Has anyone done any comparison of the speed of iphones for Samsung phones with batteries that have 60-70% life left? Would be interesting to know how much worse I can expect my apple phone to be after 3-4 years than if I'd bought the same year model from Samsung.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Being Sued for 'Purposefully Slowing Down Older iPhone Models' [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Abazigal
Contributor
And I think the anti-Apple hysteria here has gotten so out of hand that people are chomping at the bit to hand Apple the death sentence for any misstep, real or perceived.
Apple is guilty of lousy communication and poor oversight in this case, nothing more. I continue to stand by my initial assertion that any possibility of improved profit from selling more iPhones wouldn’t have been the primary driving motivation. It was a deliberate decision to slow down the iPhones so that users wouldn’t have to experience random shutdowns and reboots which to Apple, would have been the worse alternative. That’s all there is to it.
Why would Apple even go so far as to admit that they intend to introduce this “feature” to subsequent iPhones down the road if they knew that what they were doing was wrong? It’s clear from their perspective that they 100% believed that what they were doing was genuinely in the consumer’s best interests. You can laugh at them for their naivety or facepalm the tone-deaf nature of their response, but that is an entirely separate issue altogether.
It’s a recurring theme year after year. Apple does something, and people rush to interpret their motives in the worst possible light. It was the case with Steve Jobs, and it had only gotten worse under Tim Cook. Never mind that most of these conspiracy theories invariably end up being proven wrong.
Maybe I am trying too hard to defend Apple. Or maybe I just happen to see something the rest, in their haste to pass judgement, don’t. We shall see.
SteveJUAE
macrumors 601
I have read most of the posts here and the repeated points on battery endurance and some fluffy soft wording from some that seem to be more from Apple legal team
Factual:
There is/was a design oversight relationship between CPU demands and battery capability over time on some models
An update was introduce that fixed battery endurance to the detriment of CPU performance over time
Apple did not disclose the side affects to the CPU when improving battery endurance over time
Apple standard warranty varies between 1 or 2 years depending on country of origin and can be extended with AC/AC+
Apple only replace batteries that are in warranty based on their own testing procedures/policy
Apple have clauses in their specifications and sales T&C's to cover normal battery degradation over time (Typical for all OEM's)
Apple have clauses in their software T&C's that place burden of acceptance on the owner with out the option to revert and only opt in or out with little clarification
Some phones will stay on longer but at a slower CPU speed with the fix/update
Apple have clauses in their T&C's for usage of their products to avoid claims in (EG life threatening or emergency situations)
Argumentative conjecture hear say etc:
Apple was aware of design oversight from the start
Apple deliberately obscured the side affects of the battery endurance improvements
Apple in house battery test is limited
Apple introduce the fix to their advantage to avoid warranty claims, over burdening support services and to miss lead consumers of actual status of their phones
Apple introduce a fix that breaks original terms of sale re performance over time
Apple wording in T&C's, specs, releases etc etc is deliberately lacking some specifics
Apple chose the best solution for the fix for the consumer
etc etc and any other derivative 🙂
The real shame with this regardless of the outcome will be a few $'s more on your next purchase as shear numbers will win out in the end.
I certainly hope that on future models if they include this fix/update include a clause that "your performance may vary over time and is dependent on battery condition" so consumers are aware regardless if there is a note or pop-up on your phone
Factual:
There is/was a design oversight relationship between CPU demands and battery capability over time on some models
An update was introduce that fixed battery endurance to the detriment of CPU performance over time
Apple did not disclose the side affects to the CPU when improving battery endurance over time
Apple standard warranty varies between 1 or 2 years depending on country of origin and can be extended with AC/AC+
Apple only replace batteries that are in warranty based on their own testing procedures/policy
Apple have clauses in their specifications and sales T&C's to cover normal battery degradation over time (Typical for all OEM's)
Apple have clauses in their software T&C's that place burden of acceptance on the owner with out the option to revert and only opt in or out with little clarification
Some phones will stay on longer but at a slower CPU speed with the fix/update
Apple have clauses in their T&C's for usage of their products to avoid claims in (EG life threatening or emergency situations)
Argumentative conjecture hear say etc:
Apple was aware of design oversight from the start
Apple deliberately obscured the side affects of the battery endurance improvements
Apple in house battery test is limited
Apple introduce the fix to their advantage to avoid warranty claims, over burdening support services and to miss lead consumers of actual status of their phones
Apple introduce a fix that breaks original terms of sale re performance over time
Apple wording in T&C's, specs, releases etc etc is deliberately lacking some specifics
Apple chose the best solution for the fix for the consumer
etc etc and any other derivative 🙂
The real shame with this regardless of the outcome will be a few $'s more on your next purchase as shear numbers will win out in the end.
