CloudTalkin

nicholfd said:

CloudTalkin said:

sflocal said:

It's my understanding that even with Apple's battery-saving tech, charging batteries that fast tends to degrade them faster.  I don't understand the difficulty in just charing them with a humble 5-watt charger overnight while one is sleeping.  I have an external battery pack to charge my devices when traveling when there are minimal charging options.

All fast chargers charge at a variable rate.  They charge that way to mitigate battery degradation.  Apple is being ultra-ultra-ultra conservative with their fast charging.  They can afford to do so because their customer base is accepting of their pace of development of charging tech.  Also Apple's customer base primarily operates from a perspective of slow charging: 5W for years and years so any improvement seems like it's a big improvement.  

Fast charging will degrade a battery quicker than low power charging.  Just how much more degradation, and how quickly it would occur, is the real question.  Charging tech has come a loooong way outside of the garden.  Without getting too far into the weeds, here's an easy read look at fast charging that's not from Apple.  https://www.androidcentral.com/warp-charge

FYI - the "charger" does not determine the rate.  The device decides how fast it charges (charging circularity is in the device), up to the maximum juice/rate the "charger" can provide.  The "charger" you plug into the wall, that has a USB-A/USB-C connection is just a power supply.  The correct name for it is "Power Supply" - it only provides a power source, up to its maximum rated capacity.

Also, some of "% battery health" is the battery lottery.  Batteries are chemical devices.  Even with good QC, and the best attempts at making all of them identical, there are still some variances.  I build RC battery packs.  I might order 20-50 cells of a good brand name (Panasonic, Sony, Samsung) and make sure they are real (not knockoffs).  I bin the cells by their capacity.  I don't want to put a "lesser" cell in a pack with cells that have more capacity - the pack will trend toward the lowest common denominator, the weakest cell.

Heat is a big battery killer.  It can occur when fast charging, leaving in a car, leaving in sunlight, heavy use for extended time (heavy game playing).  This most likely affects iPhone batteries more than Apple's charging settings.

I don't actually recall claiming the charger determined the rate.  The pedantic nature of your contribution really didn't add to the conversation imo.  What you did was the equivalent of "well actually it's cotton swab or facial tissue instead of Q-Tip or Kleenex".  Uhhhh, okay.

Whether the charging circuitry is in the phone, the brick, or both, the fast charging occurs at a variable rate... which was the point.  That variable rate helps mitigate battery degradation (secondary point) by , among other things, regulating the heat generated by the charging process.  

Call it a power supply.  S'cool.  I'll call it a charging brick.  We'll both be okay and we'll both know exactly what the other means. 

bloggerblog said:

MplsP said:

22july2013 said:

Although I read the wikipedia page about "right to repair," I still don't get the point. No law can stop any device owner from taking a hammer to the device (either to repair or destroy it.) What I think they mean (and want) is that a warranty cannot be voided by people taking hammers to their own device.

I think Apple could get a lot of goodwill by offering a training course, that when passed, allows individuals perform warranty-approved repairs. (And it should be available to everyone who applies, not just to Apple invitees only as it currently stands.) But this course would be both thorough and very expensive. Any vendor not willing to pay for it cannot perform authorized repairs. Wouldn't that satisfy many of the right to repair advocates? Or do they actually want untrained repair people to hack at devices without voiding the warranty? I can't figure out what they want. Are there any right to repair advocates here that can clearly explain what they want?

Selling repair tools and documentation doesn't mean anything if the warranties are not covered by repairs made with those tools. So the right to repair advocates are not really asking for these things.

It's more than that. Cars are the best comparison. Imagine that Toyota voided the warranty because you had the brakes done at an independent repair shop. Or, worse, that Ford required you to have all your repairs done at the Ford dealer and refused to make parts available to anyone else to do the repairs.

No one is expecting Apple to warranty repairs done by an outside shop, or to cover damage caused by the shop. What they want is the availability of parts to give them more options for repairs.

Cars are a bad example, but their infotainment system might be a better example. If you take a soldering iron to it or replace its screen will the car manufacturer honor its warranty? Obviously not. 

What I understood from right to repair is that they want Apple to supply parts and and proprietary equipment to servicers, this will obviously add complexity to things since now they’ll need to maintain and warranty these tools and deal with investigations and lawsuits should these tools end up damaging user devices. 

Cars are the quintessential perfect example of right to repair.  Foremost, Apple doesn't need to supply parts.  Apple isn't a manufacturer and doesn't make any parts. They simply need to stop blocking parts availability from the actual suppliers.  The same applies to servicing equipment.  Your example suggests you really don't understand right to repair.  Right to repair isn't about warranty service for the most part.  Right to repair wouldn't require Apple or any vendor for that matter to warranty aftermarket (3rd party) repair.

Apple would not have to maintain warranty on repair tools.  The manufacturer and seller of the tools would have their own warranty.  This isn't anything special.  It's standard business.

genovelle said:

This will only make it impossible for Apple or Google for that matter to keep out bad actors. If a credit card scam company pays for a developer account and decides to accept payments directly. Who is regulating that? The government? Which government and which agency. When the strange charges start showing up 6 months to a year later or PayPal and banking details start showing up on the dark web, who will these same officials go crying to?  

This is Epic’s crap show and the consumers will be the loosest in this mess. It also will limit innovation as Apple will not be investing heavily in an unprofitable App Store. Had the App Store not proven to be profitable, it would have long lost Apples interest and died on the vine. 

