theothergeoff

Rayz2016 said:

[...]

If you do a search for shutdowns on other phones, most people just replace the battery and carry on. 

I can see what Apple was trying to do, and having read the letter I’m a little clearer on where they went wrong. They made an assumption on what was causing the slowdowns while the OS cleans house after an upgrade, and in 90% of those cases they were probably right since their fix only affects worn batteries during peak loads. But it is the 10% that is going to cause the most noise. They should’ve realised that. 

The real irony is that if they’d just let the phones fail and shutdown then they wouldn’t be in this mess. 

Well I say that, but of course a problem that affects other phones is only a big deal when it is discovered on an Apple device. 

Still, a great letter. They took the hit on the chin. That’s what I like to see: when you mess up, own it. 

no.   There is no irony.    If they 'just failed' then you would have 'QualityGate,' with the same 'planned obsolescence' screed, and additional branches of Apple failures:  "Their ASeries Chips are designed to randomly Fail"... "OSX 1x.y randomly crashes"  "My Apple Phone must be Hacked!"

That would be a bigger mess.   With the same outcome... Wailing and gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts by the conspiracy theorists... (and now it would be a conspiracy... of inaction).   Calmer people  will advise "buy a new phone"  and the first time it happens most will buy a new iPhone... some will buy Android.... If it happens with the SECOND PHONE... Most will buy an Android.    Not the optimal outcome.

Apple made a crucial error.  They didn't communicate in real time.  All they needed to do was have a pop-up like when you're phone hit's 20% battery:


(and you know they know exactly what their criteria is to start throttling).

Then just place what is in this letter  on an Apple Support Page.

No need to put it in the release notes, no major announcement with iOS 10/11 releases, other than 'implemented CPU/Power optimization for early model phones with batteries that are unable to provide full power under load"

note:  Apple has to assume the best scenario and buy options for parts at the most optimistic sales levels through the year, and the most pessimistic QA rates as well.   Them 'cutting' orders is more a reality of the standard seasonal flow and ebb, and the supply chains saying Apple 'Ordered' XX, when in reality Apple 'required volumes UPTO XX' parts.  

This is the reason why apple doesn't 'own/make' their own parts.  They design the key components to their spec, and even buy the equipment to make/assemble the parts for the supply chain, but there is huge risk in factory/staffing/inventory they avoid by jobbing it out.

The real question is... 'Why a computer?'

Really.


How many people 'compute'?

Most people 'interact'   they don't compute... so they need an interaction device. something to communicate/interpret/assist/enhance stuff around me or far away.

People who 'compute' are the 1 percent... the truck drivers in the other Jobsian metaphor.  We need them, and they need 'trucks,' but their vehicles shouldn't define my experience.  

and all those who want a 'mac tablet'...  you're asking for a Kenworth engine and transmission in a tesla.  get over it.

boogerman2000 said:

Microsoft losing accounts left and right while Belfiore posts pics of treehouse 'meeting room' on Twitter. Stupid, stupid company. No vision, focus or discipline.

Windows Phone was the catalyst. long term? Game ova.

They are not losing this account.  Dell/Asus/HP are.  Microsoft is still selling Office and AD to the big players.   M$ knows revenue is not in OEM licenses... but in Azure/AD/O365 licenses.

freerange said:

The original decision to go with the Surface was almost certainly driven by the IT department. It’s all about job security for their requisite increased support, training, and the usual false claim that MS is a better solution because that’s what they know, and only they have the secret sauce to keep it all working together. When factoring in support, training, hardware and software reliability, and resale value, price rolls to Apple’s favor.

Partially true.  There was also a significant discount in price as Microsoft always sweetens the deal (it's a marketing budget payout).

I saw this play out at my workplace, where I naively thought it was about replacing  'just' 6,000 custom portable computing 'bricks' and the same number of 'flip' phones , 2 years ago.  Samsung, Microsoft were almost paying us to buy their phones (Samsung was nearly 1/2 the cost of the iPhone at bulk, because Verizon was cosponsoring them to undercut our ATT contract) Microsoft was throwing in extended warranties for free and almost a free trade-up in 18 months , IT leadership was all for it (they had just bought into O365 'at a discount'), and saw it as great synergy. IT techs (and purchasing) preferred android, because, well, they thought they had 'OEM' competition (The old Dell vs Gateway vs Lenovo vs HP... we force them to outbid each other).   The development team (all .Net and IBM mainframers] had already built an iOS prototype... the trade off was the first 100 would be iPhones for deploying the prototype.  

fast forward 3 years later.  I just found out we have 12,000 iOS devices now: 10,000 iPhones and 2,000 iPads (and 200+ macs).   We recently had a change in leadership and the incoming CEO [a finance guy... we're definitely not a tech company]  had a Surface Pro for 2 weeks, and then asked for a MacBook Pro, so he could have continuity between his iPhone and iPad.