I certainly hope that on future models if they include this fix/update include a clause that "your performance may vary over time and is dependent on battery condition" so consumers are aware regardless if there is a note or pop-up on your phone
Last edited:
noslenam
macrumors regular
I’m tired of having to upgrade a phone almost every year just to keep my phone from slowing down. I can buy a Mac pro that last for 5-10 years and software and batteries seem to work fine. Why can’t yhey do the same for a dam phone? My 6S Plus gets so slow everyday I have to do a hard restart at least twice a day. It’s getting ridiculous. Especially when you rely on your phone for work.
I’m tempted for the first time to try another brand and at least if I have to upgrade every year or so I could adore to do so versus spending over a grand to upgrade a phone.
Long time alone user but becoming irritated at the amount of money I spend and still have issues.
Frustrated Apple user
I’m tempted for the first time to try another brand and at least if I have to upgrade every year or so I could adore to do so versus spending over a grand to upgrade a phone.
Long time alone user but becoming irritated at the amount of money I spend and still have issues.
Frustrated Apple user
If I had known this, I would not have broken my boycott of the no 3.5mm headphone jack iPhones. I foolishly updated to iOS 11 on my 6S Plus. I had never noticed the sluggishness that others reported with previous updates because I was always using the iPhone that was one generation prior to the newest release (4S > 5S > 6S Plus). I didn't buy the 7 and planned to not buy the 8 because of the lack of 3.5mm jack (I hate wireless headphones).
If I had known, I would have simply replaced the battery in my 6S Plus.
If I had known, I would have simply replaced the battery in my 6S Plus.
Last edited:
admjhndly
macrumors member
I don't think you read the Ts & Cs.
[doublepost=1514086644][/doublepost]
**Their involvement with my property stops after payment.** Not true. Read the Ts & Cs. You're using their software.
Ladybug
macrumors 68000
The problem I have with this is that if Apple knew beforehand that these batteries weren't powerful enough to sustain these speeds then what they sold us wasn't what was advertised. And if they are going to slow them down in 12 to 18 months, they should have made this known before the sale. You can't advertise one thing and then take it back. Also if these phones are going to be throttled to 1/3 the speed then perhaps Apple should sell them for 1/3 the cost. Anyway, jmo..not trying to argue here
A MacBook lover
Suspended
Oh my. So you’re asking for solution that doesn’t exist yet....quite demanding are we? I think that’s more sad.
https://android.googlesource.com/ke...mentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/bcl.txt
This throttling was present in android for almost 4 years.
Even my tesla does this. Do I want my tesla turning off? No. I’ll take reduced acceleration anyday.
Last edited:
My phone is three years old. And it needs security updates.
[doublepost=1514087990][/doublepost]
SE works for me.
Silly. The government (even their own intelligence agencies) can't keep their own software and systems secure. How are they going to require companies much smaller than the government to do so? Most can't even make one single OS version secure, much less multiple ones. Silly.
Applejuiced
macrumors Westmere
And that's why the lawsuits are piling up.
Because there should be a better solution and better options for the customer than what Apple has been pulling for years.
Any techies care to explain why Apple doesn’t utilize the same feature for aging iPad batteries?
pdaholic
macrumors 68020
Wait and see what Apple has in store for us in next year's MacOS...I'm sure they would like you to upgrade your Mac every year as well!
Yup. It's in the fine print. Not reading a contract doesn't get users off. Most people don't know they legally agreed to this when they first set up their iPhone, and again when they updated and used Apple services. The lawyers might make big money, but the customers complaining won't even make minimum wage for the time it takes them to read and sign the paperwork.
Maybe it does. But the iPad CPU is 50% or less bigger, and the battery is 3X or more bigger, so it the CPU current draw never gets close to big enough to hit any battery throttle limit. More likely the temperature limit throttles the CPU first.
Burger Thing
macrumors 65816
So if your Tesla slowed down just after a year you would be ok with that? And if you drove to the Tesla dealer and he would tell you after a check, that there is nothing wrong with your battery? Which of course won’t happen because your Tesla had a properly designedly power train to begin with.
