Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which would have been admirable if Apple had offered it as an alternative to throttling rather than as damage control after the fact.
“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.

Although I believe the performance management introduced in iOS 10.2.1 was a beta and Apple wanted to see how it went before providing a toggle.
 
Last edited:
What an absolutely idiotic fine by France. The batteries were not capable of providing enough current to run the chip at the intended frequency, should Apple have let the phones crash? Explaining that to these French numbskulls is like teaching computer programming to cavemen.

Apple needs to pull out of France. Let them use typewriters. I have never seen a more ignorant, backward, nonsensical fine.
 
I like this comment form the Reddit discussion:

"This whole situation is ridiculous. Do we really except companies to have to explain low level hardware and software systems to layman consumers?
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…
It’s not like they tried to claim batteries don’t degrade, something a child should know. They just made a smart engineering decision.
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."
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
The batteries were not capable of providing enough current to run the chip at the intended frequency, should Apple have let the phones crash?
They simply should have informed customers that a new battery could speed up their phone. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ipponrg
I was lucky that my 6S was affected by this issue before Apple got caught by the benchmark data and my device still had warranty and I eventually got it replaced after some rebust conversations with a Genius:

My battery still had 93 % of its design capacity (150 cycles) and Apple's diagnostic tools showed "nothing wrong". I wasn't quite happy with that and then I made numerous logged battery endurance tests that showed how the device suddenly shut down at around 20 % remaining charge in a room with 21°C.

I cannot understand people defending Apple on this issue.

- It is known that Li-Po batteries lose performance as they age.

- 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.
 
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…

Except in your analogy, the car manufacturer didn’t suggest that you buy a new car, instead of replacing the lighter.

It’s not like they tried to claim batteries don’t degrade, something a child should know. They just made a smart engineering decision.
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.

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."
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.
[automerge]1581174679[/automerge]
Explaining that to these French numbskulls is like teaching computer programming to cavemen.
More like explaining ethics and consumer rights to computer programmers...
 
Last edited:
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 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.
 
...
- 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.
I’m sure Apple did oversize the battery. However, things happen as in the Samsung note 7 incident. Was that a poor design choice?
[automerge]1581175244[/automerge]
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.
The way this is written it’s as if a lone engineer made a unilateral decision.

I don’t believe that is how large companies work in general, there are exceptions.
 
Last edited:
I’m sure Apple did oversize the battery. However, things happen as in the Samsung note 7 incident. Was that a poor design choice?

...yes?!

(Samsung took a battery that was too large for the phone chassis so there wasn't any room inside for it to expand (and contract) so the battery damaged itself and sometimes that was really bad)

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrincePoppycock
True and well-said.
Not true at all. Apple were advising people to buy new phones when only the battery needed replacing.
How do people, (especially regular forum users like you), not know this with the coverage it received?
[automerge]1581191662[/automerge]
France is a bankrupt who needs money. Trump should impose customs duties on French goods for $ 25 million
Yes. That’s what they need. A $25M cash injection to get the country back into profit.
They now have the biggest cash reserves of any country in the cosmos.
[automerge]1581191789[/automerge]
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.
No. They used it as a money grab and encouraged their customers to buy new phones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mi7chy
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.
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 Apple as a premium brand carries a somewhat implicit warranty. Meaning their products generally use quality components and generally are let's say in the upper third when it comes to reliability. Thus, eventually, public pressure and Apple decided that those batteries were subpar in their performance and therefore Apple would replace them for a much-reduced fee.

But there is a difference between a recall and an extended warranty. The iPhone 6 has a perfectly working battery for the first one to two years. That doesn't require a recall, it required a warranty extension for the battery (which Apple mostly did by cutting the price for the battery replacement by about two-thirds).

(*) It varied, but let's say the battery had 90% nominal capacity but because it shut down at around 30%, the defacto battery life was down to 60%).
[automerge]1581194402[/automerge]
Not true at all. Apple were advising people to buy new phones when only the battery needed replacing.
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?

Apple didn't design this flaw so it could sell more new phones. They didn't design the patch (that slowed down phones) to sell more new phones. They were slow to admit the flaw, as most companies are because they didn't want to have to exchange a whole lot of batteries for free.

There is an advantage in Apple owning the whole stack from product to retail to repair. But it creates conflicts of interest when retail has the incentive to sell new product while the brand owner has an interest in maintaining a brand image (that sometimes might mean extending warranties, like they now did with the laptop keyboards as well).
 
Last edited:
I thought what Apple did was actually a good thing!

It's not what they did that was the problem, it was how they did it. All they really needed to do was put a warning in about what was happening and that they may need to replace the battery... but then that wouldn't have generated a sale of a new iphone from people who simply thought their phone was getting too old for the new OS's being released rather than it just needing a new battery.
 
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.

If an individual can plan something 1-2 or 50 years in the future (retirement) it is not at all unreasonable or biased to believe that the most successful corporation on planet Earth can plan something as trivial as this. And by "plan" I don't mean to the minute details, but simple scenarios and possible outcomes can be drawn quite early.
The 6 series was no accident in any way. What I mean:
- it was the first real design change in years. Actually philosophy change not even simple design (think the sizing and where Samsung was pushing the market);
- a huge upgrade cycle was a sure thing;
- aluminium alloy used and then "solved" in 6S was another "unfortunate" accident. I like to call it planned obsolescence;
- 1 GB of RAM was an obvious hindrance for future updates (have you run iOS 11-12 on a 6 Plus even with battery exchanged?)

Especially the RAM thing I knew perfectly well what it would mean for my user experience in the future, and yet I still bought in. Not because Apple does exquisite products, but simply because the rest is huge pile of complacent crap.

With regards to the psychology observation, what you call as me being biased, I can just as easily call as you being in denial, refusing to acknowledge the cold reality. We still need both approaches though, to make progress.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.