So if a limp mode was not originally programmed into an automobile’s computer the car would just stop and that would be okay? But if a software upgrade installed into the automobile’s software would introduce a new ‘hidden’ mode that would keep the car running instead of shutting down, that would not be okay just because the automobile manufacturer didn’t tell us about it?
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
So if a limp mode was not originally programmed into an automobile’s computer the car would just stop and that would be okay? But if a software upgrade installed into the automobile’s software would introduce a new ‘hidden’ mode that would keep the car running instead of shutting down, that would not be okay just because the automobile manufacturer didn’t tell us about it?
The limp home mode was a fully appropriate technical solution. In fact it’s a common strategy for high availability systems. Since the iPhone may be your only means to contact emergency responders, e.g., 911, in a life or property threatening situation, I commend Apple on taking this action for the benefit of their customers. It was exactly the right thing to do technically and morally. However, where they stumbled was with the communication part. Had Apple immediately communicated something on the device to the effect of “We’re sorry, but iOS has detected a condition in your phone that requires attention. To allow your phone to continue to function we have temporarily reduced the performance of your phone under certain conditions. Please contact Apple Support for further guidance.”
By not proactively informing customers about the technical intervention Apple appeared to have “masked” the problem. In an environment where Apple has so many people and agencies constantly trying find chinks in their armor, this had bad optics. I’m sure Apple avoided popping up a notification on affected devices because there would have been an ensuing panic and flood of customers to Apple Stores and online support. If they worded the notification correctly perhaps the conversation with Apple support staff would have put more people’s minds at ease and a battery replacement scheduled for a future time rather than immediately. Who really knows, because once the hysteria and lawsuits started ramping up the opportunity for civil communication and measured, appropriate responses evaporated.
One could argue that CPU and system builders are guilty of the same thing that Apple was accused of when they throttle their CPUs due to thermal conditions. I haven’t heard of any lawsuits around thermal related throttling but we’ll have to wait and see.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
This is a technical issue and the analogy is apropos.
You’re never going to convince me that Apple should’ve just let their devices shutdown without warning instead of keeping them running in the most optimal way so I’ll let you have the last word.
The amazing thing is that the measure Apple put in was meant to make the phones last longer as a viable device in the consumer’s hand. If Apple wanted you to immediately go out and buy a new phone it would have left the shutdowns alone.
The amazing thing is that the measure Apple put in was meant to make the phones last longer as a viable device in the consumer’s hand. If Apple wanted you to immediately go out and buy a new phone it would have left the shutdowns alone.
So if a limp mode was not originally programmed into an automobile’s computer the car would just stop and that would be okay? But if a software upgrade installed into the automobile’s software would introduce a new ‘hidden’ mode that would keep the car running instead of shutting down, that would not be okay just because the automobile manufacturer didn’t tell us about it?
Yes, what he's saying is quite stupid sounding. Anything to paint Apple as bad for these people, I guess.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
This is a technical issue and the analogy is apropos.
You’re never going to convince me that Apple should’ve just let their devices shutdown without warning instead of keeping them running in the most optimal way so I’ll let you have the last word.
Please find where I've advocated for Apple to just let the device shut down. In no post have I even come close to suggesting that. In fact, in every post I stated exactly what I think Apple should have done and where they went wrong. Letting the device just shut down was never in anything I wrote about the iPhone. You didn't understand what you read in my quote. There's no way to read anything I've written and come away with me trying to convince you Apple should have let the devices shut down. But you or anyone else is welcome to try.
Should we force Apple to accommodate disoriented people? How many people would file a class action lawsuit because they think left cursor should move to the right and it’s Apple’s fault because they didn’t warn us and give us an option. On screen message: iOS has noticed that you are pressing left cursor. Please go to settings/reality/perspective and decide if left really means right in your case.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
This is a technical issue and the analogy is apropos.
You’re never going to convince me that Apple should’ve just let their devices shutdown without warning instead of keeping them running in the most optimal way so I’ll let you have the last word.
