You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
Actually you're pathetic: Apple didn't cut performance by 50% and CPU throttling has always been a device management strategy in the iPhone.
1. iPhones already throttled peak performance prior to these patches. E.g. For temperature extremes and preserving battery life. 2. The changes in iOS 10.2 and 11.2 extended the CPU throttling features to untenable battery scenarios - i.e. situations which would normally turn off the device. Apple acknowledged that unexpected shutdowns were being addressed at the time. 3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load.
Apple cut performance by more than 50%
Not only was peak load not reduced by 50%, but normal device usage was unaffected. Your comment lends to the idea that the phone was suddenly half as fast as before the update - there is no foundation for that.
...and didn't bother telling anyone
It was literally in Apple's statements about the update: "With iOS 10.2.1, Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone."
Of all the devices tested in Geek bench 4 under iOS 10.2.1, the overwhelming majority had no change in performance and the average decrease in peak performance due to the new changes was ~10 - 15%
So yeah your post is total sensationalist crap, and I think that's pathetic.
Touché - nice rebuttal.
Note to original poster: If you want to get other people to thoughtfully consider your opinion, leading in with "You guys are pathetic." is probably not the best conversation starter. You may very well have some valid points in there that warrant consideration, but burning down the bridge BEFORE you are planning to cross it does not make sense.
My take on this topic has always been that engineers who are attuned to common strategies employed in high-availability (HA) and fault-tolerant (FT) systems implemented a very specific, dynamic, and highly conditional throttling strategy (with approval of their leaders) as a way to prevent the system from crashing under very specific and well known conditions. This was never an across-the-board detuning of the entire system.
The premise of most HA/FT strategies is that, in the face of a real fault or condition in the system, you are choosing life over death, even if "life" is in a degraded state. But it's not even that simple, because you have to know that the degraded form of life is still viable for at least a period of time needed to take restorative, corrective, or safe shutdown actions. One of the really bad things software engineers sometimes do is to make the life-over-death decisions in their code without fully recognizing that the degraded form of life is leaving the system in a zombie state (as opposed to a known state) when death (which is a well known state) would actually be preferable. Did Apple's engineers fall into the zombie trap by slowing down the clock? Probably not. They weren't tweaking functional logic by simply slowing down the clock, but there could still be potential, but very highly unlikely, side effects. iOS is a preemptive multitasking system with multiple processes and threads running on real time allocations, not based on counting clock ticks.
From a sound engineering perspective I believe Apple made the right decision in choosing life over death. However, they did fail to fully communicate in layperson language the potential end user impacts of their HA/FT strategy. Perhaps they didn't do this because it might be viewed as alarmist or as an underhanded means to draw in battery replacement sales. The fact that the issue was only discovered while running synthetic benchmarks tells us that the real world impact on mainstream application performance was very minimal, regardless of those who attribute any observed performance anomalies, real or imagined, that occurred on their device at the time to the HA/FT strategy.
In retrospect it's hard to say what Apple should have done because there would have been finger pointing and accusations with anything Apple did. The low cost battery replacement program was probably a reasonable compromise, but in many cases it was a placebo and landfill fodder. I only replaced my battery when my iPhone 6+ battery swelled up and popped out the front of the phone off, which fortunately occurred during the low cost battery replacement period. Prior to its swelling episode it was at 97% and as observably just as fast as the day I bought. But then again, I don't run benchmark apps for a living so maybe I was actually missing out on something and need to be paid for the suffering that I must have experienced. Oui oui, I am so scarred. Pay me, Apple.
So let me get this straight - people think it’s ok for Apple to degrade the performance of their phones and not inform their consumers or support staff, regardless of the reason why? Sorry, Several courts would seem to disagree with you.
No one disputes the engineering explanation - that’s irrelevant. The issue is Apple using software to surreptitiously alter the performance of a device after it was purchased without performing people. That’s Fraud. A simple press release or statement in the software release notes was all they needed.
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
Actually you're pathetic: Apple didn't cut performance by 50% and CPU throttling has always been a device management strategy in the iPhone.
1. iPhones already throttled peak performance prior to these patches. E.g. For temperature extremes and preserving battery life. 2. The changes in iOS 10.2 and 11.2 extended the CPU throttling features to untenable battery scenarios - i.e. situations which would normally turn off the device. Apple acknowledged that unexpected shutdowns were being addressed at the time. 3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load.
