211–220 of 878 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They said they wouldn't degrade the UX to drive upgrades but said nothing of other reasons to degrade the UX.
What other reasons could they have to degrade the UX that they should have reasonably disputed in this context?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This does nothing to compensate or win back the trust of customers like me. What is it that you want Apple to do to make you personally feel better?
How about be more open and acknowledge problems sooner? While Apple always eventually gets to the right response, they can sometimes take too long to do so. In the case of these iPhone batteries, I think Apple's response was relatively timely. But there have been cases where well known problems took over a year to acknowledge and remedy (like the early 2011 15" Macbook Pro GPU problems).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I think they're doing the right thing here. Most users shouldn't need to manage their battery performance actively at all. What's next? Users should manage their own RAM usage? Absolutely not. They're giving away batteries for free, and giving users more visibility into the health of their battery in an upcoming update. That's the right thing.
The batteries are not free. How about a user replaceable battery design?
> Apple is reducing the price of an out-of-warranty iPhone battery replacement by $50 — from $79 to $29... > Early in 2018, we will issue an iOS software update with new features that give users more visibility into the health of their iPhone’s battery, so they can see for themselves if its condition is affecting performance. There we go. It took too much trouble and too long for it to happen, but Apple is stepping u…
> It took too much trouble and too long for it to happen, but Apple is stepping up and doing the right thing. The right thing would have been for Apple to either stop this behaviour or give users the option (retain performance or retain battery life). They're doing neither.
This is an engineering issue on evaluating margins properly repackaged as “we’re improving battery life” to hide stability issue caused by bad assumptions on cpu stability across voltage ranges.
I think this is a good response, and I think a lot of the outrage over this issue is overblown. At the end of the day there's a fundamental tradeoff that Apple needs to make on behalf of their customers: performance or stability. They chose stability, and I think they have a convincing argument as to why: "It should go without saying that we think sudden, unexpected shutdowns are unacceptable. We don’t want any of ou…
It still sounds like a false dilemma to me. I've never had reboots on my Android phones because of battery problems. Maybe Apple just needs to buy better quality batteries? And perhaps higher capacity that are also capable of more charges before they lose too much of their original capacity?
Part of it has to do with how the battery has been treated. Wild swings in charge daily cause damage. Hot temperatures cause damage. I'd guess most iPhone owners have little to no damage. But for those who do, slowing the phone and giving a warning is a good alternative to shutting down.
Apple is in this situation because they've very invested in having the fastest mobile processor on paper. So you get a high performing part when your phone is new, and all the reviews and benchmarks are done with the high performing part, but after a while the battery can't handle it, so they're forced into these shenanigans.
It’s not like android phones are purposefully running with multi year old chips to avoid this issue. The high-end found they are all rush to have the newest chips as well. I’ll ignore the “on paper“ comment. It was totally unnecessary.
If that gain is indeed real, or mostly real, then the difference may be explained by the fact that Apple makes some compromises that other chip makers don't - such as increasing the boost performance of the chip more than the battery and the heat management can handle.
As for the "on paper" claim, I think it's justified, because largely we only know the Apple chips are "so much faster" from synthetic benchmarks. But in real world tests it doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The batteries are not free. How about a user replaceable battery design?
The trade-offs that come with that would completely destroy everything that makes iPhones great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I think they're doing the right thing here. Most users shouldn't need to manage their battery performance actively at all. What's next? Users should manage their own RAM usage? Absolutely not. They're giving away batteries for free, and giving users more visibility into the health of their battery in an upcoming update. That's the right thing.
So you think a Popup "Hey you're battery is going bad. Do you want to [keep the performance] or [save the battery life]?" Would be too much??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. I think they're doing the right thing here. Most users shouldn't need to manage their battery performance actively at all. What's next? Users should manage their own RAM usage? Absolutely not. They're giving away batteries for free, and giving users more visibility into the health of their battery in an upcoming update. That's the right thing.
So you think a Popup "Hey you're battery is going bad. Do you want to [keep the performance] or [save the battery life]?" Would be too much??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It took too much trouble and too long for it to happen, but Apple is stepping up and doing the right thing. The right thing would have been for Apple to either stop this behaviour or give users the option (retain performance or retain battery life). They're doing neither.
I don't think Apple would ever introduce a switch that could allow the phone to randomly power down.