Please find where I've advocated for Apple to just let the device shut down. In no post have I even come close to suggesting that. In fact, in every post I stated exactly what I think Apple should have done and where they went wrong. Letting the device just shut down was never in anything I wrote about the iPhone. You didn't understand what you read in my quote. There's no way to read anything I've written and come away with me trying to convince you Apple should have let the devices shut down. But you or anyone else is welcome to try.
You condemn Apple for looking out for their customers by instituting a fix for a safety issue by preventing it from shutting down prematurely and unexpectedly.
Yes, your "out" is by claiming with a rather broad brush "they did it badly" -- while essentially denying any mitigating circumstance. But still, whether intended or not, it comes off as a smear. And actually, that's how most smears work: they look at only one side of the picture and then exaggerate it out of proportion. For instance, you imply in your analogy that Apple should have replaced the battery because it was defective. It wasn't -- it was simply worn out and the user always had the option of replacing it. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Most everybody here seems to agree that Apple did the right thing. And, it was only their communication of it that was lacking. But, whether intended or not, you seem to be smearing them with a fairly broad brush.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
This is a technical issue and the analogy is apropos.
You’re never going to convince me that Apple should’ve just let their devices shutdown without warning instead of keeping them running in the most optimal way so I’ll let you have the last word.
Please find where I've advocated for Apple to just let the device shut down. In no post have I even come close to suggesting that. In fact, in every post I stated exactly what I think Apple should have done and where they went wrong. Letting the device just shut down was never in anything I wrote about the iPhone. You didn't understand what you read in my quote. There's no way to read anything I've written and come away with me trying to convince you Apple should have let the devices shut down. But you or anyone else is welcome to try.
You condemn Apple for looking out for their customers by instituting a fix for a safety issue by preventing it from shutting down prematurely and unexpectedly.
Yes, your "out" is by claiming with a rather broad brush "they did it badly" -- while essentially denying any mitigating circumstance. But still, whether intended or not, it comes off as a smear. And actually, that's how most smears work: they look at only one side of the picture and then exaggerate it out of proportion. For instance, you imply in your analogy that Apple should have replaced the battery because it was defective. It wasn't -- it was simply worn out and the user always had the option of replacing it. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Most everybody here seems to agree that Apple did the right thing. And, it was only their communication of it that was lacking. But, whether intended or not, you seem to be smearing them with a fairly broad brush.
Bud, you don't seem to be disagreeing with the gist of my posts in this thread. You seem to be taking objection because my characterization of this situation isn't as milquetoast as your "communication was lacking". I can't help you with that. Every one of my comments expresses the exact same sentiment as yours except I'm not trying to downplay it like you are. I'm not exaggerating it either. I'm just stating what is: they likely wouldn't be in this situation if they had communicated what they were doing beforehand. ← That is what they did badly. No one denies this. Not even you. That's not broadly painted, that's laser accurate.
There's also no denying this situation could have been avoided with proper communication and a battery replacement program as soon as they realized the battery was the culprit in the shutdowns. The battery program should have been what they started with first imo. It's what cures the issue. Starting there, the software fix probably wouldn't have been necessary at all. Apple identified 3 primary reasons for the unexpected shutdowns: cold, low charge, or age. The low charge batteries were sometimes defective because they weren't old and they were still shutting down. Exacerbating the situation, some Apple store employees were refusing battery replacements because those defective batteries weren't below the 80% threshold for replacement. Apple even had to issue an internal clarification to their employees to address this after refusals continued after Apple started the $29 replacement program. So the batteries weren't just worn out and getting a replacement wasn't an automatic option that it should have been. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Note that, in all my word salad, I still haven't said Apple did anything deceptive or nefarious. They bungled the communication. That's how we got here. This could have easily been avoided. Every one of my comments have reiterated this same point.
So if a limp mode was not originally programmed into an automobile’s computer the car would just stop and that would be okay? But if a software upgrade installed into the automobile’s software would introduce a new ‘hidden’ mode that would keep the car running instead of shutting down, that would not be okay just because the automobile manufacturer didn’t tell us about it?
Yes, what he's saying is quite stupid sounding. Anything to paint Apple as bad for these people, I guess.
