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 CEO Tim Cook Says Power Management Feature in Older iPhones Will Be Able to Be Turned Off in Future Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm yet to see you ever provide any stats .....
Though you are happy to counter any opinion without evidence .... is that not hypocrisy? Instead of shouting "show me proof" provide proof why an opinion is not valid based on your evidence .
How am I lieing ? Prove itor you are in fact lieing ...... go on prove where I have lied on this thread ? Personal insults ? Really ?
Why do I need to provide any stats? I'll repeat it again: I'm not the one with all sorts of theories as to what's happening. Theories like:
- Apple shipped iPhones with defective batteries, and this power management change they made is nothing more than a scam to try and cover up their mistake.
- Apple made this change not to help people with bad batteries, but to intentionally slow down devices so users would be forced to upgrade their phones (planned obsolescence).
- Apple automatically throttles devices after 6, 12, 18, 24 months (take your pick).
- Apple throttles devices at 60, 70, 80 (take your pick) percentage capacity or charge.
- There's a design defect in the iPhones themselves, and since batteries won't completely fix the issue they made a software fix to, again, cover up their mistake. They're only replacing batteries to try and trick people into thinking it's nore a more serious issue.
- Everyone with an iPhone 6 or iPhone over xx months old will be throttled.
Sound familiar?
My position has been the same all along. That defective batteries experience a severe voltage drop when the processor draws too much current (more than the battery can provide). It's based on:
- My knowledge of electrical engineering.
- My knowledge of lithium batteries.
- My knowledge of power management in modern devices (like phones).
- The official statement from Apple.
Are there any stats to prove this? No. But there's substantial evidence to show this is true. There's literally no evidence to prove any of the other theories as being anything more than wild fantasies or conspiracies.
Lies? There's a couple right in this post of yours. "Penny-pinching under him lead to this action." Lie. "though Apple also benefits via upgrades and not having to replace batteries". Another lie.
And your first statement is literally calling anyone who doesn't agree with you as being illogical and stupid. Another logical fallacy (No True Scotsman).
On that logic, the watch should then be good for less cycles than an iPhone, yet it isn't.
iPhone Owners
Your battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 500 complete charge cycles.
Apple Watch Owners
Your battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 1000 complete charge cycles.
iPad Owners
Your battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 1000 complete charge cycles.
iPod Owners
Your battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 complete charge cycles.
MacBook Owners
Your battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 1000 complete charge cycles.
https://www.apple.com/batteries/service-and-recycling/
This whole saga reads to me, that Apple have chosen batteries that are only just good enough for the task with very little headroom in that design. As they start to degrade they can't deliver the current spike that the CPU demands.
How? I share an opinion that I think that there might be a design flaw with the iPhone 6, debate ends when a poster tells me to prove it. Geez.... might as well kill opinions on the site if you need to prove them eh?
[doublepost=1516400498][/doublepost]
I see you have never been involved in debates . You need to prove you side . You like many other act like judge jury and executioner on this site, laughable at best to be honest . If you want to continue counter someone's opinion , and you resort to stats, you , yourself have to provide stats. Right now you believe you can move the goal posts, and you get to judge people's evidence..... no... very mistaken.
I say it again, let's see your proof....
I'll play your game, prove they are lies.... geez .... not so easy eh?? Stop playing judge! Fundamental logic problem...
Very happy in the future to debate with you on an even playing ground, you ask for proof, you also have to provide it .
Okay? Of course not .....
you want to take the high ground.....nope .... all we are .... blokes posting on a forum with an opinion..... equal... get used to it... I owe you no evidence of you cannot provide any !!! Welcome to reality !!
Last edited:
That's an interesting point, but (and maybe some of the more engineer-types can weigh in on this) isn't it true that a battery that is running closer to its max capacity going to last less time than one with a more comfortable margin?
I'm not saying you specifically do "it". An opinion is not a fact, we agree. Yea!
But there are opinions masquerading or being promulgated as facts.
Not getting what you mean in this context.
A circuit will only draw the current it needs. If the battery cannot supply this current, the voltage output drops and this can cause the crash. Apple are mitigating this issue by changing the circuit by limiting the current draw. If the battery had more short time high current draw capacity, then the issue would not present itself as much.
My iP6 has a 6 month old battery, and throttling starts when the battery drops below 90% charge. From my reading of posts on various forums, this is fairly common. For some of us it’s not that wild or crazy an idea that there _may_ be something wrong with the iP6 phone and/or battery management system.
Of course. That is happening on both sides of the debate, though we also need to agree that neither side has access to data to support thier speculative "facts".
Apple has actual data that warranted 10.2.1, in my opinion is at a scale large enough to warrant, if someone asks me to prove it, geez, that's a waste of mine and thier time no? I might as well ask them to prove that it's not an issue.... we both don't have any numbers to support our claims.
