iPhone owners will be able to disable CPU throttling in future iOS version, Cook says

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 17
Apple CEO Tim Cook in an interview on Wednesday revealed a new iOS function will soon allow owners of iPhones with depleted batteries to disable built-in CPU throttling, a preventative measure designed to lengthen the life span of older handsets.


Source: iFixit


Speaking with ABC News, Cook explained the upcoming iOS feature will be issued as part of a developer beta next month, to be followed by wide public release shortly thereafter.

The new functionality appears to be distinct from battery health monitoring tools announced in December.

Apple came under fire after admitting its iOS 10.2.1 update, released in 2016, intentionally throttles CPU performance in iPhones with depleted batteries. The company claims the software is designed to keep older iPhones running smoothly, but a number of users cried foul, claiming it is not within Apple's rights to artificially slow down hardware without an owner's knowledge.

Apple issued an open letter apologizing for what is characterized as miscommunication, explaining that the iOS feature was instated "to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down during these conditions." Initially designed for iPhone 6, 6s and SE, the preventative measure has been extended to iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, and will further be implemented in future products.

In its December letter, Apple said it plans to issue an iOS version with new features that will allow end users to check whether the condition of their phone's battery is affecting performance. Cook expanded on that initiative today.

"We will tell somebody, saying, 'We're reducing your performance by some amount in order to not have an unexpected restart,'" Cook said. "And if you don't want it, you can turn it off. Now we don't recommend it, because we think that people's iPhones are really import to them, and you can never tell when something is so urgent."

Cook goes on to echo past statements, saying the iOS 10.2.1 update was in service to the user, not a malicious plan to force existing iPhone owners to upgrade to newer hardware. He also notes Apple dropped the price of out-of-warranty battery replacements from $79 to $29, a seeming consolation for the debacle.



In the weeks following Apple's admission that it throttles certain iPhones, consumers filed a litany of lawsuits seeking recoup lost expenses. Government officials are also looking into the issue, including a French anti-fraud agency and multiple U.S. lawmakers.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 99
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 102member
    More user control is always welcome. 
    watto_cobraClarityToSeenetmagefeudalist
  • Reply 2 of 99
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,031member
    Giving users choice is something that Apple is not wont to do.   Usually a Apple knows best and keeps it that way.   


    watto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 3 of 99
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 102member
    eriamjh said:
    Giving users choice is something that Apple is not wont to do.   Usually a Apple knows best and keeps it that way.   


    lol. Read. The. User. Guide. 
  • Reply 4 of 99
    I suspect the average iPhone user has about 50% the knowledge of iOS that the average Appleinider reader has.  Perhaps even less.  For the majority of iOS users, automatically reducing power consumption in order to optimize battery life is just good engineering.  Further it’s nothing new.  This tech is highly advanced, AI mediated, genius stuff!  I cannot believe anyone with a brain thinks this is an issue worthy of a moments thought.  In fact, why am I commenting!  
    gregg thurmanbaconstangracerhomie3curtis hannahMisterKitJWSCentropyswatto_cobrajahbladechabig
  • Reply 5 of 99
    dewmedewme Posts: 1,164member
    I love it. It's a perfect solution. If you want to file the safety off your trigger - go for it dude. #CullingTheHerd
    edited January 17 curtis hannahwatto_cobrapscooter63
  • Reply 6 of 99
    jony0jony0 Posts: 239member
    A great move by Apple to assuage all the crybabies. My 6S was crashing at least once a week before the fix and hasn't done it once since the fix. I was very happy and will certainly not touch that switch. Well, I might want to prove a point and try it out one day taking videos at home and having a charger nearby.

    All the whining idiots that will flip the switch and turn back their phones to 'sudden crashing mode' might finally understand that Apple was right all along. But of course there will also be the usual unavoidable complainers that will bitch that their phone now crashes unexpectedly while failing to feel any speed increase. Why, I even suspect we might have some here shortly well before the actual update.
    edited January 17 viclauyycbaconstangracerhomie3JWSCwatto_cobrajahblademike1jbdragon
  • Reply 7 of 99
    tmaytmay Posts: 2,324member
    jony0 said:
    A great move by Apple to assuage all the crybabies. My 6S was crashing at least once a week before the fix and hasn't done it once since the fix. I was very happy and will certainly not touch that switch. Well, I might want to prove a point and try it out one day taking videos at home and having a charger nearby.