Apple cut performance by more than 50%
Not only was peak load not reduced by 50%, but normal device usage was unaffected. Your comment lends to the idea that the phone was suddenly half as fast as before the update - there is no foundation for that.
...and didn't bother telling anyone
It was literally in Apple's statements about the update: "With iOS 10.2.1, Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone."
Of all the devices tested in Geek bench 4 under iOS 10.2.1, the overwhelming majority had no change in performance and the average decrease in peak performance due to the new changes was ~10 - 15%
So yeah your post is total sensationalist crap, and I think that's pathetic.
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
Actually you're pathetic: Apple didn't cut performance by 50% and CPU throttling has always been a device management strategy in the iPhone.
1. iPhones already throttled peak performance prior to these patches. E.g. For temperature extremes and preserving battery life. 2. The changes in iOS 10.2 and 11.2 extended the CPU throttling features to untenable battery scenarios - i.e. situations which would normally turn off the device. Apple acknowledged that unexpected shutdowns were being addressed at the time. 3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load.
Apple cut performance by more than 50%
Not only was peak load not reduced by 50%, but normal device usage was unaffected. Your comment lends to the idea that the phone was suddenly half as fast as before the update - there is no foundation for that.
...and didn't bother telling anyone
It was literally in Apple's statements about the update: "With iOS 10.2.1, Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone."
Of all the devices tested in Geek bench 4 under iOS 10.2.1, the overwhelming majority had no change in performance and the average decrease in peak performance due to the new changes was ~10 - 15%
So yeah your post is total sensationalist crap, and I think that's pathetic.
"3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load."
I can attest to this being wrong. My device (iPhone SE) would function at 50% CPU speed and STAY that way. No matter if the device was fully charged or plugged in. This from a battery that still tested "ok" by Apple techs. The situation only resolved itself after Apple admitted to their shennanigans and I was "allowed" to replace my battery. I posted before and after screenshots two years ago indicating this. THIS is where my bitterness still stems from...
People here are so defensive about the company. Sometimes even fans need to take their blinders off every now and then.
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
You're completely clueless, and wrong.
And even if they had, that is the engineers prerogative, not yours, and you're not entitled to any specific performance at any time.
The only thing Apple did wrong was letting idiot Tim Cook acknowledge it, and apologize for it, and attempt appeasement.
To reiterate. I wasn't upset that the battery degraded, or that Apple implemented a throttling feature to preserve phone operation. I WAS upset that it was done without any clear indication to the user AND that the Apple techs didn't see a problem with it when I wanted to PAY to replace the battery. When I clearly knew there was a problem and the techs told me (before Apple admitted to the practice), "sorry, your battery checks out fine - we can't replace it at this point".... well, that just sucked. Believe me, I was not a happy camper that cold day in January 2018...
I used to believe Apple on everything. Except, their Genius bar sometimes acts like consumers are fools.
I brought iPhone 11 in because it couldn’t recognize the SIM. It’s a SIM free phone. An idiotic Apple service guy told me xFinity service is the problem, not the phone and I told him to test it. He did and bam, the damn phone was damage. Next, he gave me a new unlocked iPhone 11 and told me I had to go to Xfinity to activate it. I say fck it and pop in the SIM, restore the iCloud and showed it to his face: “unlocked phones don’t need providers to activate it, got it”? Then I left him embarrassed in front many customers!
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
Actually you're pathetic: Apple didn't cut performance by 50% and CPU throttling has always been a device management strategy in the iPhone.
1. iPhones already throttled peak performance prior to these patches. E.g. For temperature extremes and preserving battery life. 2. The changes in iOS 10.2 and 11.2 extended the CPU throttling features to untenable battery scenarios - i.e. situations which would normally turn off the device. Apple acknowledged that unexpected shutdowns were being addressed at the time. 3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load.
Apple cut performance by more than 50%
Not only was peak load not reduced by 50%, but normal device usage was unaffected. Your comment lends to the idea that the phone was suddenly half as fast as before the update - there is no foundation for that.
...and didn't bother telling anyone
It was literally in Apple's statements about the update: "With iOS 10.2.1, Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone."