Criticizing an obviously bad car analogy paints Apple as bad. Seem legit.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
This is a technical issue and the analogy is apropos.
You’re never going to convince me that Apple should’ve just let their devices shutdown without warning instead of keeping them running in the most optimal way so I’ll let you have the last word.
Please find where I've advocated for Apple to just let the device shut down. In no post have I even come close to suggesting that. In fact, in every post I stated exactly what I think Apple should have done and where they went wrong. Letting the device just shut down was never in anything I wrote about the iPhone. You didn't understand what you read in my quote. There's no way to read anything I've written and come away with me trying to convince you Apple should have let the devices shut down. But you or anyone else is welcome to try.
You condemn Apple for looking out for their customers by instituting a fix for a safety issue by preventing it from shutting down prematurely and unexpectedly.
Yes, your "out" is by claiming with a rather broad brush "they did it badly" -- while essentially denying any mitigating circumstance. But still, whether intended or not, it comes off as a smear. And actually, that's how most smears work: they look at only one side of the picture and then exaggerate it out of proportion. For instance, you imply in your analogy that Apple should have replaced the battery because it was defective. It wasn't -- it was simply worn out and the user always had the option of replacing it. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Most everybody here seems to agree that Apple did the right thing. And, it was only their communication of it that was lacking. But, whether intended or not, you seem to be smearing them with a fairly broad brush.
Bud, you don't seem to be disagreeing with the gist of my posts in this thread. You seem to be taking objection because my characterization of this situation isn't as milquetoast as your "communication was lacking". I can't help you with that. Every one of my comments expresses the exact same sentiment as yours except I'm not trying to downplay it like you are. I'm not exaggerating it either. I'm just stating what is: they likely wouldn't be in this situation if they had communicated what they were doing beforehand. ← That is what they did badly. No one denies this. Not even you. That's not broadly painted, that's laser accurate.
There's also no denying this situation could have been avoided with proper communication and a battery replacement program as soon as they realized the battery was the culprit in the shutdowns. The battery program should have been what they started with first imo. It's what cures the issue. Starting there, the software fix probably wouldn't have been necessary at all. Apple identified 3 primary reasons for the unexpected shutdowns: cold, low charge, or age. The low charge batteries were sometimes defective because they weren't old and they were still shutting down. Exacerbating the situation, some Apple store employees were refusing battery replacements because those defective batteries weren't below the 80% threshold for replacement. Apple even had to issue an internal clarification to their employees to address this after refusals continued after Apple started the $29 replacement program. So the batteries weren't just worn out and getting a replacement wasn't an automatic option that it should have been. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Note that, in all my word salad, I still haven't said Apple did anything deceptive or nefarious. They bungled the communication. That's how we got here. This could have easily been avoided. Every one of my comments have reiterated this same point.
#1 You ARE exagerrating it. Instead of simply saying (as you are now) that it was merely a problem of poor / lacking communication you resort to trash talk.
#2 But then you admit both your ignorance and the probable source of your misplaced anger when you say Apple should have replaced the [worn out] batteries that you claim were defective. Uh no, neither Apple nor any other manufacturer replace worn out batteries -- and there is zero evidence that any of these batteries were defective -- despite your false claims.
I am going to sue my local market because I bought some fresh sausage but after 3 years they spoiled. Even though I sickened and almost died, the real reason that I am suing is because the market did not tell me that after 3 years it is not advisable to eat sausage. They really should have included an antibiotic with the purchase. Or at least be responsible for my medical bills.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
This is a technical issue and the analogy is apropos.
You’re never going to convince me that Apple should’ve just let their devices shutdown without warning instead of keeping them running in the most optimal way so I’ll let you have the last word.
Please find where I've advocated for Apple to just let the device shut down. In no post have I even come close to suggesting that. In fact, in every post I stated exactly what I think Apple should have done and where they went wrong. Letting the device just shut down was never in anything I wrote about the iPhone. You didn't understand what you read in my quote. There's no way to read anything I've written and come away with me trying to convince you Apple should have let the devices shut down. But you or anyone else is welcome to try.
