Which would have been admirable if Apple had offered it as an alternative to throttling rather than as damage control after the fact.Hence the $29 battery replacement program.
Which would have been admirable if Apple had offered it as an alternative to throttling rather than as damage control after the fact.Hence the $29 battery replacement program.
“Throttling” isn’t going away and is here to stay. Apple should have offered the toggle for full performance and phone go dead or reduced performance and phone stays awake, at the outset.Which would have been admirable if Apple had offered it as an alternative to throttling rather than as damage control after the fact.
No, I’m just making a fine difference between actively setting policies after the problem became widespread (the policy was set much earlier) and dragging their feet in reacting to the problem.You’re ignoring an important detail. Apple had already identified the cause of the device shutdowns as being related to the battery health. They understood the relationship and had a good idea of which batteries would be susceptible. Knowing this, they should have informed their geniuses to disregard the pass/fail result of the test and recommend a replacement battery if the charge cycles were high.
They simply should have informed customers that a new battery could speed up their phone. Nothing more, nothing less.The batteries were not capable of providing enough current to run the chip at the intended frequency, should Apple have let the phones crash?
This is children screaming that the cigarette lighter in the car pops out after a while because they rather it keeps being hot even if the car starts running a higher and higher risk of catching fire…
Even when someone suspected the battery, Apple refused to sell battery replacements for out-of-warranty devices—the very devices whose batteries were older. Worst, their diagnostic test declared those batteries were good in their opinion.It’s not like they tried to claim batteries don’t degrade, something a child should know. They just made a smart engineering decision.
Yes, it could have! That’s the obvious solution! But it’s also obvious that Apple wanted to avoid replacing batteries in older devices. Yet they will gladly give you a credit for your old device, then change its battery and sell it to aftermarket resellers.This whole thing could have been 'Apple can you add an indicator to tell us when to get a new battery?' and it would have been over."
More like explaining ethics and consumer rights to computer programmers...Explaining that to these French numbskulls is like teaching computer programming to cavemen.
Should be 10 times that amount. They went all cloak and dagger about it. If it was an innocent move in the best interests of the customer they would have been up front.
same goes for any other company involved in the smart phone version of VWgate.
I’m sure Apple did oversize the battery. However, things happen as in the Samsung note 7 incident. Was that a poor design choice?...
- A properly designed device should have a larger than "needed" battery so that it's also capable of powering the device without any issues in a slightly degraded state.
- Anything else is a manufacturing defect due to poor design choices.
The way this is written it’s as if a lone engineer made a unilateral decision.I don't think you understand how larger companies work...snip...Engineer fixed it by throttling phones that have experienced said shutdown to ensure that the phone at least kept working. Issue is pushed to an update. Probably no additional thought went into it until someone discovered it and got pissed off.
I’m sure Apple did oversize the battery. However, things happen as in the Samsung note 7 incident. Was that a poor design choice?
No. m0sher did not. Probably won’t even now either.Did you even read / know what the article is about?
Not true at all. Apple were advising people to buy new phones when only the battery needed replacing.True and well-said.
Yes. That’s what they need. A $25M cash injection to get the country back into profit.France is a bankrupt who needs money. Trump should impose customs duties on French goods for $ 25 million
No. They used it as a money grab and encouraged their customers to buy new phones.I don't think you understand how larger companies work. What likely happened is a Defect was logged that indicated people's phones were shutting down unexpectedly. After testing it was determined that an older battery could not sustain the load that a newer battery could. Engineer fixed it by throttling phones that have experienced said shutdown to ensure that the phone at least kept working. Issue is pushed to an update. Probably no additional thought went into it until someone discovered it and got pissed off. Many many many bugs are addressed this way. This one just had the side effect of pissing off customers despite it actually benefitting the user of the phone to throttle it in this case. So I wouldn't say they went cloak and dagger, just that it wasn't thought about until people got upset. I do agree that it should have been disclosed and at a minimum gave you a notification that your battery is nearing the end of its life and needs to be changed as well as mentioning that the phone has been throttled to avoid future unexpected shutdowns.
Makes for good internet hyperbole but one can’t prove that was the ultimate motive....No. They used it as a money grab and encouraged their customers to buy new phones.
The underlying issue was that these batteries dropped below maybe 60% (*) effective capacity after two years for typical users. Whereas in almost all other phones the 60% level might only be reached after maybe 3.5 years. Now, should batteries come with a sort of warranty that guarantees 80% capacity for up to 500 cycles? Maybe, but I'm not sure other consumer devices come with such a warranty.But just because the 6Ses didn't explode doesn't mean that this wasn't also a poor design choice that should have resulted in a free recall of the affected models. But Apple didn't issue such a recall and only admitted to it after a consumer found out about it with benchmarks.
Can you name me any retail brand that wouldn't try to steer people into buying new products instead of repairing/patching up the things the customer already has?Not true at all. Apple were advising people to buy new phones when only the battery needed replacing.
Thanks! I appreciate it!
I thought what Apple did was actually a good thing!
Do you really think Apple had that planned out when they designed the iPhone 6 but then only implemented the solution years later after it had caught flak for iPhones shutting down suddenly?
I know that for some people, anything going wrong must be doing so on purpose and was long planned in advance because the thought that **** just happens is too disturbing. Neuroscience/psychology might be able to explain why (some) brains are wired that way. But luckily, most people are self-conscious enough to correct for any such biological biases and have a more realistic view of real life.
Which in this case was that Apple both underestimated how 'fast' the ageing process of the batteries would get us to this sudden death situation (which includes underestimating the load the presumably quick power scale-up the A8 had on the battery) AND quite possibly also deliberately reduced the safety margin to some degree during the design phase.