Of all the devices tested in Geek bench 4 under iOS 10.2.1, the overwhelming majority had no change in performance and the average decrease in peak performance due to the new changes was ~10 - 15%
So yeah your post is total sensationalist crap, and I think that's pathetic.
Some people suck on Apple so hard like yourself. Dude, rumors been rampant for years that Apple would slow down your phone on purpose but no one could prove it. Finally, someone did and posted the video on Youtube. Guess what? Apple came out w/ that lame excuse and fans like you took the bait like suckers. Years went by and Apple hid the fact even when people were raising the slow down question to them. Why didn't they give an answer years before the video was posted on Youtube?
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
Actually you're pathetic: Apple didn't cut performance by 50% and CPU throttling has always been a device management strategy in the iPhone.
1. iPhones already throttled peak performance prior to these patches. E.g. For temperature extremes and preserving battery life. 2. The changes in iOS 10.2 and 11.2 extended the CPU throttling features to untenable battery scenarios - i.e. situations which would normally turn off the device. Apple acknowledged that unexpected shutdowns were being addressed at the time. 3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load.
Apple cut performance by more than 50%
Not only was peak load not reduced by 50%, but normal device usage was unaffected. Your comment lends to the idea that the phone was suddenly half as fast as before the update - there is no foundation for that.
...and didn't bother telling anyone
It was literally in Apple's statements about the update: "With iOS 10.2.1, Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone."
Of all the devices tested in Geek bench 4 under iOS 10.2.1, the overwhelming majority had no change in performance and the average decrease in peak performance due to the new changes was ~10 - 15%
So yeah your post is total sensationalist crap, and I think that's pathetic.
"3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load."
I can attest to this being wrong. My device (iPhone SE) would function at 50% CPU speed and STAY that way. No matter if the device was fully charged or plugged in. This from a battery that still tested "ok" by Apple techs. The situation only resolved itself after Apple admitted to their shennanigans and I was "allowed" to replace my battery. I posted before and after screenshots two years ago indicating this. THIS is where my bitterness still stems from...
People here are so defensive about the company. Sometimes even fans need to take their blinders off every now and then.
Exactly how long do you expect a phone or battery to last?
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
Actually you're pathetic: Apple didn't cut performance by 50% and CPU throttling has always been a device management strategy in the iPhone.
1. iPhones already throttled peak performance prior to these patches. E.g. For temperature extremes and preserving battery life. 2. The changes in iOS 10.2 and 11.2 extended the CPU throttling features to untenable battery scenarios - i.e. situations which would normally turn off the device. Apple acknowledged that unexpected shutdowns were being addressed at the time. 3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load.
Apple cut performance by more than 50%
Not only was peak load not reduced by 50%, but normal device usage was unaffected. Your comment lends to the idea that the phone was suddenly half as fast as before the update - there is no foundation for that.
...and didn't bother telling anyone
It was literally in Apple's statements about the update: "With iOS 10.2.1, Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone."
Of all the devices tested in Geek bench 4 under iOS 10.2.1, the overwhelming majority had no change in performance and the average decrease in peak performance due to the new changes was ~10 - 15%
So yeah your post is total sensationalist crap, and I think that's pathetic.
"3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load."
I can attest to this being wrong. My device (iPhone SE) would function at 50% CPU speed and STAY that way. No matter if the device was fully charged or plugged in. This from a battery that still tested "ok" by Apple techs. The situation only resolved itself after Apple admitted to their shennanigans and I was "allowed" to replace my battery. I posted before and after screenshots two years ago indicating this. THIS is where my bitterness still stems from...
People here are so defensive about the company. Sometimes even fans need to take their blinders off every now and then.
Exactly how long do you expect a phone or battery to last?
How does this question relate?
For the record, my phone was a little over a year old at the time of battery replacement. But my criticism has little to do with the fact that the battery was going bad. I have no problem replacing batteries when they wear out. The trick is whether the option (through OFFICIAL channels) is available. As I explained multiple times in my previous posts, that option was denied to me until Apple revised its policy shortly after.
Also, for reference, my iPhone SE is still going strong today. The replaced battery, after two years of usage, is starting to wear (82% and the percentage indicator fluctuates a bit), but there has been no throttling as of yet. I will likely be getting the battery replaced soon, and I am fine with that. :-)
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
Actually you're pathetic: Apple didn't cut performance by 50% and CPU throttling has always been a device management strategy in the iPhone.
