If my car battery was still delivering 80% of rated current I'd say it was still usable. When it was truly worn out I still wouldn't expect it to drastically reduce engine power.
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.
Other Apple is slowing down older iPhones based on battery wear level [MERGED]
- Thread starter IsaacM
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If my car battery was still delivering 80% of rated current I'd say it was still usable. When it was truly worn out I still wouldn't expect it to drastically reduce engine power.
Increasing the longevity of iphones (and the amount of runtime that one gets from the battery) sounds like exactly the opposite of planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence would be DECREASING the runtime and finding nefarious ways to randomly slow down various aspects of the iphone interface.
A more apt analogy would be the anti-knock sensors on most modern cars that throttle engine power with sub-standard or lower octane gasoline.
Good question. What are electric car manufacturers doing? Notwithstanding the fact that electric cars pose a potential safety concern that phones don't.
That's done to prevent damage, not increase efficiency. And even then the power reduction is much smaller than what we're talking about here.
[doublepost=1513395825][/doublepost]
What is the typical percentage of rated mah at that voltage level?
[doublepost=1513396738][/doublepost]I wonder how MacBook users would feel if Apple cut performance based on some battery degradation.
And didn't disclose it.
And didn't allow an override.
And they wouldn't replace the battery.
And it couldn't be addressed by plugging in.
Well, for combustion engines the analogy wouldn't really work that well given that the battery performs somewhat different functions.
Apple will do nothing for you if their test puts you above 80% capacity.
[doublepost=1513414854][/doublepost]
This is a crappy way to treat their customers, but we knew this would happen.
My 7+ battery is 13 months old, and I'm at 97% capacity. Your 10 month old battery was at 86% capacity and that's a huge drop in capacity over such a short time. Yours should have been deemed defective at the store with it being so new.
If your phone was 20-24 months old and hit 86% that would have been more normal, but they still would do nothing about it, and most iPhones won't drop below 80% until the 2 year AppleCare+ runs out. Out of the last 20-25 iPhones our family has had, at least 10-12 of them needed a battery in under 2 years, and Apple has maybe replaced only 2-3 of them under our extended AppleCare plan.
We tend to keep and hand down phones in the family (between the 5 of us), and someone we'll always have an old iPhone that's needed a battery at 2 years, but Apple wouldn't budge because our battery was just over the 80% mark at the end of AppleCare. Paying for the new battery in a 2 year old iPhone always gets us at least 1 more year of usage out of the iPhone, until further iOS updates turn it into garbage after 3-4 years.
So, by my calculations, at least half of the time we have an iPhone that needs a new battery just before the 2 years is up, and about 75% of the time we've had to pay for for that new battery during the 2 years of AppleCare because it wasn't bad enough for Apple to replace under warranty.
[doublepost=1513415207][/doublepost]
A good analogy might be, if it was delivering 80% of it's original power before the end of the 60K drivetrain warranty, and the car dealership would do nothing about it, would you be upset?
Maybe as compression leak down tests show a drop after 120-160K miles, it's expected to be down on power, but not while still under warranty.
[doublepost=1513415316][/doublepost]
Decreasing performance with aging batteries to extend runtime, while not optimizing the latest iOS to allow for a responsive 2-3 year old phone (even with a new battery replacement), is the opposite of what you state - and that's what's happening.
Last edited:
My iPad Air 2 is at 91% wear and has none of this downclocking. So this voltage problem isn’t it.
-Battery was defective
-Battery wears down at an accelerated rate
-As the battery wears the phone slows down to the point the 6s scores lower than a 6 and the iPhone 7 starts scoring like a 6s
-Customer is asked to pay for a new battery after tolerating this slowdown for months and having a defective battery in the first place. I have no doubt there are also many customers who bought a new iPhone oblivious to this issue. Is this how Apple gets its record profits?
There is so much wrong with all of this I don’t know where to begin.
[doublepost=1513425036][/doublepost]
I think Apple’s going to have to pull a Note 7 before they decide to focus on their batteries. I haven’t had a good experience with them in the past. I can confidently say Samsung now have the best battery testing in the industry. Retains 95% charge after 2 years. And looks what Apple is doing with defective batteries.
Last edited:
It seems I am affected! FFS!! iPhone 6s 32GB just and I mean just passed the 1 year warranty.
Edit: added screen shot above 50% so the lower score is below 50% the higher score is above 50%. Battery wear level is at 91% as of yesterday.
Edit: added screen shot above 50% so the lower score is below 50% the higher score is above 50%. Battery wear level is at 91% as of yesterday.
Attachments
Last edited:
Understandably. Because you believe it to be fact without proof. Seems like it’s not really the case for everybody; eg me whose battery was replaced and whose phone didn’t slow down.
[doublepost=1513432297][/doublepost]
It’s easy to refute a general statement like this. My 4 year 5s is running great on 11.2.5 b1. Seems like Apple did a bunch to optimize old devices. Increasing runtime through advanced power management does not sound anywhere near p/o.
