Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 878 posts

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#521

Post by baddox »

netsharc wrote: post #48
leadingthenet wrote: post #11

Reducing the battery replacement by $50 is a great move. While I think this is a completely manufactured scandal, this will definitely take away the last argument people have against them. I'm sure some people will still hate them for something, though.

I like this comment referring to someone else's (Linus Sebastian of Linus Tech Tips) opinion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16013565 How is it "completely manufactured"? Apple programmed (and hid) the slowdown because it knows the batteries it is shipping with its phones won't last more than a year. Linus compared it to a car performing worse after 1 year of usage..

Do you have any evidence that this much battery degradation would happen after just one year? I highly doubt that, unless the battery was very heavily used or was exposed to extreme temperatures.

The car analogy is not great. First off, new cars cost way more than phones, and are built out of very different types of components. Secondly, cars absolutely need maintenance, and generally more than $29 a year.

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#522

Post by greedo »

reaperducer wrote: post #203
ClassyJacket wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a battery expert, but it needs to be pointed out that other smartphone manufacturers do not have this problem. It was Apple specific - it's not as if every device with a lithium battery shuts off at 40%. So it still feels like they're doing it to mitigate a fault with the device, and should've been more transparent about that in the first place.

> it's not as if every device with a lithium battery shuts off at 40% Nexus 6P.

https://plus.google.com/+YgorCortes/posts/CZ2GhoxgHk3

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#523

Post by lettergram »

greedo wrote: post #512
krutzger wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Apple hadn’t made this change those phones would have randomly turned off instead. Why is apple the only company with this problem?

The Nexus has the same throttling: https://plus.google.com/+YgorCortes/posts/CZ2GhoxgHk3

You have sure done a lot of these posts...

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=cz2ghoxghk3&sort=byPopularity&...

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#524

Post by dionidium »

user5994461 wrote: post #438
rflrob wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also an alternate spelling for libricous, which dictionary.com defines as: adjective 1. (of a surface, coating, etc.) having an oily smoothness; slippery. 2. unstable; shifty; fleeting. So "shifty" could be what they were going for, but my sense of the other two words in definition 2 suggests that it's not quite accurate to use that sense of shifty.

The intended word was probably "ludicrous".

I doubt it. He's using it to mean "slippery" or "shifty." It's not a great use of the word, but that's probably the intention.

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#525

Post by smarks »

lostlogin wrote: post #265
spondyl wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently it's a real word! Here's the excerpt from dictionary.com ------ lubricious [loo-brish-uh s] adjective arousing or expressive of sexual desire; lustful; lecherous ------ It kinda defeats the purpose of using the word if no one else understands what it means :)

Sexualising battery replacement schemes needs to stop.

Rule 34 cannot be stopped.

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#526

Post by tesseract »

plushpuffin wrote: post #419
jachee wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have you seen iPhones "billed as … long-lasting"? I'm tuned into the Apple ecosystem and I've seen "powerful", "magical", and water-resistant, but I can't recall ever seeing the devices advertised as either long-lasting, or affordable.

From the article: > We’ve always wanted our customers to be able to use their iPhones as long as possible. We’re proud that Apple products are known for their durability, and for holding their value longer than our competitors’ devices. From their website, linked from the product page: https://www.apple.com/batteries/why-lithium-ion/ Your Apple lithium-ion battery uses fast charging to quickly reach 80% of its capaci…

For what it's worth, both the charging methodology and the longevity metric they describe are industry standard. The fact that would actually be interesting to know is the precise number of charge cycles they target for 80% capacity, but of course that isn't disclosed. So that website may sound impressive on first glance but they aren't actually claiming better durability (in the sense of battery longevity) than the competition.

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#527

Post by dionidium »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #455
jmull wrote: post #115

> 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…

I'd like to see them and everyone else reintroduce removable batteries. If you're "in the field" all day, it's very convenient to have a second battery to swap out and those external battery powered chargers can be just as inconvenient as being tethered to an outlet.

On the other hand, I'm glad they don't. I work at a desk, not "in the field." I don't want Apple to do anything to make the phone less attractive. I'll just plug it in.

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#528

Post by freedomben »

gordyf wrote: post #414
freedomben wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the opposition to giving the customer a choice. If they prefer a crashing but faster phone, what do you or Apple care? The default setting can be to slow down, then if someone cares enough they can change it. This seems not only reasonable, but optimal. But then again, I'm on Android now precisely because of this attitude of hiding information and configuration abilities (I hate paternalism), so I'…

You really want Apple to put a “Crash: on/off” checkbox in Settings?

Lol yes, it should totally say "crash" and then "true/false". In fact the user should have to type the string "true" or "false" in a text box rather than using a switch or check box.

Fallacies involved in your response: strawman and false dichotomy.

Re: A Message to Our Customers about iPhone Batteries and Performance

#530

Post by frostburg »

dalyons wrote: post #507
arstin wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, only 3.3 years ago. :) I still use a beat-up 6 with a wonderful patina and have no interest in upgrading. For me the 6 seemed to be the point where everything was "good enough". Until there's a big advance in what phones are and can do (a bit more than the iPhone X ha), I'd rather just repair what's there.

Counterpoint; I upgraded from a 6 to an X - the screen and the camera are really truly so much better. The X has mostly replaced my mirrorless DLSR in a way the 6 couldn’t come close to.

I don't want to be glib here, but I think that the fact that you refer to your camera as a mirrorless DSLR (dslRs by definition have mirrors) is part of the reason why you can replace it with a somewhat better phone sensor.

There is nothing wrong with doing that, but it's possible because you have limited needs.

Post reply on HN