another perspective on the matter, valid ones I might add.

    You are being INCREDIBLY dismissive and adversarial to those of us who are trying to provide you with clearer, informative insight into this situation, and are lashing out with childish FUD such as claiming Apple knowingly sold defective batteries (not proven ANYWHERE) and then replaced them knowingly with again defective cells (again, not proven ANYWHERE and total BS). So you tell me who is being combative, adversarial, and defensive here?

    Your behaviour is border-line troll...
    Soli
  • Reply 169 of 178
    Soli said:
    It was your girl Kellyanne Conway that perpetuated "alternative facts."
    Don’t know her. The concept of “alternative facts” doesn’t exist, no matter what someone says.
    edited January 9
  • Reply 170 of 178
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:

    I love how uninformed and technically simple-minded folk such as yourself cling to benchmark results as gospel for explaining your uninformed conclusions...

    What is the definition of a performance benchmark?

    It means what a certain piece of technology can achieve performance wise when pushed to it's limit.
    ...

    You are deflecting, attacking and insulting other people. Why?

    This throtling issue is confirmed by Apple, so there is no need to invoke unrelated performance problems.

    Deflecting? Attacking? Wow, someone is overly defensive...

    I presented a bunch of LEGITIMATE information explaining what is actually occurring on MANY of the devices people have erroneously claimed are being throttled by Apple, when in fact this is NOT the case.

    And what do you do? You either failed to read my post, or did read it, and wilfully chose to ignore the facts I presented, as they are FACTS and not conjecture, and instead chose to rebut them with the insinuation that I'm attacking you.

    You are cherry picking Apple's own words to try and back your baseless claims of what is actually going on. You are obviously not open to hearing the TRUTH as to what is actually happening.

    I'm not going to defend Apple for their lack of disclosure, albeit the release notes they released accompanying iOS 10.2.1 I do find to be sufficient for the function introduced. The majority of people just don't read anything, and hence this came as a bit of a shock to most. Apple should've been more upfront with this, and provided a detailed explanation at the time of the initial release.
    Oh, so righteous, backed up by truth, alternate truth even. This peace is about one lawsuit regardingreal, confirmed issue. I’m not here to tell you how large number of affected users is. Seamingly, you know that number and that’s zero. There is lack of disclosure and that’s it. You are, sir, easilly fooled. You don’t have one single peace of evidence, all you can think and talk about is apple official damage-control-PR-BS. Even there is something stinking to the roof. It reads like this: we had that shuttdown problem, recalled affected units only to see same sh..t happening again with newer units. Another recall is logical and expected for same issue... but, there is no such thing in next sentence... we developed and secretly, soorryyy folks, pushed sw sollution. Oh, I know. Apple is charity so they decided to make my (and another half billion users) year with allmost free battery replacement just because I have this crazy expectations about ethernal battery longevity. Because, nobody knows nothing about battery wear, it’s like apple invented batteries yesterday, so new, so high tech. So misterious, almost magic. Maybe, even, from future. 

    Instead, I got presented with poor grammar, irrational interpretations, cherry picking, and complete and utter disregard to all the facts I put forward.

    Let me say this again, in case you have trouble comprehending me... I DO hold Apple accountable for the way they handled the situation in the disclosure of how they were throttling the system. I applaud them from a technical standpoint, however, to come up with a way to keep iPhone’s running instead of crashing when we might need them most, and also retaining most of their performance during day-to-day use.

    My grammar is poor, yes, because english is my third language. Deal with it. 

    Yes, I do understand you. I’m science inclined, I do my home work and I know everything in public knowledge about this issue. What bothers me is your attitude - you are attacking everybody who happens to write about iphone batteries. You have this premediated stance that there is no defected batteries, just age and wear which is contradicted with simple, verified fact about iphone 7. Yes, there is number of users complaining about slower iphone after major iOS release, yes there is number of units with minor sw related bugs. Yes, there is large number of old iphone’s, but 6’s, 7’s and later are not, by any means, old. It’s just 3 years, max. But there is considerable large number of throtled iphone’s just because apple had to small to sh..y batteries. Deal with it. That’s topic of this conversation and you are just deflecting, it’s not about lack of disclosure witch is despicable but about sh..y customer service. There is no place on Earth where year or so of useful life is considered normal, even for dirt cheap chinese brands. 
    Ok, now you’ve shown your true colours... I have been providing facts and relevant information regarding these issues, and trying to bring some rational to the FUD being purpotrated by people who honestly don’t have a clue about this.

