realistic

radarthekat said:

78Bandit is on the right track.  

This product, at least this version 1 edition, will be shuttered. The issues are too fundamental for it to be adjusted and then released.  Samsung is telling us a few weeks from now they will give us a new release date.  Nope.  Samsung will use this next three weeks to refund any deposits and attempt to quietly cancel any pre-orders.  Then they will make a very brief statement about working on the product and then we’ll hear nothing more.  

 At least, if they’re smart that’s what they’ll do.  

CloudTalkin said:

bsimpsen said:

I think Apple's approach is reasonable. Thirty years ago, I designed battery powered medical instrumentation (including defibrillators) containing rudimentary "gas gauge" hardware/firmware in the battery packs that allowed cell life and capacity to be monitored far more accurately than in previous systems. A couple years after introduction, we started getting field failure reports of batteries going dead unexpectedly while the gas gauge was indicating half a tank, or of warnings from our software that recently refurbished battery packs were worn out.

Customers were replacing the cells in our packs with generic cells of about half the capacity,  because they were far less expensive. On the first charge cycle, those new cells were delivering half the energy expected by our battery monitoring system and our firmware wasn't able to cope with such a large (and out of spec) change in component behavior. A large system customer asked us to disable or modify our firmware to allow use of those lower capacity aftermarket replacement cells. We refused. It was our contention that the end customer for our products was the patient who's care was affected by our product's performance. Were we not about to let unskilled health care providers dictate to us the parameters for safe and effective operation of our products.

Your anecdote, although interesting, is only a single data point.  The viewpoint it represents is not indicative of the current state of battery tech in iPhones.  You haven't presented any evidence that current 3rd party batteries for iPhone are any more likely to be substandard to OEM or Authorized batteries. You've provided info about an issue 30 years ago.  Again, it's interesting, but doesn't seem really relevant here.  Afaik, there haven't been wide scale complaints about 3rd party iPhone batteries.  No shortened life span, nothing about lesser capacity.  Those details, relative to your devices' issues, serve to highlight troubles you experienced 30 years ago.  Those details, relative to this iPhone issue, paint an inaccurate picture unsupported by any evidence.  If 3rd party batteries were that much of a menace, Apple wouldn't be willing to service iPhones with them inside.  Yet they do. 

Also, the software flakes when confronted with an OEM battery that wasn't installed by Apple or an Authorized repair shop.  So it's not just a 3rd party issue.  Essentially, Apple is saying you can use batteries that weren't installed by us or our partners.  We know they work just like ours, but we won't monitor them with our software.  Which is fine, since they weren't monitoring the batteries via that software before last year anyway... and people were none the worse for wear.  Remember, this software only exists because Apple mishandled informing users of the software throttling they instituted to deal with their own substandard batteries.  Users that concerned can probably get an app like Coconut Battery to monitor their non-OEM/authorized battery if it's a real concern.

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Beats said:

gc_uk said:

Nobody seems to understand what a monopoly is. Just because there are other phones doesn’t mean Apple isn’t engaging in a monopoly. 

Wal-Mart has a monopoly on Wal-Mart. That doesn’t mean Coca Cola  has the right to change their rules. 

That’s not a monopoly. 

A thing cannot monopolize itself. It must monopolize a market. 

Apple has zero monopoly anywhere on any market. 

Case closed. 

There is a market for iOS apps, iOS apps are not exclusively owned or created by Apple and yet Apple runs the only store.  Case reopened.

bobcat4424 said:

SpamSandwich said:

The Crazy Train just keeps chugging along.

Something that needs to be clearly stated is that the "User" and the "owner" of the phone are one and the same according to Apple Terms of Service ---  San Bernadino County.  They owned the phone and gave it to an employee (the shooter) who signed a statement agreeing to use it only for work.  The FBI is not even asking for access to the phone.  They only want Apple to force a backup because they already have access to the cloud backups.  Apple can do this by simply pushing a phone-specific update to the OS that forces an immediate and full backup.  No back door, no one's privacy rights endangered.  But Tim Cook sees this as a form of free advertising.  The fact is that Apple has a long history of illegal activities.

jonagold said:

...
I would have guessed their next product category would be a ring or a glove to go with the watch or a VR/Google Glass/full-face helmet type device.  Not doubting this venture's existence at all, but it must be disruptive (or something Steve mentioned in his will that Apple MUST do and Tim just has to follow through with despite it being a bad idea).