You condemn Apple for looking out for their customers by instituting a fix for a safety issue by preventing it from shutting down prematurely and unexpectedly.
Yes, your "out" is by claiming with a rather broad brush "they did it badly" -- while essentially denying any mitigating circumstance. But still, whether intended or not, it comes off as a smear. And actually, that's how most smears work: they look at only one side of the picture and then exaggerate it out of proportion. For instance, you imply in your analogy that Apple should have replaced the battery because it was defective. It wasn't -- it was simply worn out and the user always had the option of replacing it. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Most everybody here seems to agree that Apple did the right thing. And, it was only their communication of it that was lacking. But, whether intended or not, you seem to be smearing them with a fairly broad brush.
Bud, you don't seem to be disagreeing with the gist of my posts in this thread. You seem to be taking objection because my characterization of this situation isn't as milquetoast as your "communication was lacking". I can't help you with that. Every one of my comments expresses the exact same sentiment as yours except I'm not trying to downplay it like you are. I'm not exaggerating it either. I'm just stating what is: they likely wouldn't be in this situation if they had communicated what they were doing beforehand. ← That is what they did badly. No one denies this. Not even you. That's not broadly painted, that's laser accurate.
There's also no denying this situation could have been avoided with proper communication and a battery replacement program as soon as they realized the battery was the culprit in the shutdowns. The battery program should have been what they started with first imo. It's what cures the issue. Starting there, the software fix probably wouldn't have been necessary at all. Apple identified 3 primary reasons for the unexpected shutdowns: cold, low charge, or age. The low charge batteries were sometimes defective because they weren't old and they were still shutting down. Exacerbating the situation, some Apple store employees were refusing battery replacements because those defective batteries weren't below the 80% threshold for replacement. Apple even had to issue an internal clarification to their employees to address this after refusals continued after Apple started the $29 replacement program. So the batteries weren't just worn out and getting a replacement wasn't an automatic option that it should have been. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Note that, in all my word salad, I still haven't said Apple did anything deceptive or nefarious. They bungled the communication. That's how we got here. This could have easily been avoided. Every one of my comments have reiterated this same point.
#1 You ARE exagerrating it. Instead of simply saying (as you are now) that it was merely a problem of poor / lacking communication you resort to trash talk.
#2 But then you admit both your ignorance and the probable source of your misplaced anger when you say Apple should have replaced the [worn out] batteries that you claim were defective. Uh no, neither Apple nor any other manufacturer replace worn out batteries -- and there is zero evidence that any of these batteries were defective -- despite your false claims.
Every single comment I've made in this thread has stated (no not merely - that's you trying to downplay) the problem was how they handled the communication. The first, last, and every one in between said it and you somehow just realized that in my last comment? Did you happen to miss that or were you parsing to attempt to make a point? There's absolutely nothing exaggerated in my quotes. The quotes are there - point out the exaggeration. I don't even know why I issued that challenge. You won't point out an exaggeration or refute a fact with evidence because there's nothing to refute and I didn't exaggerate.
Ignorance of what? Everything I've stated can be backed up by sourcing AI and other tech sites that have covered this issue. Fact: Contrary to what you keep trying to call a fact, old batteries were not the only cause of shutdowns. As I stated and you ignored apparently, Apple identified the main causes of the shutdown. Cold, low charge, age. Your premise relies on harping about old batteries and ignoring everything else. That clearly wasn't the case since batteries that weren't old were shutting down. They were defective.
What are you talking about Apple doesn't replace "worn out" ← look at you trying to be cleaver by editorializing what I said - batteries. Cute, but wrong regardless. What do you think the battery replacement program does? It replaces batteries... worn out, defective, and after Apple's directive - just cuz someone wants it replaced. That program in place as soon as Apple identified the battery as the problem - as I've already said and you've conveniently ignored as well - would have solved the shutdown issue whether the battery was old or defective.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
This is a technical issue and the analogy is apropos.
You’re never going to convince me that Apple should’ve just let their devices shutdown without warning instead of keeping them running in the most optimal way so I’ll let you have the last word.
