181–190 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still better than being slow while being on.
How is a black screen better than a device that's slower, but on?
So, I'm somehow developing a pro-Apple bias these days. This whole batterygate to me is kind of based on conjecture-- that Apple slowed old phones with the intention to sell more new ones. If there's any supporting evidence, or anything that's come up in discovery that Apple acted in bad faith, I'd possibly change my (admittedly biased) mind. But really, slowing the phones down to extend battery life is a reasonable…
I agree that it's possible they weren't being malicious. The part that gets me is that they didn't decide to instead allow folks to set a max battery charge to extend their battery life. It's pretty widely accepted that charging a battery to 100% over-and-over will cause battery degradation. It seems fair to me that decisions that are hidden from consumers and obviously degrade the consumer's experience should negati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no other way to fix the spontaneous shutdowns though. And I will repeat that they should have told people it might slow their phone down.
Technically speaking, they could have designed the battery differently so it's much more likely to last the full service life. Acting this way was a choice, which may have been fine with had Apple not denied the issue and allowed replacing bad batteries under warranty.
The change would have been to simply advertise the service life was shorter than it actually was, to account for various worse batteries, but the long tail of worse off batteries would have still been there regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you have a source for that? This would change my opinion on this story. I can vouch for this. My iPhone 6 was under 2 years old and had 82% battery health according to the Apple diagnostics when I experienced the unexpected shutdowns. The shutdowns were frequent (at least once per day) and, because the phone had to be plugged in before it could be restarted, were incredibly frustrating. I took it to an Apple Sto…
That's very strange, I had an opposite experience twice with my original SE (Apple store in NYC). It similarly showed 80+% battery health, but I showed them the battery charge history in Settings (dropped from 40% to 0% instantly) and they replaced it under warranty. Happened a year and a half later, exact same scenario, and paid the ~$30 to get it replaced. I suspect they didn't have any monitoring to detect or log…
I may be mistaken, but I don’t believe there was any battery charge history (at least not accessible to users) in iOS at the time?
In any event, I am not sure the unexpected shutdowns would have manifested themselves as sudden reductions in charge. Once restarted, the iPhone reported a similar charge to before the shutdown.
I think it's clear Apple intentionally* degrades software quality on older iphone/mac models in order to drive purchase of newer hardware. I've been considering switching away from Apple hardware, not because of hardware quality, but because of software. * By pushing software updates optimized to new hardware with obvious regressions on older models.
Completely false. What's clear is that most posters on hacker news don't understand basic battery chemistry. Apple made a decision to help customers and got blamed for it because they didn't properly explain what they were doing. You can only please people so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that Apple knew about the bad batteries* , denied it and discouraged battery replacement, thus leading to increased iPhone sales if users wanted a decent experience - defrauding its own customers. That's not good faith at all. That apologists keep talking about batteries but ignore the real problem smacks of a PR campaign. * We actually don't know if the slowdown was only for bad batteries - that's Apple…
It's not a bad battery. The degrading performance over time applies to every battery ever sold. Apple decided that keeping your device functional by slightly reducing the performance once the battery is degraded is preferable to randomly shutting your device down. I agree with them.
It's not a bad banana. Rotting after a while applies to every banana ever sold.
Yes it's a natural thing to happen, but it doesnt mean it's not bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's possible they weren't being malicious. The part that gets me is that they didn't decide to instead allow folks to set a max battery charge to extend their battery life. It's pretty widely accepted that charging a battery to 100% over-and-over will cause battery degradation. It seems fair to me that decisions that are hidden from consumers and obviously degrade the consumer's experience should negati…
It actually makes most sense that they weren't being malicious. Half the posts on this thread don't even understand what the problem is. Namely throttling to prevent the device from shutting off as if it was some kind of anti-consumer feature when it was actually pro-consumer.
I think what a lot of people miss is that it was not just a restart, but a shutdown that would then require a charger be connected before the phone could be turned on again, even though it would then report similar charge to before the shutdown.
If you were out of the house and did not have a charger readily accessible, it was equivalent to the phone randomly turning into a brick for several hours at a time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's imagine it's a electric car. The car goes 70mph when you buy it. Suddenly it only runs at 45mph. You want to buy a new battery to fix it but the car company refuses even though you're willing to pay. Why should you have to put up with a car that only goes 45mph when it went 70mph when you bought it? What part of this is hard to understand. I don't want a phone that runs slow.
It's different in that the electric car is marketed as capable of achieving 70mph, Apple does not market iOS devices in terms of performance. No promises were made in that regard - at all, IIRC.
And to your point, car companies don’t market their cars using ‘achieving 70mph’ as a feature. It’s just a reasonable expectation of performance. They might mention the top speed, but that’s more of a specification than a marketing feature in most cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not bad though, it's normal, and functioning as expected at that part of the age curve. You can avoid this by reducing performance for the entire time you owned the device so nobody noticed, I guess, but that's all.
Or apple could make the device a few mm thicker and put in a larger battery that’s able to produce enough current for a reasonable product life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's imagine it's a electric car. The car goes 70mph when you buy it. Suddenly it only runs at 45mph. You want to buy a new battery to fix it but the car company refuses even though you're willing to pay. Why should you have to put up with a car that only goes 45mph when it went 70mph when you bought it? What part of this is hard to understand. I don't want a phone that runs slow.
It's different in that the electric car is marketed as capable of achieving 70mph, Apple does not market iOS devices in terms of performance. No promises were made in that regard - at all, IIRC.
I love Apple devices but the quality regressed in recent years, to the point that I left most of the ecosystem.
But you can not have a healthy discussion about that because some people will come out and defend apple with their blood and tears. No matter ridiculous their stance is.