1. iPhones already throttled peak performance prior to these patches. E.g. For temperature extremes and preserving battery life. 2. The changes in iOS 10.2 and 11.2 extended the CPU throttling features to untenable battery scenarios - i.e. situations which would normally turn off the device. Apple acknowledged that unexpected shutdowns were being addressed at the time. 3. The most common worst case scenario resulted in a geek bench score of 2,500 being reduced to 1,500 during a peak load. The device operated at "normal" speeds during other times when the battery was able to supply sufficient power, or not under a stressful load.
Apple cut performance by more than 50%
Not only was peak load not reduced by 50%, but normal device usage was unaffected. Your comment lends to the idea that the phone was suddenly half as fast as before the update - there is no foundation for that.
...and didn't bother telling anyone
It was literally in Apple's statements about the update: "With iOS 10.2.1, Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone."
Of all the devices tested in Geek bench 4 under iOS 10.2.1, the overwhelming majority had no change in performance and the average decrease in peak performance due to the new changes was ~10 - 15%
So yeah your post is total sensationalist crap, and I think that's pathetic.
Some people suck on Apple so hard like yourself. Dude, rumors been rampant for years that Apple would slow down your phone on purpose but no one could prove it. Finally, someone did and posted the video on Youtube. Guess what? Apple came out w/ that lame excuse and fans like you took the bait like suckers. Years went by and Apple hid the fact even when people were raising the slow down question to them. Why didn't they give an answer years before the video was posted on Youtube?
Primarily, because it didn't actually exist before the battery low-voltage patch in 10.2.1.
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
QFT
This is a classic example of someone able to troll on a forum and try passing off their unfounded, agenda-driven drivel as fact when clearly the poster is about as accurate as a flat-earther.
Sure, it could have been handled better in terms of communication, but everything you are implying (as fact) is just pure nonsense. This has nothing to do with Apple-fanboyism and everything to do about setting the truth straight. There is so much fake-news out there that needs to be called-out when people like you come out blazing with fake-news.
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
QFT
This is a classic example of someone able to troll on a forum and try passing off their unfounded, agenda-driven drivel as fact when clearly the poster is about as accurate as a flat-earther.
Sure, it could have been handled better in terms of communication, but everything you are implying (as fact) is just pure nonsense. This has nothing to do with Apple-fanboyism and everything to do about setting the truth straight. There is so much fake-news out there that needs to be called-out when people like you come out blazing with fake-news.
Some of it seems to be an exaggeration, but I can confirm that the, "customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements" part was true for me - see previous posts. They didn't encourage me to purchase a new phone, but their refusal to allow me to even pay the $79 (the price at the time) to replace my battery was simply unbelievable to me.
I can understand the skepticism... but don't be so certain that it's a false statement.
You guys are pathetic. Apple cut performance by more than 50% and didn't bother telling anyone, and yet in Apple stores customers were told their batteries were fine, even refusing to provide paid replacements, and were encouraged to purchase new phones. This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple. You can love their products, as I do, without wearing blinders.
Hyperbole anyone? I read the original French announcement which said "...constituted a misleading commercial practice by omission". I do agree that Apple should have informed people that updated their phones that throttling might occur if their battery was EOL, but to state "This is fraud, and the prosecutor's conclusion is uncontested by Apple" implies that Apple confessed to fraud. They did not. Best to keep comments factual- look at the mess the world is in when people don't.
France: “We can’t compete, so we levy fines against everyone.”
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin would have disagreed with you to a fair degree. And pretty sure that Luis Vitton, Chopard, and Chanel outperform anything comparable designed/produced in the USA. Plus, you may not know this but a lot of French people work for Apple or develop apps for Apple platforms. But to a reactionary xenophobe like you - hey, the French, bad!
The EU is bad, France is part of the EU, and France is bad too.
They're all losers who are jealous of American tech firms.
And I suggest that the USA should take retaliatory measures against France soon and the EU too. Tim Apple and D. Trump are practically best buddies now.