Apple, one of the most securative companies , And we are talking about numbers or prove to support fans opinions, on a rumours site....kinda funny, no ? Someone needs to start up macfacts for our judges ....
I see you have never been involved in debates . You need to prove you side . You like many other act like judge jury and executioner on this site, laughable at best to be honest . If you want to continue counter someone's opinion , and you resort to stats, you , yourself have to provide stats. Right now you believe you can move the goal posts, and you get to judge people's evidence..... no... very mistaken.
I say it again, let's see your proof....
I'll play your game, prove they are lies.... geez .... not so easy eh?? Stop playing judge! Fundamental logic problem...
Very happy in the future to debate with you on an even playing ground, you ask for proof, you also have to provide it .
Okay? Of course not .....
Trying to insult? I debated regularly in university, as should be obvious by my replies to your very weak arguments.
Nobody can prove their side in a debate. Topics are chosen specifically such that neither side can actually win (which is why hot-button topics are always chosen, like gun control, existence of God or abortion). There's no point debating 2+2=4. At the end of the debate a winner is decided (by a judge, panel or even audience). The winner is not the person who proves their side (since you can't definitively prove your side), but by the person/team who has constructed the best arguments to support their side.
Debates will have a specific resolution that's to be debated and you will have the proposition and opposition each trying to support or refute the resolution. Since you brought it up, what is the specific resolution that's being debated in this thread? You can't have a debate without a resolution and two sides, so what is it?
And herein lies the problem with you bringing up debates as an attempt to criticize my points. There's no debate here because there's no specific resolution. In fact, there are numerous possible resolutions to be debated:
- I declare that Apple is throttling batteries to force people to upgrade.
- I declare that Apple is covering up bad batteries with a software fix to his the issue.
- I declare that throttling starts when batteries hit less than 80% capacity.
- I declare that MH01 doesn't understand electrical engineering as it relates to lithium batteries.
OK, the last one can be taken off, because like 2+2=4, it's not up for debate.
You said: "Very happy in the future to debate with you on an even playing ground".
I'm game. First you need to define the resolution then we debate each side.
Two problems with your post. The first is causation vs correlation. The second is confirmation bias.
You seeing others with throttling at the same charge level as you is nothing more than confirmation bias. Of course there are going to be multiple people experiencing the same thing. That doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing people are experiencing.
Likewise, people seeing the issue at a certain charge level doesn't mean it's the charge level that's the issue (causation vs correlation). You can have a fault that shows up at different times for different people. The fault is the same for everyone, how it appears is different.
Here's where a car analogy works well. A company makes a batch of tires. Some have faulty steel belts which can cause the tires to blow. Some people have the tires blow after only 10,000 miles while others blow at 20,000 miles. Some tires blow at only 55MPH others blow at 75MPH.
The speed or mileage isn't the issue - the faulty steel belts are the fault. It just shows up at different times for different drivers.
This is why it's ridiculous to look at the results of faulty batteries (people getting throttled at all sorts of different charge levels or battery health) and try to come to the conclusion that a specific charge level or battery capacity is the issue.
I think you need to read the posts carefully before responding — I didn’t claim that there is a specific cause to the throttling problem; I stated that there are issues, mine was that throttling occurs early in a discharge cycle, on a fairly young battery. Symptoms indicate that there’s an underlying problem, just as there was in your tire example. You spent an inordinate amount of words to basically regurgitate what I said originally.
Notice how the devices with the combination bad thermals, peak power draw are the ones that fare the worst.
The Ipod is bigger than the watch but with a much more powerful CPU, thus quick degradation.
From the battery university web site:
----
These are two main probkens with lithium batteries
- Requires protection circuit to prevent thermal runaway if stressed
- Degrades at high temperature and when stored at high voltage
Other info on temps at high load and how bad it is:
"The cathode (positive electrode) develops a similar restrictive layer known as electrolyte oxidation. Dr. Dahn stresses that a voltage above 4.10V/cell at elevated temperature causes this, a demise that can be more harmful than cycling a battery. The longer the battery stays in a high voltage, the faster the degradation occurs.
The buildup can result in a sudden capacity loss that is difficult to predict by testing the duration of a battery through cycling alone. This phenomenon had been known for some years and measuring the coulombic efficiency can verify these effects in a more scientific and systematic manner than mere cycling."
----
In brief, high temperature especially under high load are very bad for lithium batteries.
Apple's current CPU's with laptop like peaks in small packages (the smallest usually amongst premium phones) are the very edge of what those batteries can provide in their 500 cycle life and evidently fall short after that.
The Iphone 6 and 6s (before they introduced the smaller cores) would have a tendency to run hotter (because always using the big cores) putting higher heat stress on the batteries.