If government continue down this path Apple Should switch back to web apps for 3rd party apps and end access to custom APIs. They will instead focus on making their own software and license tech and partner with who they want. They have been heading more in that direction recently. 

Basically, Apple would close their App Store altogether, so Epic would have to go Browser App or go home. They would have no access the OS and they would need to obtain each customer on their own. 

Unfortunately, This would hurt all the other developers that were not so greedy they bit the hand that fed them, but apple is not a charity. 

Your scenarios are pure hyperbole and bear no resemblance to reality.  The App Store is a $70+ billion dollar a year enterprise.  Nothing, 'cept maybe Jeebus' 2nd coming, would get Apple to go to a system where all 3rd party apps are web apps.  The vast, vast, vast,  majority of that $70+ billion is generated in those 3rd party apps.  In your scenario where they license tech and partner with who they want, you know who they'll partner with?  Freemium game makers, social media giants, entertainment conglomerates, and dating app companies... ya know, the one's generating revenue.  In the end, your scenario would see the same 3rd party apps in the app store because it's there to generate tons, and tons, and tons of money.

This will also not make it impossible for either company to keep out bad actors.  Both companies combat bad actors on a daily basis.  They wouldn't suddenly stop because of new regulations.  If a credit card scam company... who's regulating that?  Yes, the governments.  The same governments that regulate it now.  Once the scamming is exposed Apple kicks them out of the App Store.  Just like they do now when they find scam apps.  Apple isn't brand new.  Neither is Google. The FUD scenarios you're making up aren't brand new.  The dire circumstances you're creating would only exist in a fantasy world.  

Both companies might lose a little revenue initially as some devs test to see if it's more financially advantageous to use their own payment systems.  Some will find it viable, others won't.  Things will settle.  Apple and Google will provide incentives for those they want to court back into their payment systems.  Life will go on.  Nothing that you've described would ever take place.  Imo, of course.

hammeroftruth said:

CloudTalkin said:

22july2013 said:

goofy1958 said:

harrykatsaros said:

aderutter said:

This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea.
I

100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.

Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them.  Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me).  I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me.  If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.

You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.

Apple sells lemonade cups (iPhones and iPads).  All the kids (devs) in the neighborhood can sell flavors of lemonade(apps) but they have to pour it from the Apple pitcher (App Store) and Apple gets a cut of their sale.  L'il Bobby has his own pitcher and doesn't think he needs to use the Apple pitcher.  He can just pour his lemonade into the customers cup from his pitcher.  Apple says no.  Use my cup, you gotta use my pitcher.  
↑↑↑ That's a more apt description of the situation.   In this little story, most are still going to use the Apple pitcher because it's what they're used to using.  Bobby eventually brings his flavor of lemonade back to the Apple pitcher because not enough people stopped using the Apple pitcher for it to be profitable.

It’s also possible that Bobby’s pitcher has knockoff apps of legitimate apps from Apple’s and more people flock to it because it’s free, (a real possibility). Those apps could have malicious code and now they get an easy entrance into the Apple cup. What now? Does Apple cover the cost if the malicious code damages the hardware? 

Why would someone need to go to an alternative app store for knock off apps?  The App Store is filled with them.  Regarding malicious code, I covered that in an earlier comment.  #8 I think.

hriw-annon@xs4all.nl said:

CloudTalkin said:

22july2013 said:

goofy1958 said:

harrykatsaros said:

aderutter said:

This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea.
I

100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.

Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them.  Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me).  I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me.  If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.

You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.

Apple sells lemonade cups (iPhones and iPads).  All the kids (devs) in the neighborhood can sell flavors of lemonade(apps) but they have to pour it from the Apple pitcher (App Store) and Apple gets a cut of their sale.  L'il Bobby has his own pitcher and doesn't think he needs to use the Apple pitcher.  He can just pour his lemonade into the customers cup from his pitcher.  Apple says no.  Use my cup, you gotta use my pitcher.  
↑↑↑ That's a more apt description of the situation.   In this little story, most are still going to use the Apple pitcher because it's what they're used to using.  Bobby eventually brings his flavor of lemonade back to the Apple pitcher because not enough people stopped using the Apple pitcher for it to be profitable.

As far as I can see this is about payment, not AppStores. It’s like devs can have their users pay in the same way users can now pay for physical goods, like Uber rides, pizza, groceries. 

From the article: 
As expected, the South Korean plenary vote of the country's National Assembly has backed the Telecommunications Business Act. Apple and Google will no longer be able to require developers to sell apps via the App Store, and pay the companies' commission."

22july2013 said:

goofy1958 said:

harrykatsaros said:

aderutter said:

This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea.
I

100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.

Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them.  Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me).  I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me.  If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.

You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.

Apple sells lemonade cups (iPhones and iPads).  All the kids (devs) in the neighborhood can sell flavors of lemonade(apps) but they have to pour it from the Apple pitcher (App Store) and Apple gets a cut of their sale.  L'il Bobby has his own pitcher and doesn't think he needs to use the Apple pitcher.  He can just pour his lemonade into the customers cup from his pitcher.  Apple says no.  Use my cup, you gotta use my pitcher.  
↑↑↑ That's a more apt description of the situation.   In this little story, most are still going to use the Apple pitcher because it's what they're used to using.  Bobby eventually brings his flavor of lemonade back to the Apple pitcher because not enough people stopped using the Apple pitcher for it to be profitable.