Please find where I've advocated for Apple to just let the device shut down. In no post have I even come close to suggesting that. In fact, in every post I stated exactly what I think Apple should have done and where they went wrong. Letting the device just shut down was never in anything I wrote about the iPhone. You didn't understand what you read in my quote. There's no way to read anything I've written and come away with me trying to convince you Apple should have let the devices shut down. But you or anyone else is welcome to try.
You condemn Apple for looking out for their customers by instituting a fix for a safety issue by preventing it from shutting down prematurely and unexpectedly.
Yes, your "out" is by claiming with a rather broad brush "they did it badly" -- while essentially denying any mitigating circumstance. But still, whether intended or not, it comes off as a smear. And actually, that's how most smears work: they look at only one side of the picture and then exaggerate it out of proportion. For instance, you imply in your analogy that Apple should have replaced the battery because it was defective. It wasn't -- it was simply worn out and the user always had the option of replacing it. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Most everybody here seems to agree that Apple did the right thing. And, it was only their communication of it that was lacking. But, whether intended or not, you seem to be smearing them with a fairly broad brush.
Bud, you don't seem to be disagreeing with the gist of my posts in this thread. You seem to be taking objection because my characterization of this situation isn't as milquetoast as your "communication was lacking". I can't help you with that. Every one of my comments expresses the exact same sentiment as yours except I'm not trying to downplay it like you are. I'm not exaggerating it either. I'm just stating what is: they likely wouldn't be in this situation if they had communicated what they were doing beforehand. ← That is what they did badly. No one denies this. Not even you. That's not broadly painted, that's laser accurate.
There's also no denying this situation could have been avoided with proper communication and a battery replacement program as soon as they realized the battery was the culprit in the shutdowns. The battery program should have been what they started with first imo. It's what cures the issue. Starting there, the software fix probably wouldn't have been necessary at all. Apple identified 3 primary reasons for the unexpected shutdowns: cold, low charge, or age. The low charge batteries were sometimes defective because they weren't old and they were still shutting down. Exacerbating the situation, some Apple store employees were refusing battery replacements because those defective batteries weren't below the 80% threshold for replacement. Apple even had to issue an internal clarification to their employees to address this after refusals continued after Apple started the $29 replacement program. So the batteries weren't just worn out and getting a replacement wasn't an automatic option that it should have been. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Note that, in all my word salad, I still haven't said Apple did anything deceptive or nefarious. They bungled the communication. That's how we got here. This could have easily been avoided. Every one of my comments have reiterated this same point.
#1 You ARE exagerrating it. Instead of simply saying (as you are now) that it was merely a problem of poor / lacking communication you resort to trash talk.
#2 But then you admit both your ignorance and the probable source of your misplaced anger when you say Apple should have replaced the [worn out] batteries that you claim were defective. Uh no, neither Apple nor any other manufacturer replace worn out batteries -- and there is zero evidence that any of these batteries were defective -- despite your false claims.
Every single comment I've made in this thread has stated (no not merely - that's you trying to downplay) the problem was how they handled the communication. The first, last, and every one in between said it and you somehow just realized that in my last comment? Did you happen to miss that or were you parsing to attempt to make a point? There's absolutely nothing exaggerated in my quotes. The quotes are there - point out the exaggeration. I don't even know why I issued that challenge. You won't point out an exaggeration or refute a fact with evidence because there's nothing to refute and I didn't exaggerate.
Ignorance of what? Everything I've stated can be backed up by sourcing AI and other tech sites that have covered this issue. Fact: Contrary to what you keep trying to call a fact, old batteries were not the only cause of shutdowns. As I stated and you ignored apparently, Apple identified the main causes of the shutdown. Cold, low charge, age. Your premise relies on harping about old batteries and ignoring everything else. That clearly wasn't the case since batteries that weren't old were shutting down. They were defective.
What are you talking about Apple doesn't replace "worn out" ← look at you trying to be cleaver by editorializing what I said - batteries. Cute, but wrong regardless. What do you think the battery replacement program does? It replaces batteries... worn out, defective, and after Apple's directive - just cuz someone wants it replaced. That program in place as soon as Apple identified the battery as the problem - as I've already said and you've conveniently ignored as well - would have solved the shutdown issue whether the battery was old or defective.