They do. And they do. That's because the ludicrous models also draw from the batteries up right near their safety fuse limit. A that value varies due to a whole bunch of battery parameters, which the factory tweaks via cellular downloads. A Tesla is a computer with wheels.
[doublepost=1514091689][/doublepost]
Please find me where they advertised a specific (numeric) speed.
This isn’t my issue at all. Their remarks are factual and still have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I am okay with throttling the crap out of my phone IF
1) i am told that there will be throttling if my battery is degrading with a warning saying it may start throttling in the near future
2) throttling if I do nothing about it in a month or so(insert whatever timeframe works here)
What I and a lot of people have an issue with is NOT telling us that they have throttled it due to the battery being in a weakened state. I changed my battery and now can use my phone without issues again but only did it after these reports came out and I realized that the issues are due to the battery.
The 2 step process is extremely easy to implement given that they should have benchmarked the bajeezes out of the discharge curve. There is either a dependable impedance curve or voltage curve they can use to determine how long the battery will be able to provide a certain voltage to power the phone.
[doublepost=1514091976][/doublepost]
They don’t quote a numeric speed but they do advertise the crap out of how much faster the processors are in the new phones. Watch any live stream of the Apple event.
To spell it out, they say the 6s is 70% faster than the 5s(using a random number as an example). They use prior chipsets as comparisons all the time and in their throttling, drop the speeds to below prior chipset speeds.
Wanted797
macrumors 68020
Oh ffs. This and watching friends on fb is painful. People who never seemed to understand that batteries degrade suddenly complaining (all aboard the hate Apple bandwagon).
Apples only mistake with this was not showing it as a feature and having it able to be disabled (I’m sure it will be here in the next update). But it isn’t really a feature people want to know (hey your phone is now running slower).
I dunno about the US but in AUS we get 12 months warranty on devices which usually excludes the the battery! Batteries are only 6 months.
Apples only mistake with this was not showing it as a feature and having it able to be disabled (I’m sure it will be here in the next update). But it isn’t really a feature people want to know (hey your phone is now running slower).
I dunno about the US but in AUS we get 12 months warranty on devices which usually excludes the the battery! Batteries are only 6 months.
antonis
macrumors 68020
Shady tactics are shady. Why so many sad people here are trying to distort this ?
I think it's a matter of time for Apple to let people choose which IOS version to use - latest or from old days for dying Apple devices.
Ladybug
macrumors 68000
No, you can go search if you like. I never specified any particular number, but Apple does claim one chip is X amount of speed faster than the last. But then you knew that already.
So, at deposition, Apple will bring in a busload of their PhD computer scientists and engineers specializing performance analysis and clock management to show that they didn't drop the actual processor clock frequency that much, if at all, and also describe 100 other things might make an iPhone appear slow, other than any throttling.
And the guys filing the class action will show some screenshots of geekbench and dasherX ??? That will really impress a judge.
Ramchi
macrumors 65816
Software updates are not some favour done to the consumers. Most of the updates do not make the phones act differently. Most often than not, they are bug fixes, security updates, minor enhancements; without these software upgrades, Apple will be equal to any Chinese OEM with low end hardware specs(except processor - which seems to be the main culprit for battery draining though As processors are performance driven, consequently it has side effects now coming out open).
Of late, we see many Beta versions of software as flagship features in iPhones! To add to that Beta program inviting consumers and developers to participate!!
Nice outsourcing and charging, yet betray the trust!! This is not a value of any true Brand!
Ryan Shrout gives a balance summary I think:
Apple's real blunder
Apple's desire to prevent its products from failing is obviously a good thing, but its methodology, communication and initial denial of this process resulted in a bigger problem for the company. Apple denied for years that phones were slowing for any reason. Consumer complaints and theories continued to pile up. Data and analysis prove that software updates are what initiate the reduced performance, and now Apple has admitted to the actions and given its reasoning for it.
There are valid points for Apple to slow performance. Obviously, keeping a user's phone powered on without suddenly powering off is an improvement in user experience. It also means that battery life will be extended as a processor running at a lower clock speed requires less power. And this also makes iPhones safer in a world where lithium-ion batteries and the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 experience have come and gone (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sa...ppliers-for-galaxy-note-7-problems-2017-01-22).