    A prime example, Mr. H above repeated his comment to you, and it is very informative, just like my information was, and yet all you do is disregard it, and lash out at those of us who are bringing another perspective on the matter, valid ones I might add.

    You are being INCREDIBLY dismissive and adversarial to those of us who are trying to provide you with clearer, informative insight into this situation, and are lashing out with childish FUD such as claiming Apple knowingly sold defective batteries (not proven ANYWHERE) and then replaced them knowingly with again defective cells (again, not proven ANYWHERE and total BS). So you tell me who is being combative, adversarial, and defensive here?

    Your behaviour is border-line troll...
    Sir, this peace is about lawsuit regarding officially confirmed issue. Insight you provided here is valid, comprehensive, I allready confirmed that, but irelevant, of-topic, so it must be dismissed in order to have meaningfull, dense and on-topic conversation. You can argue, I welcome that, legal aspect(s), underlying cause for this course of action apple has taken etc etc. We can, tangentially, argue about missunderstanding about this issue in general user base and in media etc, but that is also irelevant to this topic. I never wrote anything about apple's intent to sold defective batteries, but I do think that they burried this problem, after it came to daylight, to save money. Simple math will sufice: in january 2017 apple pushed this "feature" specifically for 6s, amongst other two. At that same day oldest 6s happened to be old just 120 days. Expecting that at that same moment out there is one, just one 6s with 500 completed charge/discharge cycles is just unlogical, even crazy. that means 4 compelete cycles every single day assuming all 6s's was sold on day one and Apple at that time tried to help users to extend usefull life. Really? After 120 days? It happened that in the same time span we experienced one of coldest winters so there was no chance to overheat considerable number of 6s's. All in all, that's border line probable but extremly unlikelly. So, why apple did that for 120 days max old 6s but not for 3 years old 5s or 4 y old 5? its very simple 2 + 2. Math is your friend, it's powerfull. Use it to see through this PR BS fog.
    edited January 9
  • Reply 171 of 178
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,697member
    feudalist said:
    We can, tangentially, argue about missunderstanding about this issue in general user base and in media etc, but that is also irelevant to this topic.
    No, it is not tangential or irrelevant at all. The point is that it is impossible to tell how many people think their phone is being throttled due to a battery issue when in fact there's a different problem.
    feudalist said:
    Simple math will sufice: in january 2017 apple pushed this "feature" specifically for 6s, amongst other two. At that same day oldest 6s happened to be old just 120 days. Expecting that at that same moment out there is one, just one 6s with 500 completed charge/discharge cycles is just crazy, unlogical.
    500 cycles is not the only way to age a battery. Operating in extremes of temperature (that's too hot or too cold) will do it too…
    feudalist said:
    It happened that in the same time span we experienced one of coldest winters
    Oh, that's interesting.
    feudalist said:
    So, why apple did that for 120 days old max 6s
    Probably because the 6s uses similar hardware to the 6 (similar power management design, still a dual-core processor etc.) so it could use the same code as the 6. i.e. Since they had the code ready to go, Apple put it in iOS for the 6s in anticipation of batteries ageing in the future, not because they saw large numbers of batteries in the 6s aged already (although there would be some prematurely aged due to misoperation by the user). In contrast, iPhone 7 has a more complicated SoC with a 4-core CPU with two high-power cores and 2 low-power cores, so figuring out the best way to do the throttling has taken longer to develop.
    feudalist said:
    but not for 3 years old 5s or 4 y old 5
    Because they have older, less complicated CPUs and GPUs that don't draw as much current when operating at full throttle. (Previous posters have semi-erroneously referred to "voltage spikes" as causing the problem - what is actually the problem is spikes in current draw, which translates into a dip in the output voltage of an aged battery).
    feudalist said:
    its very simple 2 + 2
    Yeah, and you're getting the answer 16.
    edited January 9
  • Reply 172 of 178
    mr. h said:
    feudalist said:
    Simple math will sufice: in january 2017 apple pushed this "feature" specifically for 6s, amongst other two. At that same day oldest 6s happened to be old just 120 days. Expecting that at that same moment out there is one, just one 6s with 500 completed charge/discharge cycles is just crazy, unlogical.
    500 cycles is not the only way to age a battery. Operating in extremes of temperature (that's too hot or too cold) will do it too…

    feudalist said:
    So, why apple did that for 120 days old max 6s
    Probably because the 6s uses similar hardware to the 6 (similar power management design, still a dual-core processor etc.) so it could use the same code as the 6. i.e. Since they had the code ready to go, Apple put it in iOS for the 6s in anticipation of batteries ageing in the future, not because they saw large numbers of batteries in the 6s aged already (although there would be some prematurely aged due to misoperation by the user). In contrast, iPhone 7 has a more complicated SoC with a 4-core CPU with two high-power cores and 2 low-power cores, so figuring out the best way to do the throttling has taken longer to develop.

    you are mistaken. Eleveted operating temperature will damage batteries, but low temperature will not cause any damage. Read it, it's on Apple's web.

    Ok, you accepted my reasoning. Now, I must tell you something. It's main point is fabricated - iphone 6s was 500 days old in january 2017. You bought it to the max and speculated about apple's intentions. Oh dear.

    There is just one original sin - recent iphone batteries are subpar; it's unacceptable for otherwise best smartphone in universe. One year or so is really really to short for waterproofed and sealed unit. They know that and they burried, temporarily. iOS upgrade is on hold for me, I like when I can see through - when my battery degrade to unstable level that will be obvious so I can take apropriate steps instead of going through restoring, debuging, checking, asking help etc. I like iphone because of its just work simplicity and self explanatory UI.

    edited January 9
  • Reply 173 of 178
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,697member
    feudalist said:

    Ok, you accepted my reasoning. Now, I must tell you something. It's main point is fabricated - iphone 6s was 500 days old in january 2017. You bought it to the max and speculated about apple's intentions. Oh dear.

    Thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I hope that my posts are useful for anyone else reading who has an open mind and wants to learn. Just because your argument was false (age of iPhone 6s when 10.2.1 came out) and I failed to check that, doesn't make anything I said untrue. It just makes your posts look even more idiotic.
    magman1979Soli
  • Reply 174 of 178
    mr. h said:
    feudalist said:

    Ok, you accepted my reasoning. Now, I must tell you something. It's main point is fabricated - iphone 6s was 500 days old in january 2017. You bought it to the max and speculated about apple's intentions. Oh dear.

    Thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I hope that my posts are useful for anyone else reading who has an open mind and wants to learn. Just because your argument was false (age of iPhone 6s when 10.2.1 came out) and I failed to check that, doesn't make anything I said untrue. It just makes your posts look even more idiotic.

    it's not about chekcking but about lengt's you take to convince me and others that there is nothing and, now is obvious, you don't have clear understanding of basic facts regarding this issue, timeline and underlying technology. Just rephrased Apple PR BS.
    edited January 10
  • Reply 175 of 178
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,028member
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:
    feudalist said:

    I love how uninformed and technically simple-minded folk such as yourself cling to benchmark results as gospel for explaining your uninformed conclusions...

    What is the definition of a performance benchmark?

    It means what a certain piece of technology can achieve performance wise when pushed to it's limit.
    ...

    You are deflecting, attacking and insulting other people. Why?

    This throtling issue is confirmed by Apple, so there is no need to invoke unrelated performance problems.

    Deflecting? Attacking? Wow, someone is overly defensive...

    I presented a bunch of LEGITIMATE information explaining what is actually occurring on MANY of the devices people have erroneously claimed are being throttled by Apple, when in fact this is NOT the case.

    And what do you do? You either failed to read my post, or did read it, and wilfully chose to ignore the facts I presented, as they are FACTS and not conjecture, and instead chose to rebut them with the insinuation that I'm attacking you.

    You are cherry picking Apple's own words to try and back your baseless claims of what is actually going on. You are obviously not open to hearing the TRUTH as to what is actually happening.

    I'm not going to defend Apple for their lack of disclosure, albeit the release notes they released accompanying iOS 10.2.1 I do find to be sufficient for the function introduced. The majority of people just don't read anything, and hence this came as a bit of a shock to most. Apple should've been more upfront with this, and provided a detailed explanation at the time of the initial release.
    Oh, so righteous, backed up by truth, alternate truth even. This peace is about one lawsuit regardingreal, confirmed issue. I’m not here to tell you how large number of affected users is. Seamingly, you know that number and that’s zero. There is lack of disclosure and that’s it. You are, sir, easilly fooled. You don’t have one single peace of evidence, all you can think and talk about is apple official damage-control-PR-BS. Even there is something stinking to the roof. It reads like this: we had that shuttdown problem, recalled affected units only to see same sh..t happening again with newer units. Another recall is logical and expected for same issue... but, there is no such thing in next sentence... we developed and secretly, soorryyy folks, pushed sw sollution. Oh, I know. Apple is charity so they decided to make my (and another half billion users) year with allmost free battery replacement just because I have this crazy expectations about ethernal battery longevity. Because, nobody knows nothing about battery wear, it’s like apple invented batteries yesterday, so new, so high tech. So misterious, almost magic. Maybe, even, from future. 

    Instead, I got presented with poor grammar, irrational interpretations, cherry picking, and complete and utter disregard to all the facts I put forward.

    Let me say this again, in case you have trouble comprehending me... I DO hold Apple accountable for the way they handled the situation in the disclosure of how they were throttling the system. I applaud them from a technical standpoint, however, to come up with a way to keep iPhone’s running instead of crashing when we might need them most, and also retaining most of their performance during day-to-day use.

    My grammar is poor, yes, because english is my third language. Deal with it. 

    Yes, I do understand you. I’m science inclined, I do my home work and I know everything in public knowledge about this issue. What bothers me is your attitude - you are attacking everybody who happens to write about iphone batteries. You have this premediated stance that there is no defected batteries, just age and wear which is contradicted with simple, verified fact about iphone 7. Yes, there is number of users complaining about slower iphone after major iOS release, yes there is number of units with minor sw related bugs. Yes, there is large number of old iphone’s, but 6’s, 7’s and later are not, by any means, old. It’s just 3 years, max. But there is considerable large number of throtled iphone’s just because apple had to small to sh..y batteries. Deal with it. That’s topic of this conversation and you are just deflecting, it’s not about lack of disclosure witch is despicable but about sh..y customer service. There is no place on Earth where year or so of useful life is considered normal, even for dirt cheap chinese brands. 
    Ok, now you’ve shown your true colours... I have been providing facts and relevant information regarding these issues, and trying to bring some rational to the FUD being purpotrated by people who honestly don’t have a clue about this.

    A prime example, Mr. H above repeated his comment to you, and it is very informative, just like my information was, and yet all you do is disregard it, and lash out at those of us who are bringing another perspective on the matter, valid ones I might add.

    You are being INCREDIBLY dismissive and adversarial to those of us who are trying to provide you with clearer, informative insight into this situation, and are lashing out with childish FUD such as claiming Apple knowingly sold defective batteries (not proven ANYWHERE) and then replaced them knowingly with again defective cells (again, not proven ANYWHERE and total BS). So you tell me who is being combative, adversarial, and defensive here?

    Your behaviour is border-line troll...
    Sir, this peace is about lawsuit regarding officially confirmed issue. Insight you provided here is valid, comprehensive, I allready confirmed that, but irelevant, of-topic, so it must be dismissed in order to have meaningfull, dense and on-topic conversation. You can argue, I welcome that, legal aspect(s), underlying cause for this course of action apple has taken etc etc. We can, tangentially, argue about missunderstanding about this issue in general user base and in media etc, but that is also irelevant to this topic. I never wrote anything about apple's intent to sold defective batteries, but I do think that they burried this problem, after it came to daylight, to save money. Simple math will sufice: in january 2017 apple pushed this "feature" specifically for 6s, amongst other two. At that same day oldest 6s happened to be old just 120 days. Expecting that at that same moment out there is one, just one 6s with 500 completed charge/discharge cycles is just unlogical, even crazy. that means 4 compelete cycles every single day assuming all 6s's was sold on day one and Apple at that time tried to help users to extend usefull life. Really? After 120 days? It happened that in the same time span we experienced one of coldest winters so there was no chance to overheat considerable number of 6s's. All in all, that's border line probable but extremly unlikelly. So, why apple did that for 120 days max old 6s but not for 3 years old 5s or 4 y old 5? its very simple 2 + 2. Math is your friend, it's powerfull. Use it to see through this PR BS fog.
    Not only are you a troll, 100% confirmed now after your response to me and Mr. H, but you contradict yourself in your own rebut:

    "I never wrote anything about apple's intent to sold defective batteries"

    feudalist said:

    But there is considerable large number of throtled iphone’s just because apple had to small to sh..y batteries. Deal with it.
    What about this? English as a third language or not, you made the claim you profess you didn't, in black and white. So either you're clueless, don't know what you're talking about, are forgetful, are a liar, or all of the above.