That's not what you said, and your own forked tongue is betraying you as you switch your answer up again in your last paragraph to reiterate that they could've "solved the shutdown issue whether the battery was old or defective" by replacing all the battery which lines up with your original comment where you said they shouldn't introduce "limp mode after it's left the factory and that a new battery would've been "the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning." You're either lying or you really don't have a modicum of understanding about this issue.
In your silly scenario, a user's device would keep shutting down unexpectedly when they tried to get into different apps or d different tasks (which could include powering up the device after a shutdown), but you want them to simply waltz into an Apple Store that happens to be bear them and get a new battery without an appointment. You can't usually do that in the best of time, but you want this to be automatic for every iPhone with the issue which would means millions of devices.
And assuming that everyone has an Apple Store in their city and the time to spare to get a battery replacement they may not be able to use the Maps app on their iPhone to get to the store or be able to set up an appointment time because their device keep shutting down. If I hadn't read your own words I'd have not thought that anyone would think that a device that completely shuts down makes for a better user experience than one that throttles a small amount of top-end performance to keep the energy use under a certain threshold to keep the device active and functional.
If the computer in my car malfunctions it will fall back to a basic less efficient program to keep the car running until I get to a safe place instead of shutting down. I really don’t think I have an issue with the automobile manufacturer for not being upfront that the car would slow down rather than stop completely. I guess automobile manufacturers are next in line. Better lawyer up.
Sorry, but everything in your analogy is 100% wrong. There's really no appropriate car analogy you can insert into this situation. Limp mode, what you're describing, is a preset condition of the car from the factory. It's not secretly introduced at a later time. Besides, a car manufacturer would never secretly introduce software to slow performance to keep it from suddenly shutting down if the battery was old or defective. They would put another battery in it. Which, ironically, would have been the most expedient solution for Apple from the beginning... and after all the hoopla, they ended up doing it anyway.
Let me get this straight, you believe that an EV that can reach, say, 0–62 MPH in 2 seconds wouldn't be programmed to instead do 0–62 MPH in 3 seconds if there was a major reduction in the power system if the alternative was for it was to instantly shutdown when you floored it? How about if the alternative was for it to catch fire? Are you also against the iPhone choosing to shutdown when it gets too hot? I mean, it's your phone after all so you should have the right to let it burn a literal hole in your pocket if you choose. What could go wrong?! /s
As I stated in the original quote, limp mode, whether in an EV or an ICE vehicle is a preset condition built into the car. It's not comparable to an unexplained software download designed to temporarily slowdown a phone. The phone software introduces a little hiccup and then you keep going. Limp mode operates nothing like that. It is designed to tell the driver the car is in dire need of service. You will not be able to operate normally until the issue is addressed. Pull over as soon as possible for your safety. It ain't even remotely similar.
Do me a favor. Re-read your comment. It makes no sense at all. An EV in that nonsensical scenario, would throw up a warning about the power system and if there was a chance of catastrophic failure (that's what a shutdown would be). It would go into limp mode or shut down completely. If an issue was found in the battery pack, it would be replaced. It wouldn't be secretly programmed to temporarily degrade performance. Like I said. There's not automotive equivalent to the iPhone battery situation here.
As I also said, if Apple had done the battery replacements as a first remedy, we wouldn't be in this thread. Had they explained the software "fix" to customers before the stealth implementation, we wouldn't be in this thread. We're in this thread because of the bassackwards way they went about their business in this situation. Notice, I didn't say they were doing anything nefarious. They just did what they did badly and will have to pay the price for bad execution. Permission would have cost a helluva lot less than forgiveness.
Um, no, but since MisterKit has already responded there's no need to state it again, and it doesn't look like you'd understanding anyway.
Understand what? You guys are going out of your way to create unrealistic scenarios to try to make car analogies fit this situation. They don't. They simply don't. MisterKit's response is so unrealistic it borders on cartoonish. There are far better things to use in an analogy - heck other electronics - than floundering with poorly thought car examples.