Better engineering needed
But reduced performance through software updates as the batteries age is not the only potential solution to the engineering problem at hand. Apple is unique in the smartphone world in that it designs all aspects of the iPhone, from the processor to the operating system. And it has full control over the production of the battery system. Knowing the battery size (which also limits the total peak power draw from the battery) and software system in play, Apple could have (and I would argue should have) designed a processor that would provide consistent performance throughout the life of the phone.
Yes, this would result in lower peak performance for iPhone devices. But Apple already enjoys a sizable performance advantage (https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Apple-A11-Performance-Review-iPhone-8-Plus-Taking-Desktop) over competing options in the SoC (system on chip) market including Qualcomm (QCOM), Huawei and others. The A11 Bionic processor is nearly 70% faster (https://www.pcper.com/image/view/86218?return=node/68496) than the next best non-Apple processor, the Snapdragon 835, based on Geekbench numbers.
Apple could have lessened that performance advantage to provide a stable and consistent experience for users who choose to keep their phones for more than a single 12-month cycle. Some users might balk at the idea of holding back Apple silicon performance, but keep in mind that mobile devices need to be engineered quite differently that desktop PCs. Intel (INTC) offers scalable clock speeds and power draw for its notebook processors, for example, but the battery system is much larger and is able to provide peak power for those performance demands more reliably.
What about Android?
Does this same behavior exist in the Android ecosystem? It seems unlikely, as most flagship smartphones in that space ship with much larger batteries that would lengthen the time required for the battery degradation to affect peak current draw. I'm sure there are plenty of individuals looking for examples as you read this, and we'll know about them soon, if they exist.
At the end of the day, Apple has lost consumers' trust. Apple was never open about the potential for reduced performance on your phone over time, be it from battery wear or software updates. Now the truth is out there, and the debate on what comes next will begin.
Ryan Shrout
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
12-23-17 0702ET
Apple's real blunder
Apple's desire to prevent its products from failing is obviously a good thing, but its methodology, communication and initial denial of this process resulted in a bigger problem for the company. Apple denied for years that phones were slowing for any reason. Consumer complaints and theories continued to pile up. Data and analysis prove that software updates are what initiate the reduced performance, and now Apple has admitted to the actions and given its reasoning for it.
There are valid points for Apple to slow performance. Obviously, keeping a user's phone powered on without suddenly powering off is an improvement in user experience. It also means that battery life will be extended as a processor running at a lower clock speed requires less power. And this also makes iPhones safer in a world where lithium-ion batteries and the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 experience have come and gone (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sa...ppliers-for-galaxy-note-7-problems-2017-01-22).
Better engineering needed
But reduced performance through software updates as the batteries age is not the only potential solution to the engineering problem at hand. Apple is unique in the smartphone world in that it designs all aspects of the iPhone, from the processor to the operating system. And it has full control over the production of the battery system. Knowing the battery size (which also limits the total peak power draw from the battery) and software system in play, Apple could have (and I would argue should have) designed a processor that would provide consistent performance throughout the life of the phone.
Yes, this would result in lower peak performance for iPhone devices. But Apple already enjoys a sizable performance advantage (https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Apple-A11-Performance-Review-iPhone-8-Plus-Taking-Desktop) over competing options in the SoC (system on chip) market including Qualcomm (QCOM), Huawei and others. The A11 Bionic processor is nearly 70% faster (https://www.pcper.com/image/view/86218?return=node/68496) than the next best non-Apple processor, the Snapdragon 835, based on Geekbench numbers.
Apple could have lessened that performance advantage to provide a stable and consistent experience for users who choose to keep their phones for more than a single 12-month cycle. Some users might balk at the idea of holding back Apple silicon performance, but keep in mind that mobile devices need to be engineered quite differently that desktop PCs. Intel (INTC) offers scalable clock speeds and power draw for its notebook processors, for example, but the battery system is much larger and is able to provide peak power for those performance demands more reliably.
What about Android?
Does this same behavior exist in the Android ecosystem? It seems unlikely, as most flagship smartphones in that space ship with much larger batteries that would lengthen the time required for the battery degradation to affect peak current draw. I'm sure there are plenty of individuals looking for examples as you read this, and we'll know about them soon, if they exist.
At the end of the day, Apple has lost consumers' trust. Apple was never open about the potential for reduced performance on your phone over time, be it from battery wear or software updates. Now the truth is out there, and the debate on what comes next will begin.
Ryan Shrout
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
12-23-17 0702ET
Last edited: