That's what newspapers are for.
Seriously though, I agree 100%. Get the story out first is priority #1. Accuracy is prioritized far, far, far lower on the list.
I mean, you can always issue an "Updated:" 3 line blurb days later.
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 Said to Be Stopping Use of TLC NAND Flash in iPhone 6 and 6 Plus After Reported Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's what newspapers are for.
Seriously though, I agree 100%. Get the story out first is priority #1. Accuracy is prioritized far, far, far lower on the list.
I mean, you can always issue an "Updated:" 3 line blurb days later.
I know you're excited but you're using your battery case wrong.
You shouldn't leave it on all the time. You should leave it off until your battery hits around 20%. Then you should turn it on until you hit an 80% charge and turn it off again.
I have a 128gb 6+ and neither had boot loop issues on 8.1 or now 8.1.1, but I also have very few apps, if that indeed is an issue.
Not all the phones are experiencing these problems.
If they didn't recall the iPhone 4, they don't need to recall this.
New iPhone 6 128GB in transit to me so I guess that I'll be listening in to this thread...ugh
Don't worry so much about it. I have the 128 and have never seen a reboot or a crash.
I haven't had any issues, yet apparently, but I'm wondering: Are people that have been victimized by this getting new iPhones to replace their new iPhones, or are they getting 'new' iPhones that have been refurbished, or are seconds...
So this report says Apple chose to use memory that was cheaper and slower.
Now, after fault reports they are changing to the more expensive and faster memory they were using.
So why do people say Apple always uses the very best and highest quality components in their products.
This article says the exact opposite, they chose a slower form of memory because it was cheaper for them, and it's now turned out to be unreliable.
Makes you wonder if this was done with this part of this product, what are Apple now doing with components in other current products.
That's nice isn't it
Now, after fault reports they are changing to the more expensive and faster memory they were using.
So why do people say Apple always uses the very best and highest quality components in their products.
This article says the exact opposite, they chose a slower form of memory because it was cheaper for them, and it's now turned out to be unreliable.
Makes you wonder if this was done with this part of this product, what are Apple now doing with components in other current products.
That's nice isn't it
My iPhone 6 128Gb is working like a charm. Not a single reboot or crash.My 64GB 6 Plus and my daughters 64GB 6 have been great. Originally I read it was only 128GB 6 & 6 Plus.
If I experience this issue I'll just go to Genius Bar and get replaced. I'm sure it's only a small percentage, or we would already have "Flashgate" threads screaming Apple is going down, Blau, Blau, Blau........
If the problem was really widespread we would be having millions of complaints not one or two forum threads with thousands of posts (most likely from a group of hundreds of problematic devices that will get replaced).
Apple has a great warranty / replacement policy. If there are any problems in the future, I am sure I will be able to get a replacement.
There's no mention of Apple saying anything. Just "industry sources." Until Apple comes out with a statement, there's nothing to see here. Just speculation.
That said, if this is an issue that requires a change in type of NAND ssd's used, then how is a software fix going to resolve the issue? If it fixes it, then why not keep using the cheaper parts? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
That said, if this is an issue that requires a change in type of NAND ssd's used, then how is a software fix going to resolve the issue? If it fixes it, then why not keep using the cheaper parts? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
New iPhone 6 128GB in transit to me so I guess that I'll be listening in to this thread...ugh
Don't even bother opening it, just send it back to apple haha
My guess
Apple sources parts from various vendors. I really think it's a toss up about which memory is in which device. That's why they are offering walk-in replacements because they really don't know what memory is in your phone without doing an extensive serial number search.
Also, they might be walk-ins to avoid more bad press. I mean iPhone 4 Antennagate, iPhone 5 battery replacement / switch recalls, iPhone 6 plus Bendgate, and now a serious hardware issue with iPhone 6 / 6+. Doesn't look good.
Apple sources parts from various vendors. I really think it's a toss up about which memory is in which device. That's why they are offering walk-in replacements because they really don't know what memory is in your phone without doing an extensive serial number search.
Also, they might be walk-ins to avoid more bad press. I mean iPhone 4 Antennagate, iPhone 5 battery replacement / switch recalls, iPhone 6 plus Bendgate, and now a serious hardware issue with iPhone 6 / 6+. Doesn't look good.
Space gray 64gb 6, I have seen the blue screen once and the red screen once. I am jailbroken however, and not sure if I want to take this update and lose jailbreak as those two instances were shortly after I got the phone a week or two ago and it hasn't done it since.
It's more important to get the story out fast than to fact-check. Also it's fun to say "boot loops".
I have 128GB iPhone 6+, and I haven't experienced any boot loops. If I did, I would take it back to Apple and ask them to make it right. But since I'm not having problems, I won't go in and say I need a new iPhone because MacRumors says a Korean tech journal says "sources" say there's a problem.
So this report says Apple chose to use memory that was cheaper and slower.
Now, after fault reports they are changing to the more expensive and faster memory they were using.
So why do people say Apple always uses the very best and highest quality components in their products.
This article says the exact opposite, they chose a slower form of memory because it was cheaper for them, and it's now turned out to be unreliable.
Makes you wonder if this was done with this part of this product, what are Apple now doing with components in other current products.
That's nice isn't it
Because what they used was an in-house product. They own the manufacturer so they figured why not use it. It probably tickles a line or two on their balance sheet.
It sounds to me like that purchase was as well thought out as doing that sapphire deal in Arizona...
So should people that don't have an iPhone 6/6+ wait until the 6 and 6+ version 2 comes out? Just in case?
Someone who actually wanted the 128GB is glad you returned yours, so that they could have it.
Be honest, what does anyone expect Apple or ANY company to say?
"Yes, we decided to go with cheaper memory, it was a little slower, but we felt not enough for our type of customer to notice. Unfortunately it turns out this memory is not as reliable as we had hoped, so, we shall be returning to the higher quality faster memory we were using before"
If this was the truth, do you REALLY expect Apple would say this?
"Yes, we decided to go with cheaper memory, it was a little slower, but we felt not enough for our type of customer to notice. Unfortunately it turns out this memory is not as reliable as we had hoped, so, we shall be returning to the higher quality faster memory we were using before"
If this was the truth, do you REALLY expect Apple would say this?
Yes. If my 64gb 6 starts with the red and other screens of death, I'll make an appointment for a replacement. I am glad Apple is acting on this promptly and hopefully everyone affected will get their replacements tout suite.