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
This is a technical issue and the analogy is apropos.
You’re never going to convince me that Apple should’ve just let their devices shutdown without warning instead of keeping them running in the most optimal way so I’ll let you have the last word.
Please find where I've advocated for Apple to just let the device shut down. In no post have I even come close to suggesting that. In fact, in every post I stated exactly what I think Apple should have done and where they went wrong. Letting the device just shut down was never in anything I wrote about the iPhone. You didn't understand what you read in my quote. There's no way to read anything I've written and come away with me trying to convince you Apple should have let the devices shut down. But you or anyone else is welcome to try.
You condemn Apple for looking out for their customers by instituting a fix for a safety issue by preventing it from shutting down prematurely and unexpectedly.
Yes, your "out" is by claiming with a rather broad brush "they did it badly" -- while essentially denying any mitigating circumstance. But still, whether intended or not, it comes off as a smear. And actually, that's how most smears work: they look at only one side of the picture and then exaggerate it out of proportion. For instance, you imply in your analogy that Apple should have replaced the battery because it was defective. It wasn't -- it was simply worn out and the user always had the option of replacing it. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Most everybody here seems to agree that Apple did the right thing. And, it was only their communication of it that was lacking. But, whether intended or not, you seem to be smearing them with a fairly broad brush.
Bud, you don't seem to be disagreeing with the gist of my posts in this thread. You seem to be taking objection because my characterization of this situation isn't as milquetoast as your "communication was lacking". I can't help you with that. Every one of my comments expresses the exact same sentiment as yours except I'm not trying to downplay it like you are. I'm not exaggerating it either. I'm just stating what is: they likely wouldn't be in this situation if they had communicated what they were doing beforehand. ← That is what they did badly. No one denies this. Not even you. That's not broadly painted, that's laser accurate.
There's also no denying this situation could have been avoided with proper communication and a battery replacement program as soon as they realized the battery was the culprit in the shutdowns. The battery program should have been what they started with first imo. It's what cures the issue. Starting there, the software fix probably wouldn't have been necessary at all. Apple identified 3 primary reasons for the unexpected shutdowns: cold, low charge, or age. The low charge batteries were sometimes defective because they weren't old and they were still shutting down. Exacerbating the situation, some Apple store employees were refusing battery replacements because those defective batteries weren't below the 80% threshold for replacement. Apple even had to issue an internal clarification to their employees to address this after refusals continued after Apple started the $29 replacement program. So the batteries weren't just worn out and getting a replacement wasn't an automatic option that it should have been. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Note that, in all my word salad, I still haven't said Apple did anything deceptive or nefarious. They bungled the communication. That's how we got here. This could have easily been avoided. Every one of my comments have reiterated this same point.
#1 You ARE exagerrating it. Instead of simply saying (as you are now) that it was merely a problem of poor / lacking communication you resort to trash talk.
#2 But then you admit both your ignorance and the probable source of your misplaced anger when you say Apple should have replaced the [worn out] batteries that you claim were defective. Uh no, neither Apple nor any other manufacturer replace worn out batteries -- and there is zero evidence that any of these batteries were defective -- despite your false claims.
Every single comment I've made in this thread has stated (no not merely - that's you trying to downplay) the problem was how they handled the communication. The first, last, and every one in between said it and you somehow just realized that in my last comment? Did you happen to miss that or were you parsing to attempt to make a point? There's absolutely nothing exaggerated in my quotes. The quotes are there - point out the exaggeration. I don't even know why I issued that challenge. You won't point out an exaggeration or refute a fact with evidence because there's nothing to refute and I didn't exaggerate.
Ignorance of what? Everything I've stated can be backed up by sourcing AI and other tech sites that have covered this issue. Fact: Contrary to what you keep trying to call a fact, old batteries were not the only cause of shutdowns. As I stated and you ignored apparently, Apple identified the main causes of the shutdown. Cold, low charge, age. Your premise relies on harping about old batteries and ignoring everything else. That clearly wasn't the case since batteries that weren't old were shutting down. They were defective.
