Interesting how the article just glosses over the fact that for all the years we've had iPhones, we didn't need to throttle them down when the batteries get older, until now... Why is that?
It's very simple actually. That's because what your're saying doesn't make any sense. You didn't have an iphone or didn't keep it long enough. My first one, the 3GS, after a long service, was shutting down when the battery level reached 60%. That should paint a clearer picture for you.
I had the same with random shut downs with my iPhone 5. Battery would read 80% and then shut down. Quick plug it into the charger and it would come back on and the battery was at 20%. It was annoying as hell.. Fortunately my serial # fell within the range of the Apple battery replacement program and my battery was replaced for free. Once the battery was replaced the phone ran perfect again.
I'm not happy about how they handled it, and I've said so on multiple occasions.
But, the lunatics popping up saying that this confirms that Apple slows down iPhones to get you to buy a new one? That demonstrates a basic lack of science knowledge, and a failure of critical thinking ability, given that the phones return to full speed when the battery is replaced.
Unfortunately Mike, the counter-argument is EQUALLY compelling!!! The counter argument goes like this - People DO KNOW batteries AGE with time. People DO have ABILITY to correlate unexpected shutdowns to Battery problems. When unexpected shutdowns happen, the FIRST thing people check with service center is - Guess what, Battery. By HIDING that problem with Battery, Apple DID NOT help the end user. Apple misled (unknowingly, most likely) them. That is THE problem - misleading the users about REAL issue (battery) when they actually experienced a different issue (poor performance). While some of them (me included) are ready to give benefit of doubt to Apple, some of them are not ready to give benefit of doubt which is understandable (given the lack of communication from Apple).
When you say "That demonstrates a basic lack of science knowledge", it is exactly the opposite of what is actually happening. People do NOT lack science knowledge. They do KNOW symptoms AND associated root causes for the basic issues like depleted battery. Apple misleading them (though throttling in software AND not communicating about it for 8 months) is the problem.
Interesting how the article just glosses over the fact that for all the years we've had iPhones, we didn't need to throttle them down when the batteries get older, until now... Why is that?
It's because you didn't bother to research what was happening to all those iPhones for all those years that made Apple decide to implement a method to extend their longevity. It's not "interesting" at all.
I'm not happy about how they handled it, and I've said so on multiple occasions.
But, the lunatics popping up saying that this confirms that Apple slows down iPhones to get you to buy a new one? That demonstrates a basic lack of science knowledge, and a failure of critical thinking ability, given that the phones return to full speed when the battery is replaced.
Unfortunately Mike, the counter-argument is EQUALLY compelling!!! The counter argument goes like this - People DO KNOW batteries AGE with time. People DO have ABILITY to correlate unexpected shutdowns to Battery problems. When unexpected shutdowns happen, the FIRST thing people check with service center is - Guess what, Battery. By HIDING that problem with Battery, Apple DID NOT help the end user. Apple misled (unknowingly, most likely) them. That is THE problem - misleading the users about REAL issue (battery) when they actually experienced a different issue (poor performance). While some of them (me included) are ready to give benefit of doubt to Apple, some of them are not ready to give benefit of doubt which is understandable (given the lack of communication from Apple).
When you say "That demonstrates a basic lack of science knowledge", it is exactly the opposite of what is actually happening. People do NOT lack science knowledge. They do KNOW symptoms AND associated root causes for the basic issues like depleted battery. Apple misleading them (though throttling in software AND not communicating about it for 8 months) is the problem.
AppleInsider readers generally have that knowledge. Joe Public does not, and expects an iPhone to work like an appliance, regardless of age.
AI readers are a fraction of a percent of Apple users. And, like I said, I'm not happy how Apple handled it, and have always said so.
Interesting how the article just glosses over the fact that for all the years we've had iPhones, we didn't need to throttle them down when the batteries get older, until now... Why is that?
It's very simple actually. That's because what your're saying doesn't make any sense. You didn't have an iphone or didn't keep it long enough. My first one, the 3GS, after a long service, was shutting down when the battery level reached 60%. That should paint a clearer picture for you.
Your experience is anecdotal, as is mine: my iPhone 4 lasted four years without crashing. It used up battery faster, but didn't crash.
It's very simple actually. That's because it's not the fact that they throttled the phones to prevent crashes, it's the fact that they weren't as up front about it as some people think they ought to have been. Yes, there is a somewhat less than crystal clear entry in the release notes, but I remember reading it, after the fact and thinking that, as a tech person, I might have interpreted it to mean that throttling would occur to prevent crashes, but that a non-technical person would be much less likely to do so.
I truly do believe Apple's motives were to simply prevent crashes, and not to slow people's phones down to convince them to buy a new one. That much is obvious to even me, and I'm a tin-foil hat guy from way back. But they could certainly have been more up front about it, and not depend on non-technical people interpreting a not very explicitly described technical concept.
Comments
Unfortunately Mike, the counter-argument is EQUALLY compelling!!! The counter argument goes like this - People DO KNOW batteries AGE with time. People DO have ABILITY to correlate unexpected shutdowns to Battery problems. When unexpected shutdowns happen, the FIRST thing people check with service center is - Guess what, Battery. By HIDING that problem with Battery, Apple DID NOT help the end user. Apple misled (unknowingly, most likely) them. That is THE problem - misleading the users about REAL issue (battery) when they actually experienced a different issue (poor performance). While some of them (me included) are ready to give benefit of doubt to Apple, some of them are not ready to give benefit of doubt which is understandable (given the lack of communication from Apple).
When you say "That demonstrates a basic lack of science knowledge", it is exactly the opposite of what is actually happening. People do NOT lack science knowledge. They do KNOW symptoms AND associated root causes for the basic issues like depleted battery. Apple misleading them (though throttling in software AND not communicating about it for 8 months) is the problem.
AI readers are a fraction of a percent of Apple users. And, like I said, I'm not happy how Apple handled it, and have always said so.
Your experience is anecdotal, as is mine: my iPhone 4 lasted four years without crashing. It used up battery faster, but didn't crash.
It's very simple actually. That's because it's not the fact that they throttled the phones to prevent crashes, it's the fact that they weren't as up front about it as some people think they ought to have been. Yes, there is a somewhat less than crystal clear entry in the release notes, but I remember reading it, after the fact and thinking that, as a tech person, I might have interpreted it to mean that throttling would occur to prevent crashes, but that a non-technical person would be much less likely to do so.
I truly do believe Apple's motives were to simply prevent crashes, and not to slow people's phones down to convince them to buy a new one. That much is obvious to even me, and I'm a tin-foil hat guy from way back. But they could certainly have been more up front about it, and not depend on non-technical people interpreting a not very explicitly described technical concept.