Comments
Note to original poster: If you want to get other people to thoughtfully consider your opinion, leading in with "You guys are pathetic." is probably not the best conversation starter. You may very well have some valid points in there that warrant consideration, but burning down the bridge BEFORE you are planning to cross it does not make sense.
My take on this topic has always been that engineers who are attuned to common strategies employed in high-availability (HA) and fault-tolerant (FT) systems implemented a very specific, dynamic, and highly conditional throttling strategy (with approval of their leaders) as a way to prevent the system from crashing under very specific and well known conditions. This was never an across-the-board detuning of the entire system.
The premise of most HA/FT strategies is that, in the face of a real fault or condition in the system, you are choosing life over death, even if "life" is in a degraded state. But it's not even that simple, because you have to know that the degraded form of life is still viable for at least a period of time needed to take restorative, corrective, or safe shutdown actions. One of the really bad things software engineers sometimes do is to make the life-over-death decisions in their code without fully recognizing that the degraded form of life is leaving the system in a zombie state (as opposed to a known state) when death (which is a well known state) would actually be preferable. Did Apple's engineers fall into the zombie trap by slowing down the clock? Probably not. They weren't tweaking functional logic by simply slowing down the clock, but there could still be potential, but very highly unlikely, side effects. iOS is a preemptive multitasking system with multiple processes and threads running on real time allocations, not based on counting clock ticks.
From a sound engineering perspective I believe Apple made the right decision in choosing life over death. However, they did fail to fully communicate in layperson language the potential end user impacts of their HA/FT strategy. Perhaps they didn't do this because it might be viewed as alarmist or as an underhanded means to draw in battery replacement sales. The fact that the issue was only discovered while running synthetic benchmarks tells us that the real world impact on mainstream application performance was very minimal, regardless of those who attribute any observed performance anomalies, real or imagined, that occurred on their device at the time to the HA/FT strategy.
In retrospect it's hard to say what Apple should have done because there would have been finger pointing and accusations with anything Apple did. The low cost battery replacement program was probably a reasonable compromise, but in many cases it was a placebo and landfill fodder. I only replaced my battery when my iPhone 6+ battery swelled up and popped out the front of the phone off, which fortunately occurred during the low cost battery replacement period. Prior to its swelling episode it was at 97% and as observably just as fast as the day I bought. But then again, I don't run benchmark apps for a living so maybe I was actually missing out on something and need to be paid for the suffering that I must have experienced. Oui oui, I am so scarred. Pay me, Apple.
I can attest to this being wrong. My device (iPhone SE) would function at 50% CPU speed and STAY that way. No matter if the device was fully charged or plugged in. This from a battery that still tested "ok" by Apple techs. The situation only resolved itself after Apple admitted to their shennanigans and I was "allowed" to replace my battery. I posted before and after screenshots two years ago indicating this. THIS is where my bitterness still stems from...
People here are so defensive about the company. Sometimes even fans need to take their blinders off every now and then.
The only thing?? Seriously???
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/203785/ios-11-3-coming-this-spring-with-battery-and-performance-settings-arkit-1-5-new-animoji/p3
To reiterate. I wasn't upset that the battery degraded, or that Apple implemented a throttling feature to preserve phone operation. I WAS upset that it was done without any clear indication to the user AND that the Apple techs didn't see a problem with it when I wanted to PAY to replace the battery. When I clearly knew there was a problem and the techs told me (before Apple admitted to the practice), "sorry, your battery checks out fine - we can't replace it at this point".... well, that just sucked. Believe me, I was not a happy camper that cold day in January 2018...
For the record, my phone was a little over a year old at the time of battery replacement. But my criticism has little to do with the fact that the battery was going bad. I have no problem replacing batteries when they wear out. The trick is whether the option (through OFFICIAL channels) is available. As I explained multiple times in my previous posts, that option was denied to me until Apple revised its policy shortly after.
Also, for reference, my iPhone SE is still going strong today. The replaced battery, after two years of usage, is starting to wear (82% and the percentage indicator fluctuates a bit), but there has been no throttling as of yet. I will likely be getting the battery replaced soon, and I am fine with that. :-)
I can understand the skepticism... but don't be so certain that it's a false statement.
They're all losers who are jealous of American tech firms.
And I suggest that the USA should take retaliatory measures against France soon and the EU too. Tim Apple and D. Trump are practically best buddies now.