Not sure what they could do if it is thermals / load that are the main issue except what they did here create smaller high efficiency cores and try to keep the big cores not running most of the time, merely making a bigger battery in this case would not help.
As for Apple engineering things to the limits, well Apple is responding to what the client wants, a tiny powerful phone. That those clients don't realize that this has implications under current battery tech is something totally seperate.
Also, notice this is full charge cycles which many people don't do and the number of charge cycles to get 80% doesn't respond linearly to how much of that full charge cycle you are doing every day.
Charging when you get to 50% every day doesn't give you 1000 charge cycles, but more like 1150-1200. 3-3.3 years (which is what I normally get from my last phones).
Charging at 70% every day and not using your phone for processing intensive things when plugged in (so not heat stressing the battery) could get you 1700-1800 cycles (4.5 years) (you can check the actual curves online). What I got with my 3GS before it started crashing.
Which further reinforces that Apple has chosen form over function in this instance.
One has to like the form to buy the product, and function has to be with it. Can’t be either or.
Yes, but ladies and gentlemans do you want to see such notification when battery has 82% capacity? This is against logic and environment to replace a battery in very good condition. It is like a replacing a battery in Tesla or Prius after 10 months of driving which is nothing. If Apple iPhones require replacement when battery has 82% capacity it means that Apple batteries have terrible lifespan, reliability and quality and/or algorithm that calculates battery health give wrong result so in real is maybe 5% and close to EOL. I hope that very soon we get an official results since some EU countries like Italy investigate it. The funny thing that decision of Tim Cook to enable full performance under risk of sporadic shutdown is another reason to sue Apple and do not stop a lawsuits. What is annoying is that Tim still does not understand the problem - it is not because Apple has ONLY decide to slowdown your iPhone but MOSTLY how they do it without notyfing customers about it (lack of transparency). In my opinion consumer's law should protect us from buying smartphone with 2.0 GHz peak power available only during 1 microsecond declared on spec but with average power during whole cycle (till shutdown) and companies shall not have a right to sell a product with 32GB declared on the box or in advertisement where is 22GB available in real for an user due to system size and system updates.
Last edited:
If try to return the phone. If this is 'normal' then Apple is keeping more secrets.
Correct. Full of smart strategy is that helpful to the end user. I think you should switch to android so you can micromanage to your heart’s content.
The client selected it (form and features), not Apple. That's why Apple sell more than anyone else and for the average user it will last 2-3 years (see my previous post). There will be a substantial number of people at both end of the usage curve which will have much shorter life span before changing the battery and a longer one.
If they made the product so those uberusers could get to 2-3 years without changing the battery, everyone that uses the phone less would have a much bigger phone. That's the only way of taking care of thermal stress. That's obviously not what they're looking for since they're buying Apple specifically.
The real solution is a breakthrough in batteries that make them better at handling heat and load and/or a much higher energy density which would leave more space inside for heat dissipation.
New battery tech has been around the corner for a long long time, considering the amazing power of those small devices are now constrained by their battery, lets hope they will soon be available commercially.
Of course it can be both but function should always be the priority over form.
If a company puts out a new product, but said at the time something like “we’ve made this one 0.001 inches thinner than the last model, but for that, the <insert component here> will crap out in 2 years instead of 3 years” how many consumers would actually purchase the new model.
[doublepost=1516570781][/doublepost]
I agree with you that batteries need to get much better.
But do you seriously believe that manufacturers don’t decide what features a new gadget will have compared to it’s previous model and it’s competitors too?
At the end of the day, the smart device industry is very young and all of the manufacturers are obsessed in out featuring each other for the consumers money but at the same time letting form win.
For me it's form and function. Something ugly and functional will lie on the store shelf against something with equivalent functionality and a form more appealing to my eyes.
My 6s crapped out in 3 years and apple replaced the battery. I would buy another iphone.
But to each their own opinions on this matter.
Oh sorry I had missed your reply to me.
Yes that would make sense.
However I’m not too sure they are pleased if you return an X for an 8 Plus. Lol, it is a long story I’ve told elsewhere. Fortunately my husband and I are the kind to have our stuff together and we had Apple’s own clearly stated policies in our favor. Nevertheless, a store manager saw fit to try and throw enough contrived roadblocks up to drag out the process long enough to get across the message this was not an exchange their store would have made, if they had a leg to stand on in blocking it.
Nah. For me at least: form means nothing if I'm unhappy with the function, while I can become quite flexible & forgiving with the form if I'm happy with the function. The pre-2013 Apple "got" that mindset.
I’m into the 2013 and later mindset that Apple seems to have got that their customer base wanted. Function means nothing if I’m unhappy with the form.