    All the whining idiots that will flip the switch and turn back their phones to 'sudden crashing mode' might finally understand that Apple was right all along. But of course there will also be the usual unavoidable complainers that will bitch that their phone now crashes unexpectedly while failing to feel any speed increase. Why, I even suspect we might have some here shortly well before the actual update.
    Curious if you have or would consider a battery upgrade.
    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 99
    designrdesignr Posts: 324member
    Cue: People getting pissed because their phone is shutting down and restarting at unexpected and inopportune times.
    SoliJWSCwatto_cobrabeowulfschmidtmike1jbdragon
  • Reply 9 of 99
    chasmchasm Posts: 373member
    “I demand the right to choose to have my iPhone just spontaneously crash or die on me rather than be FORCED to accept Apple’s alternative of SLIGHTLY slowing it down a bit when it’s under load and the battery is chemically depleted!” This is a perfect example of the kind of gross stupidity produced when gross tech ignorance is combined with bad reporting (in other outlets, AI has done a good job with his IMO), creating mass hysteria.
    designrlkruppgregg thurmanbaconstangRayz2016curtis hannahJWSCtmaywatto_cobrajahblade
  • Reply 10 of 99
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,650member
    chasm said:
    “I demand the right to choose to have my iPhone just spontaneously crash or die on me rather than be FORCED to accept Apple’s alternative of SLIGHTLY slowing it down a bit when it’s under load and the battery is chemically depleted!” This is a perfect example of the kind of gross stupidity produced when gross tech ignorance is combined with bad reporting (in other outlets, AI has done a good job with his IMO), creating mass hysteria.
    Well, that’s how the world works these days. Mass hysteria, feelings over rational thinking, the blame game, the sacrificial Judas goat.
    watto_cobramike1waltg
  • Reply 11 of 99
    Personally I like Apple’s approach of basically dictating the user experience (even if I don’t always like what they dictate), and so I see giving the user the ability to turn off the throttling a setback. I’m not saying Apple always gets things right, but our own opinions are meaningless without sufficient research to back them up. When I first read Bruce Tognazzini’s book describing Apple’s research it became so clear that a user’s perception of what’s going on is not always reflective of what really is going on—sometimes it’s completely the opposite.

    This change may be necessary from a PR perspective and to appease the ridiculous official inquiries and class action lawsuits, but it’s like a stain on Apple’s dictatorship!
    curtis hannahwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 99
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,179member
    JFC_PA said:
    More user control is always welcome. 
    No it's not. 
    designrgregg thurmanJWSCtmaywatto_cobrachabigpscooter63
  • Reply 13 of 99
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 4,938member
    eriamjh said:
    Giving users choice is something that Apple is not wont to do.   Usually a Apple knows best and keeps it that way.   


    Yes, Apple does know best. Most users are morons, hence the traction and outrage this "controversy" has gotten. But sure, Apple should give the user more control, so certain users can decide to screw themselves. Their prerogative. Just don't go fucking suing Apple when your phone restarts during some critical moment. 
    gregg thurmanmwhiteMisterKitJWSCwatto_cobramike1jony0StrangeDaysjbdragonpscooter63
  • Reply 14 of 99
    What I think are the most humorous aspects of the whole thing is that:

    #1
     Only the most demanding users actually noticed any slowdown of their 3 year old iPhone.
    #2 The slowdown only occurred during peak power demand.
    #3 The slowdown during peak power demand was barely noticeable and had to be verified with test equipment
    #4 The complainers put up with the sudden crashes, realizing that they had an old, chemically weakened battery
    #5 Users with older iPhones never thought to replace their older battery (cost $79)
    #6 Everybody has had to replace a car battery (life expectancy about 3 - 4 years on average).  Cost about $80 - $120.
    #7 Everybody has had to replace car tires (life expectancy about 3 - 4 years on average).  Cost about $300 - $400.
    #8 None of the plaintiffs knew that car batteries and tires wear out and will need to be replaced
    #9 Nobody has ever accused car manufacturers of planned obsolescence caused by battery/tire life span
    #10 Those that didn't replace the $79 batteries, on their 3 year old $700 device, feel they have been harmed to the tune of $20,000
    #11 None of the plaintiffs realize they'll never see more than a $100 coupon (redeemable when they purchase an Apple product)
    #12 Plaintiffs' attorneys will rake in millions in fees when the plaintiffs receive the $100 coupons (and that's OK with the plaintiffs).
    baconstangmwhiteNemWanJWSCtmayradarthekatwatto_cobradewmemike1jony0
  • Reply 15 of 99
    The user controlled switch might work OK if they include a battery health indicator.

    The indicator should be added anyway, ala the one in macOS for laptops.
    edited January 17
  • Reply 16 of 99
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,177member
    kamilton said:
    I suspect the average iPhone user has about 50% the knowledge of iOS that the average Appleinider reader has.  Perhaps even less.  For the majority of iOS users, automatically reducing power consumption in order to optimize battery life is just good engineering.  Further it’s nothing new.  This tech is highly advanced, AI mediated, genius stuff!  I cannot believe anyone with a brain thinks this is an issue worthy of a moments thought.  In fact, why am I commenting!  
    🤣
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 99
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,177member
    slurpy said:
    eriamjh said:
    Giving users choice is something that Apple is not wont to do.   Usually a Apple knows best and keeps it that way.   


    Yes, Apple does know best. Most users are morons, hence the traction and outrage this "controversy" has gotten. But sure, Apple should give the user more control, so certain users can decide to screw themselves. Their prerogative. Just don't go fucking suing Apple when your phone restarts during some critical moment. 
    Well there’s the problem: the lawyers will now use this as an admission of guilt, so I wouldn’t expect the lawsuits to dry up any time soon. I think they’ll get far worse. 
    edited January 17 watto_cobrabeowulfschmidtjbdragon
  • Reply 18 of 99
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,177member

    The user controlled switch might work OK if they include a battery health indicator.
    There is already a battery health indicator. It lights up under the settings when the battery starts wearing out. 
    edited January 17 watto_cobrajbdragon
  • Reply 19 of 99
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,179member

    iPhone owners will be able to disable CPU throttling in future iOS version, Cook says


    It already exists.


    watto_cobramike1
  • Reply 20 of 99
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,177member

    What I think are the most humorous aspects of the whole thing is that:

    #1
     Only the most demanding users actually noticed any slowdown of their 3 year old iPhone.
    #2 The slowdown only occurred during peak power demand.
    #3 The slowdown during peak power demand was barely noticeable and had to be verified with test equipment
    #4 The complainers put up with the sudden crashes, realizing that they had an old, chemically weakened battery
    #5 Users with older iPhones never thought to replace their older battery (cost $79)
    #6 Everybody has had to replace a car battery (life expectancy about 3 - 4 years on average).  Cost about $80 - $120.
    #7 Everybody has had to replace car tires (life expectancy about 3 - 4 years on average).  Cost about $300 - $400.
    #8 None of the plaintiffs knew that car batteries and tires wear out and will need to be replaced
    #9 Nobody has ever accused car manufacturers of planned obsolescence caused by battery/tire life span
    #10 Those that didn't replace the $79 batteries, on their 3 year old $700 device, feel they have been harmed to the tune of $20,000
    #11 None of the plaintiffs realize they'll never see more than a $100 coupon (redeemable when they purchase an Apple product)
    #12 Plaintiffs' attorneys will rake in millions in fees when the plaintiffs receive the $100 coupons (and that's OK with the plaintiffs).
    Well, aside from the plaintiffs having to fill in a quick form, there’s not much else they need to do, so it’s a win win. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.