    I'm not going to go any further, as between my facts, and Mr. H's, and your responses to them, it's 1000% clear you are trolling, and quite badly.

    NONE of the information that I, Mr. H, and others here, have presented is irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is VERY much relevant to try and explain the falsities being perpetrated by these frivolous lawsuits. Is action needed against Apple, yes, is this the correct course of action, based on the BS context of these lawsuits, no.

    A more productive lawsuit might be one levelled against Microsoft for just having bricked millions of AMD machines with their "fix" for the Spectre CPU defect! Now there's a FIX that is anything but, and leaves people in a serious lurch! Unlike Apple, who ensured their fix would allow iPhone's to continue working!

    I'm done feeding the troll, good day, and get out.
    edited January 10
  • Reply 176 of 178
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,028member

    feudalist said:
    mr. h said:
    feudalist said:

    Ok, you accepted my reasoning. Now, I must tell you something. It's main point is fabricated - iphone 6s was 500 days old in january 2017. You bought it to the max and speculated about apple's intentions. Oh dear.

    Thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I hope that my posts are useful for anyone else reading who has an open mind and wants to learn. Just because your argument was false (age of iPhone 6s when 10.2.1 came out) and I failed to check that, doesn't make anything I said untrue. It just makes your posts look even more idiotic.

    it's not about chekcking but about lengt's you take to convince me and others that there is nothing and, now is obvious, you don't have clear understanding of basic facts regarding this issue, timeline and underlying technology. Just rephrased Apple PR BS.
    OMFG... Seriously??? "don't have clear understanding of basic facts regarding this issue, timeline and underlying technology. Just rephrased Apple PR BS"

    Did you write that with a straight face??? Actually, the only person here who DOESN'T know the basic facts, timelines and underlying technology about this issue is YOU, and that's been proven to you in NINE pages of responses from various people!

    Troll as troll can be...
  • Reply 177 of 178

    Not only are you a troll, 100% confirmed now after your response to me and Mr. H, but you contradict yourself in your own rebut:

    "I never wrote anything about apple's intent to sold defective batteries"

    feudalist said:

    But there is considerable large number of throtled iphone’s just because apple had to small to sh..y batteries. Deal with it.
    What about this? English as a third language or not, you made the claim you profess you didn't, in black and white. So either you're clueless, don't know what you're talking about, are forgetful, are a liar, or all of the above.

    My english is third just like yours undestarding of it. Defective <> to small to sh..y. Go drink some kool aid and do something about comprehension
    atomic101
  • Reply 178 of 178

    feudalist said:
    mr. h said:
    feudalist said:

    Ok, you accepted my reasoning. Now, I must tell you something. It's main point is fabricated - iphone 6s was 500 days old in january 2017. You bought it to the max and speculated about apple's intentions. Oh dear.

    Thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I hope that my posts are useful for anyone else reading who has an open mind and wants to learn. Just because your argument was false (age of iPhone 6s when 10.2.1 came out) and I failed to check that, doesn't make anything I said untrue. It just makes your posts look even more idiotic.

    it's not about chekcking but about lengt's you take to convince me and others that there is nothing and, now is obvious, you don't have clear understanding of basic facts regarding this issue, timeline and underlying technology. Just rephrased Apple PR BS.
    OMFG... Seriously??? "don't have clear understanding of basic facts regarding this issue, timeline and underlying technology. Just rephrased Apple PR BS"

    Did you write that with a straight face??? Actually, the only person here who DOESN'T know the basic facts, timelines and underlying technology about this issue is YOU, and that's been proven to you in NINE pages of responses from various people!

    Troll as troll can be...


    After numerous attempts, I performed this stunt to, I'm sory, successfully prove cluelessnes on yours part.

    I will buy this one, last attempt. So, your friend, mr. H argued about numerous reasons for perfomance issues. Before this "feature" was implemented in iOS 10.2.1, battery was never ever one of them. It was on or off, nothing in the midle.  It's a fact, verifable, and allready proved trough geekbench analyssis. Despite that, mr. H wrote long message arguing otherwise and you seconded. You are clueless, pardon my french or whatever

    edited January 10
Sign In or Register to comment.