<...snip>
Consider electric vehicles for a moment:
Let's say you buy an electric vehicle and then after the battery is say 3 years old or 80% of the capacity, the car reduces the top speed to 45 MPH no matter how charged the battery is.
<snip...>
No no no -
it would be like designing the vehicle software so the car could no longer accelerate as fast (because you really don't want the car to shut down in the middle of that acceleration).
The phone can still do everything it could do before, it just can't push the CPU full-tilt, because the battery isn't capable of drawing sufficient current. In your example, the acceleration would be dependent on current, not the top speed.
So I have a few questions (truly trying to understand whether I am not interpreting the information available...)
Firstly - If Apple had positioned the phone as having a base CPU speed of 600-800MHz, but that "under certain conditions" it could turbo to 1.2-1.4GHz, it would be basically the same thing. Nonetheless, would this have been a more acceptable situation to the general public? (assume that this was done equally for the last several generations, so there would still have been the gradual increase in clock speed that we have seen).
Second question - How long did people typically keep using a phone 5 yrs ago?
Keep in mind that Apple has several generations of devices already in the works, and likely is building the OS upgrades at least somewhat in parallel. This means that when they made a decision to throttle, it would have been made at least a year before the 6s came out, meaning at least 3 yrs ago. In order to establish how long people had been keeping their phones, they would have been looking at the longevity of phones from at least three years before that (assuming that people keep their phones for two years, with a standard deviation of 1 yr, they may have had to look at data regarding phones as far back as the 4s, likely even the 4 or 3G). The longevity of those phones was very different from the more recent ones.
Third question - Some people have suggested that this was an intentional act by Apple to push people to buy new phones. Would Apple really do something like that while concurrently continuing to design the OS to work on the older phones? (Note that I'm not suggesting that iOS works well on old phones, just that this is being touted as one of the benefits of being on iOS)
For what it's worth, my suspicion is that this was done in a misguided attempt to prolong the life of the phones, as they had been pushing the CPU speeds (as demanded by the public) and the battery (or technology) could not keep up. The biggest problem is how Apple has handled the situation - they can no longer rely on the Steve Jobs "Reality Distortion Field" to bail them out. Apple is going to have to either find someone else who can spin like Steve did, or they are going to have to change their approach to transparency.
[doublepost=1515034006][/doublepost]
This basically confirms what I always try to tell people. Apple are the biggest ripoff artists out there. The fact they can cut the price from $79 to $29 is very telling about how Apple rips people off so bad they don't even know it. People are fooled into thinking Apple charges fairly for their products. I'm always on here telling you otherwise, yet still get lambasted by lots of other people.
The profit margin that Apple has typically charged is public knowledge.
If people are "fooled" then they have made a conscious decision to ignore the data available.
The bigger question is what the device is worth to YOU (as in, the user purchasing the device).
If it is worth the $1000 price, either immediately or over the usage lifespan of the device, then it is a worthwhile purchase. If you derive less than the sticker price in real or perceived value, then it is a bad purchase, no matter what that sticker price is.
In case I'm not explaining it properly, here's an analogy. I may be able to purchase a Mac truck for $20K, but if I have no use for it, nor any way to profit from it otherwise, then it still isn't a good deal (though my truck-driving patients might argue that it's a steal in their eyes.)
[doublepost=1515034568][/doublepost]
Funny you think a lawsuit claiming for $999B should even be taken seriously. Look up any company's pending lawsuits. They are being sued all the time.
Apple isn't worried about class action. They rarely go anywhere. Here are the biggest class actions of all time.
- Enron Securities Class Action (2006): $7.2 Billion. ...
- WorldCom Securities Class Action (2005): $6.2 Billion. ...
- Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation (2001): $5 Billion.
Even Exxon Valdez only cost $5B and on appeal was reduced to $500M....Enron/WorldCom defrauded investors out of billions.
Apple is going to make $20B in profit this quarter and has $270B in cash.
Apple will do what it has to in order to weather the storm. The current legal and economic climate in the US, and several other countries, lean towards the benefits of the corporations over the individuals, so even if a lawsuit were to make it to trial, it is highly unlikely that it would be successful unless there was evidence of actual intent (and assuming that Apple's legal army didn't find a way to stall, obfuscate, deflect, or otherwise make the suit moot). And then, even a massive payout sustained after appeal is unlikely to be more then $15B. This is barely two months profits currently (likely to be even less than two months by the time any of this ends, given historical growth). It represents barely 6% of their current cash on hand - companies this large see these types of numbers as costs of doing business. Wall Street certainly hasn't considered this an issue, as the stock has continued its climb without even a hiccup.
[doublepost=1515034610][/doublepost]
It's surprising how no other portable device ever has had this problem. Not Androids, Samsung, or even iPads.
Are you sure about this?
I have colleagues with relatively current (less than 18 month old) Android phones who will often have their phones lock up or reboot or just shut down, seemingly randomly. I don't have data to prove either side, but it seems to me that it is plausible this is the same issue, just that Google hasn't addressed it or tried to mitigate it in any way.