Which wouldn't have made sense for a mobile phone, unless we are talking about something the size of an iPad mini. Seems like that would be a "design flaw".
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 Replaced 11 Million iPhone Batteries in 2018, Up From 1 to 2 Million
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
please. there are plenty of similar sized devices to the iphone that rock much larger batteries than Apple was using.
the most notably affected was the iPhone 6. which shiped with a 1810mAh Battery. the iPhone 6 and the Galaxy S6 for example were nearly identical devices in size and thickness. The S6 managed 2,550mAh.
Apple could have managed to do what their competitors did and get a bigger battery in the iPhone 6 and 6s. But they decided to keep similar sizing to the previous generation of devices, despite the increased power draw due to larger and more powerful CPU's.
that's a design flaw. by ANY definition. even if Apple didn't put the largest possible battery they could fit, they could, and SHOULD have provided something that at least was specced correctly so that the CPU wasn't forcing the device to shut down in < 2 years of ownership of a device.
Would that battery be enough? Seems like it would have to be larger than something like that too based on some past discussions about that kind of thing.
What they probably could have done is basically slow down the CPU, which is in a sense is what they ended up doing afterwards. Seems like there would be a flaw of one sort or another somewhere no matter what. That said, all of it certainly could have and should have been handled better by Apple no matter which way they would have ended up going.
yup, that's my mindset on that overalll. Flaws happen. But as soon as Apple identified a design flaw, they should have publicly opened up the battery replacement plan on day 1, and informed people in plain language in an obvious method that there is a known issue with the device and to bring it in to Apple for recall to replace the battery.
It's not the technical issue that's the problem. it's the lack of transparenc and HOW Apple obfuscated the issue, with held information for almost a year and was caught misleading and lying about what they were doing and why.
As I said previously, I'm going to follow the simple answer, and that is Apple just goofed on the batteries and didn't plan them right. it happens. it's just Apple's business ethics in how they handle things that rubs me the wrong way. I'm not willing to believe this design flaw was intentional to shorten the lifespan of devices. if that were true, I believe the throttling software would have been already implemented on day 1 of these devices, not a year later when they actually realized the design flaw. I'd have to see some overwhelming evidence of planned obsolescance before I believe that.
But at the same time, I have to wonder just what else are they obfuscating from us that we just haven't caught yet? Because Apple's executive have clearly shown they are willing to lie or lie by ommision to further their marketing.
as for "is the bigger battery enough?" Maybe? maybe not. It can't be any worse than the situation they already are in can it?
Oh I see. So Android manufacturers can make phones with 2500+ mAh battery without being the size of the ipad mini. Apple was not capable of doing the same because they lacked innovation / the engineering so they stuck an approx 1800 mAh battery. Got it. Glad they finally caught up somewhat.
Okay so a design flaw bring the cpu was designed to draw too much power. As long as we establish it was a design flaw.
If something being too powerful can be seen that way. If it's then throttled some will also see it as a flaw where they are paying for something that they can't take full advantage of. As mentioned, there would be a "flaw" of one type or another either way essentially.
Last edited:
Better to be upfront - like the CPUs that came with K and no-K labels.
Apple is not supposed to be like the sleazy ISPs (AT&T, Comcast) in its business model.
It didn’t. You expect the average customer to understand their technical jargon?
The cheap batteries were them saving face after getting caught red handed and being sued worldwide to oblivion and back.
There is no drop in hirings. There’s only hiring less associates than planned, which is not a “drop”. As far as sales, the battery had little to do with the drop in guidance. Apples website has a complete story.
No. There is no contradiction. You can’t have a drop from something that never occurred.
Tim Cook was suggested a complete hiring freeze but that would be too embarrassing and hence now it’s reduced hirings. This isn’t looking good for iphone sales.
Tim Cook himself said that batteries were one of the reasons for reduced sales. iOS 12 was also one of the reasons people didn’t upgrade to newer devices. Conversely this means before iOS 12 and the obsolescence patch those iPhone upgrades were partly because of a slower iPhone due to iOS performance degradation and performance throttling.
Yes, that is the definition of what a drop is when referring to hiring. It means you hire less than planned.
Did you misinterpret a drop as a complete freeze?
It’s not a drop because apple the new hires were forecast. It is fair to say Apple is hiring less than they forecast.
[doublepost=1547813805][/doublepost]
You’ve said that before and apple has come back with record breaking revenues.
Citing a reason doesn’t mean it’s the SOLE reason. Details are on Apple website about the revised forecast.
But kudos to Apple, IMO, they accrued much good will, which will come back to increase their bottom line.
Yes, your second sentence is fine. No one said it was wrong. The first sentence is also fair because a drop in hiring means you are hiring less at your current/future rate. Both are used in the real world. The former is a public facing phrase, and the latter is direct.
Here is a snippet at how people interpret a reduction in hiring:
“The sources told Bloomberg that CEO Tim Cook told employees about the slowdown a day after he sent a letter to investors warning of lackluster sales, particularly in China. Cook has not yet decided which divisions would be affected by the hiring drop-off, Bloomberg reported.”
Or, even simpler, a full freeze simply wasn't something that is needed (and quite possibly even make things worse rather than help, in an overall sense).
[doublepost=1547823770][/doublepost]
Seems like the underlying aspect of it all is that a "drop in hiring" would usually bring to mind hiring less than currently or before vs. slowing down the process and not hiring as many as once was planned (but could still be even more than currently or before).
We already know the answer to that. Buy a new phone. It wasn't until they were called out that owners had no choice.
So then Apple not doing their performance management would have resulted in people getting more new phones. Doesn't seem to follow then that they would implement this power management to get people to buy new phones when they would do that anyway without Apple doing anything.