What are you talking about Apple doesn't replace "worn out" ← look at you trying to be cleaver by editorializing what I said - batteries. Cute, but wrong regardless. What do you think the battery replacement program does? It replaces batteries... worn out, defective, and after Apple's directive - just cuz someone wants it replaced. That program in place as soon as Apple identified the battery as the problem - as I've already said and you've conveniently ignored as well - would have solved the shutdown issue whether the battery was old or defective.
As I said: "
#2
But then you admit both your ignorance and the probable source of your
misplaced anger when you say Apple should have replaced the [worn out]
batteries that you claim were defective. Uh no, neither Apple nor any
other manufacturer replace worn out batteries* -- and there is zero
evidence that any of these batteries were defective -- despite your
false claims.
* yes, you are correct that I should have said "replace worn out batteries for free.
Comments
Excellent analogy!
No matter the analogy, it ain't going to change the fundamental point. Apple could have avoided this entirely by letting people know what they were doing before they did it.
By not proactively informing customers about the technical intervention Apple appeared to have “masked” the problem. In an environment where Apple has so many people and agencies constantly trying find chinks in their armor, this had bad optics. I’m sure Apple avoided popping up a notification on affected devices because there would have been an ensuing panic and flood of customers to Apple Stores and online support. If they worded the notification correctly perhaps the conversation with Apple support staff would have put more people’s minds at ease and a battery replacement scheduled for a future time rather than immediately. Who really knows, because once the hysteria and lawsuits started ramping up the opportunity for civil communication and measured, appropriate responses evaporated.
There's also no denying this situation could have been avoided with proper communication and a battery replacement program as soon as they realized the battery was the culprit in the shutdowns. The battery program should have been what they started with first imo. It's what cures the issue. Starting there, the software fix probably wouldn't have been necessary at all. Apple identified 3 primary reasons for the unexpected shutdowns: cold, low charge, or age. The low charge batteries were sometimes defective because they weren't old and they were still shutting down. Exacerbating the situation, some Apple store employees were refusing battery replacements because those defective batteries weren't below the 80% threshold for replacement. Apple even had to issue an internal clarification to their employees to address this after refusals continued after Apple started the $29 replacement program. So the batteries weren't just worn out and getting a replacement wasn't an automatic option that it should have been. But you seem to ignore those facts.
Note that, in all my word salad, I still haven't said Apple did anything deceptive or nefarious. They bungled the communication. That's how we got here. This could have easily been avoided. Every one of my comments have reiterated this same point.
Ignorance of what? Everything I've stated can be backed up by sourcing AI and other tech sites that have covered this issue. Fact: Contrary to what you keep trying to call a fact, old batteries were not the only cause of shutdowns. As I stated and you ignored apparently, Apple identified the main causes of the shutdown. Cold, low charge, age. Your premise relies on harping about old batteries and ignoring everything else. That clearly wasn't the case since batteries that weren't old were shutting down. They were defective.
What are you talking about Apple doesn't replace "worn out" ← look at you trying to be cleaver by editorializing what I said - batteries. Cute, but wrong regardless. What do you think the battery replacement program does? It replaces batteries... worn out, defective, and after Apple's directive - just cuz someone wants it replaced. That program in place as soon as Apple identified the battery as the problem - as I've already said and you've conveniently ignored as well - would have solved the shutdown issue whether the battery was old or defective.
In your silly scenario, a user's device would keep shutting down unexpectedly when they tried to get into different apps or d different tasks (which could include powering up the device after a shutdown), but you want them to simply waltz into an Apple Store that happens to be bear them and get a new battery without an appointment. You can't usually do that in the best of time, but you want this to be automatic for every iPhone with the issue which would means millions of devices.
And assuming that everyone has an Apple Store in their city and the time to spare to get a battery replacement they may not be able to use the Maps app on their iPhone to get to the store or be able to set up an appointment time because their device keep shutting down. If I hadn't read your own words I'd have not thought that anyone would think that a device that completely shuts down makes for a better user experience than one that throttles a small amount of top-end performance to keep the energy use under a certain threshold to keep the device active and functional.
As I said:
"
* yes, you are correct that I should have said "replace worn out batteries for free.