It’s easy to refute a general statement like this. My 4 year 5s is running great on 11.2.5 b1. Seems like Apple did a bunch to optimize old devices. Increasing runtime through advanced power management does not sound anywhere near p/o.[/QUOTE]
No wonder you do not notice that the phone is slow because 5s are not affected by these issues. From the Reddit from he who started the thread there:
"Apparently no one with a 5S has been affected here so far. Not sure why. I also found out a bit more about why this happens. Let me explain: Many people might remember that iPhone 6S battery fiasco, which for many, was fixed with iOS 10.2.1, and that seemed to be the end of it. Apparently, the way it did this is by dynamically changing the maximum clock speed relative to the voltage that the battery is outputting, so that your phone can’t draw too much power and shut down. I also don’t know for certain, but I believe that the iPhone 7 and up are not affected by this nearly as much, since the A10 and A11 chips have separate “low power” cores that apparently run at around 1/5th of the power of the main cores, and will use those as often as possible, and only kick in the fast cores when necessary, meaning you should only see slowdowns for more intensive tasks on the 7 and up, since only one set of cores can be running at once."
No wonder you do not notice that the phone is slow because 5s are not affected by these issues. From the Reddit from he who started the thread there:
"Apparently no one with a 5S has been affected here so far. Not sure why. I also found out a bit more about why this happens. Let me explain: Many people might remember that iPhone 6S battery fiasco, which for many, was fixed with iOS 10.2.1, and that seemed to be the end of it. Apparently, the way it did this is by dynamically changing the maximum clock speed relative to the voltage that the battery is outputting, so that your phone can’t draw too much power and shut down. I also don’t know for certain, but I believe that the iPhone 7 and up are not affected by this nearly as much, since the A10 and A11 chips have separate “low power” cores that apparently run at around 1/5th of the power of the main cores, and will use those as often as possible, and only kick in the fast cores when necessary, meaning you should only see slowdowns for more intensive tasks on the 7 and up, since only one set of cores can be running at once."
Last edited:
That’s a bummer. Can you bring it to an Apple Store and see if they resolve it for you?
[doublepost=1513436169][/doublepost]
Hahahahaha. Runtime is being increased by turning a 6s into an iPhone 6. What’s next? Apple will make my iPhone 7 perform like a 5s to make it last 2 days. That’s just hilarious.
Lol, Sure the choice between a dead un throttled phone or live slower phone seems clear to me no matter how much attempt is made to make this something it’s not.
Dead phone? Exaggeration much? The battery wear isn’t really that bad. Users with 80-90% battery actually pass Apple’s diagnostics which means the battery degradation isn’t noticeable. These phones are being throttled to previous Gen speeds.
No exaggeration much from this end, why would you’ve even suggest that. I’ve seen evidence of exaggeration with the alleged home button delay though.
In any case, the story is popular on the facebook page for ANONYMOUS, with 9,793 shares and with many interesting comments from people who have worked in the industry, some pretty shocking.
I have solved my problem of home button delay. In fact getting a X has made the problem seem worse as the X is instant response while the 7 Plus Home button seems like an old lady crossing the street in comparison.
So let’s get this straight. You are telling me that when my 7 Plus or X reaches 91% wear in a some months, it’s perfectly normal to throttle my iPhone to iPhone 6 speeds and Apple is in the right on this?
[doublepost=1513437726][/doublepost]
Hopefully it gains enough traction for Apple to respond but they likely won't. Don't want this to affect their bottom line.
We should all be happy we all have what we want from our iphones. Instant response.
I'm not telling you anything. I'm not privy to the power management algorithms. You are the one forming a conclusion with inconclusive data.
Right. Profits and stock price first. That's how apple got to be almost a trillion dollar company, because they are a profits first organization. They make it look easy, it leaves one wondering why all companies don't follow this type of management. /s
If it doesn't affect the vast majority of people, it's not a real issue.
If it's a stranger making a complaint with proof and subsequently others voiced out with similar issue, it's not a real issue. Because this amounts to just 5 out of millions of Apple customers.
If people can't be bothered to put hours into gathering stats to prove his point, it's not a real issue. Because let's face it, all real issue needs hard cold stats.
And because my 5s is running just fine, this serves as a proof that any complaint about Apple slowing down old device is non-sense.
There. I win.
There are people who believe in the Loch Ness monster also. People can believe what the want and form any opinion. This is my opinion.
But you still win.
Nearest Apple Store is about 3 hours away, I don't really want to take the chance driving there and be denied (as my battery wear level is still at 91%)
I am due for an upgrade next month, however as much as I like iPhones it's quite possibly going to be a pixel I get it's unfortunate.
Another reason I don't want to go to the Apple Store is giving them more money for a phone that's less than 1 year 1 month old! Considering here in Canada we usually are stuck with 2 year terms.
Maybe I'll just order an ifixit battery and see how it goes as the battery replacement cost is $99 plus 15% tax here, I can get an ifixit battery for 32.99$ free shipping.
There are people who believe in the Loch Ness monster also. People can believe what the want and form any opinion. This is my opinion.
But you still win.
People can believe what they want and form any opinion....
Speak for yourself.
A win for me is a win for you. You know that right?
[doublepost=1513442410][/doublepost]
I7Guy - Don't you patronize me with your 'Like'!!
Last edited:
It’s entirely possible you’re right, but your data point itself does not necessarily prove anything. The battery design of an iPad is somewhat different from that of an iPhone, and there may be some design issues with the batteries for specific devices which make them more unstable as they deteriorate.
This theory specifically comes from the fact that some devices were previously experiencing hard crashes as the batteries aged, and the same update which introduced the slowdown apparently solved those crashes (to be clear I have no first hand experience with this, just got it from reading this and other threads).
I agree that the practice as it exists is not acceptable. Either the batteries in question have a design/manufacturing fault, in which case Apple should be replacing them for free as they deteriorate, or this was seen as a convenient way to kill two birds — solve the crashing issues AND promote device upgrades in a market where upgrades are becoming less frequent.
Either way, it’s shady at best.