This is the analogy I drive towards:
The battery of the i6-series is under-powered in support of the A8 instantaneous demands -- in the short to medium term -- a term much shorter than a reasonable lifecycle of such phone (three to four years).
The exact analogy of the Volvo alternator., above.
This is what I believe without proof.
Hopefully we will be able to learn from a discovery process due to these lawsuits, a discovery which digs into the emails of those in the know.
Maybe, or maybe not.
As someone with a rather technical background and lots of hands on with Lithium Batteries, also hobby related, i agree: the battery’s capacity is small. Too small to sustain with the power demands in the long run when the battery gets older. A battery of a nearly 900 - 1000 USD device (in most countries, outside the USA anyway) should be able to cope with the loads at least 2-3 years without problems.
And here is the thing: Apple has experience in designing mobile devices for more than a decade. Lithium Battery technology is not exactly new either. In literally every thread the Apple defense force here on MR would like you to believe that Apple has the best designers, the smartest managers, have the best experience for the customers in mind, etc.
So I want to ask: with the long experience in designing mobile electronic gadgets, inclusive lithium batteries, the world class designers can’t foresee how rather quickly the batteries will degrade - and therefore not being able to cope with the load demands?
We have been conditioned by Apple’s marketing that a device has to be thinner. Thin is hip, thin is a statement of a smart, clever and modern design. But of course, we all know that thin devices will have some compromises. Like for instance a rather small battery and we somehow accept it. We even joke sometimes about Jony Ive’s One-Trick-Pony approach to design. Only thin matters. We accept the compromises.
Now I throw you a curve ball: what if all the marketing emphasis on Thin Devices is nothing more than a deflection? What if the primary goal of a the late iPhones (under TC) was not designing a thin device in the first place, but rather a device with will degrade in a way that users have to upgrade after a (shorter than necessary) time in oder to keep the main income of Apple steady?
Engineers running parameters and conclude, a 2700 mAh battery (just an example) will be ok for 18 months and then degrade. TC gives his thumb up and tells Jony Ivy to dress it a up in a tight package. Schiller walks onto the stage: with 7 mm the device is 1 mm thinner than the previous generation. #Wow#. Discussions on MRs. Some people are afraid that device might be compromised because of its thinness - other posters point out, that the majority of customers prefer a thin design because bulkiness won’t sell (of course the same posters would have defended Apple, if they had launched an 8 mm device and critics would have demanded a 9 mm phone). And all the discussions deflect from the main aspect of the design: a design of planned obsolescence.
I know, my post won’t be liked by some. But that is how I see it. Battery diagnostic info removed from iOS. Check. Device throttles, because battery degrades after a while. Check. Customers complain to the Geniuses about a slow device? Genius tells customer, battery is fine. Check. Genius recommends to buy a new phone because it’s getting long in the tooth. Check.
Another curve ball: why is/was there no simple notification to the user, that the battery condition is bad instead of throttling? It would be so much easier to implement software wise!?
Hint: the normal customer would then ask for a replacement battery. And probably not ending up with a new phone. Probably Apple would even have to dish out batteries for free, due to warrenty claims.
To me it all falls in line with the glued soldered parts among various, if not all products. With the fact that Apples hires tons of lawyers to construct a company framework in order to avoid tax payments around the world. Not investing money into money into upgrading products which are only generating a relatively small portion of the over all profit (“ah, don’t bother upgrading a Mac Mini or a Mac Pro, it’s only a mere dent in our profit charts” - in reality to swap a few components like a new processor or graphic card would take a reasonable competent design team not a long time. After all, Apples uses standard PC processors from Intel - not Skynet). Letting legacy software rot or die, despite having almost a trillion of USD in off shore accounts around the world.
It’s all about the bottom line. Believe otherwise, if you wish.
29 USD for a battery replacement. LOL. Even with that Apple will have some profits. For the hardcore Apple defenders here, who want me to provide some numbers. No! I won’t give you any sources or links. Google and do some research of you dare. Hint: a ~3000 mAh Lithium battery can be purchased by
anyone for about 4 USD.
