djsherly

Disagree about planned obsolescence. The reasons that shutdowns occured was worked out and the OS was adjusted to guard against the shutdown. To me it seems like a perfectly appropriate fix. 

What was poor was the release notes which explained the fix. Apple desire to dumb shit down to the nth degree is a real insult to the intelligence of users and meant that the fix could not be properly explained. Only now do they explain more fully their rationale. A valid one I suggest but they should simply have set this out in the first place. 

AppleZulu said:

ZooMigo said:

So I guess Dodge should give me a one time replacement of brakes, wipers, clutch plates, batteries, and everything else that's a wearable item on my car? Its a fucking wearable item! Why does Apple need to give anyone a onetime exception to replace a battery on an older phone with a lets say it together...wearable item? 

Dodge won't put your car into limp mode when it detects any wear item is reaching end of life. If Dodge did what Apple did, and decided to limit your car to 35 MPH if it detects worn brakes, refuses to start if its dark and it detects a bad light, or won't let you put it in 4WD if you haven't changed your diff oil as recommended then you might have an argument.

Given the choice, I’d rather have a car that could detect a possible engine stall and slow me down to 35mph and keep going, rather than a car that would let the engine seize up while I’m going 80, likely causing a fatal end of my trip. But you know, that’s just a personal preference.

Yeah - I totally agree - but there's almost always a little light on the dashboard which tells you there's a problem. No such dashboard light with this battery issue. You're just left with a crappy experience with no understanding why except for release notes which state "a performance management feature", whatever that means.

Also I notice that Apple didn't actually apologize for the issue. They apologized for some people feeling a certain way. Subtle, but significant difference:

"We know that some of you feel Apple has let you down. We apologize."

Mike Wuerthele said:

fasterquieter said:

I have been reading about people who have been told their battery is fine by Apple, so they refuse to replace it, but they are still experiencing the throttling. I hope this isn't true. I had a battery related issue with my last iPad Pro. It was draining way too fast and giving me sporadic percentages. The guy at the Apple store refused to believe it was an issue after his battery test said it was fine. I sold the iPad in the end (honestly describing the issue in the description). That experience really put a dampener on my Apple enthusiasm.

"I understand you're telling me the battery is fine. However, I would like a new one anyway, and here's my $79 for it."

What you're actually thinking at the time is - "You think I am a liar and there is no problem and you want me to pay $79 for a new battery?"

This is the problem with intermittent issues - I had a problem with my mbp a couple of years ago and i just kept making appointments. In the end, they took it in to replace the part, but did such a poor job fixing it (the "repair" led to a series of successive sensor detections) they just quit the machine in the end and gave me a new one.

I can see both sides of the situation here but as a consumer it does dampen enthusiasm.

felix01 said:

Things have gotten to a sad state in the Apple Software Group when people finding bugs are saying screw the traditional 24 or 48 hour early warning before going public, Apple will just fart around and take their sweet time and/or just flat lie that they know nothing about it. Now the new norm is to publish the bug far and wide and encourage every media outlet to pick it up. Apparently the feeling is that Apple now only moves out quickly (with a fix) when publicly embarrassed instead of doing it because hundreds of thousands of their users could be harmed.

Once doesn't make a new normal - it's just as likely the originator was simply ignorant of disclosure best practice.

Well done Apple for patching so quickly - the vuln was there on my install.

rob53 said:

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

The only way I’ll believe any of these is if a lab dud the testing usin rigorous controls, i.e., not having both people in the room at the same time and not allowing the primary user to enter the pin code (controls like these keep second person from cheating). I’m sure this is how Apple tested it. Add different initial and subsequent lighting to the testing as well as number of owner unlocks before testing on someone else. 

This was done three times if you go to the source article at Wired. In two of the the three resets the son gained access, and there's a very plausible explanation for why. They explain that the lighting conditions under which the initial setup is done may play a big part in whether a similar face, ie 10-year old son, will be able to unlock your phone. You should have a read.

Looking at the video, the boy was in the room looking at the phone. This is not a controlled test. I have no idea how wide of an angle the camera uses. The only valid test is to have the two people in different rooms at all times. 

If Face ID can be trained that way (having multiple faces in frame) to generate a match then the training is wrong.

god forbid you use the thing in public.