holyone

It does make some sence if you think of the X as a special edition model, a special edition collector's model comes, then goes away, the X even has a price tag that suites this. It would make little sence for Apple to keep the X branding indefinitely if it's for a limited edition model. This flattery will also serve nicely to mollify any backlash when the X's prestigious Face ID and OLED dIsplay are lavishly gifted to cheaper more mass reaching devices. What I suspect is that the 8s will subsume the X form factor with the 8s+ serving as the larger version. This might explaine why Apple got the production pipeline of F- ID and OLED right and ready to pump last year for this year's models so that there are no problems.

The Strange is awake 

cropr said:

lkrupp said:

So, Apple can just send them a copy of their explanation and reasoning that was published weeks ago. What else are they supposed to provide? The crux of all these ‘investigations’ is to try and brand Apple with malicious, intentional planned obsolescence. How do they plan to prove that? Experts have already stated Apple’s solution is acceptable and only criticized Apple for not being more transparent about it. As for those asshats claiming they have the right to choose whether their phones just randomly shut down or whether to slow things down to prevent said shutdowns, what kind of “choice” is that? That kind of “choice” is stupid, just like the asshats who want to be able to install whatever kind of crap they want to and use it to justify jailbreaking.

There is a big difference between not being more transparent like you claim and what Apple actually did:  hiding the throttling from the customer until some clever guy came with the prove.  The former is a small communication issue, the latter could be interpreted as intentional. 

Every customer with a a slow iPhone  who bought a new iPhone but who was not given the option to replace the battery, was mislead by Apple.   The fact that a lot of Apple Stores guided these customers to buy a new iPhone did not help to contradict the possible intentional character.

The throttling itself is not the issue, the secrecy about it is. 

Exactly, I and a few here have raised this very point and none of the grand AI zealots have ever addressed it, that's because there is no defense, there's a lot of conflating of two things which in regards to this legal matter have very little to do with each other, one is a solution to a technical flaw and the other, more relevant, is the PR strategy for said solution. The question will be did the lack of public awerness unduly benefit Apple .i.e. an average person noticing their device slugish after an OS update and poorly informed make an incorrect conclusion that their device is out dated and can no longer cope with moden softwear buy a new one, because an average person has no idea that battery quality has any correlation to processor speed, I for one didn't. So can @lkrupp @foggyhill and the rest please demonstrate to us all how a half descent lawyer couldn't make that stick.  

mike54 said:

Apple has to obey the countries laws or get out. China is a large country with 1.4 billion people, something the US cannot even conceive of having to control. Worried about Chinese spying on users? Well the US gov departments in collusion with private companies is very effective on spying on everyone and all their communications. The US has the worlds largest and most comprehensive espionage apparatus, far greater than any nearest competitor, and is not afraid to use it, even for offence, as has been demonstrated in recent years.

Sure but was there a bleeding heart Tim-letter of admonition to Chinese customers obout their govenment's disreputable practices and how Apple finds them excessive and unjust, if Apple is going to have non financially beneficial moral stances it should at the very least be man enought to stand behind those principles resolutely, and not only when it conveniently serves financial interests and swiftly dropped when those interests are threatened.

 Tim was praised for fighting the big mean FEDs demands and concessions, which have now been given to the Chinese FEDs, the fight with the FBI wasn't about a lack of equivalent laws in the US for the FBI to call upon but about the principle, a principle now abandoned in China since it threatens profits.  

I am not saying that they shouldn't have fought the FEDs but if you are gonna have principles, stand behind them, not only when its easy and safe. Tim seems to have caught the fame bug and enjoys the spot light a little too much. Apple's brand has been catching shit over this battery issue one would have thought the CEO would come out guns blazing defending a very technically sound solution implemented by Apple, but all we gott was a lousy PR letter, when his excesive public aprearences were need the most by the company they were no where to be seen.  

r2d2 said:

steven n. said:

Honestly, this was just the opposite (though communication was piss poor). It was easy to do a battery upgrade and get full speed back. For those that didn’t want to do that, it kept phones, and batteries, in use longer.

Apple’s communication on this, however, was atrocious. 

The problem is most people did not know to replace their battery. Many felt the only recourse was to spend on the phone upgrade.

Exactly that's the argument, not whether Apple's solution was technically sound. It's not "planned" obsolescence its oppotunistic, intended or not, not that that makes Apple evil, the question will be, could Apple have benefited from illinformed customers noticing a reduction in perfomence wrongly concluding that this was due to their devices being out dated thus purchasing new ones.  

Passions are high as the issue gets mingled and lost but the above senario is reasonable, if this was Sammy we'd all be reading a very entertaining DED Piece.



what concerns me though, is that, a very unfortunate and quite damaging narrative is building and yet Nothing from Apple, not even a half baked "Dear customers" letter from Tim, not good.