161–170 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are definitely still solutions.
Other than: 1. Allow performance to degrade 2. Allow longevity to degrade 3. Allow the battery to be replaced 4. Some revolutionary battery technology that doesn't degrade?? What solutions are you thinking of?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely disagree. Apple chose to have the phone continue to work all day. That will keep it useful more than being fast. A better option is a larger battery, but without that, I think they make more customers happy than I'd they did the alternative.
Nothing you've expressed is an effective counterclaim to the assertion that Apple chose a more deceptive route to dealing with the inevitable degradation of batteries in its devices. On balance, the expected behavior for an aging phone is to suffer from decreased battery life as total battery cycles increase. Apple instead has chosen to decrease system performance to hide diminished battery life, and failed to disclo…
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-my-car-feel-more-powerful-aft...
A couple of people there speculate that's what happens to them.
I doubt there would be much backlash - stranding a driver with an empty tank is about the worst thing that could happen short of a breakdown. "Yes of course we do everything we can to help you get to a fuel stop"
I feel like more transparency would have been welcomed, but aside from that this is a "no win" situation, since you have to pick a winner: - Do you degrade performance but leave screen-on time relatively unchanged? - Do you degrade screen-on time but leave performance relatively unchanged? Most Android devices seem to do the opposite (lose screen-on time, but keep performance relatively unchanged). Different people w…
The solution is a battery you can replace, like every phone used to have. There aren’t only two solutions to this problem. (Technically you can still replace the iPhone battery, unfortunately it isn’t trivial like in the bad old days when phones didn’t have high def touch screens.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution is a battery you can replace, like every phone used to have. There aren’t only two solutions to this problem. (Technically you can still replace the iPhone battery, unfortunately it isn’t trivial like in the bad old days when phones didn’t have high def touch screens.)
This isn't a solution. It's a trade off like every other decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people familiar with electronics yes. Most people don’t understand this and think the phone is a cheap piece of crap if the battery starts dying early.
>For people familiar with electronics yes. Familiarity with electronics doesn't matter. We can't allow vendors to simply simply cover up what are normal behaviors from components given typical operating conditions.
Nobody wants a DVD player which throws up an error and stops playing if the disk is scratched, compared to retrying then skipping on a few frames.
Nobody wants a streaming video which stops playing if there's temporary bandwidth problems instead of pixelating briefly and coming back.
Nobody wants ECC memory or hard disk error correction or parity bits removed and corrupt data to become more common because it's "normal behaviour".
Nobody wants fanless video cards that overheat and break permanently instead of slowing down a bit and staying working.
People do want run-flat tyres because they'd rather keep going instead of getting normal behaviour of hitting something sharp.
People do want sat nav which recalculates the route in the case of "typical operating conditions" of making a wrong turn, covering up the normal behaviour of "giving bad directions from then on" with much more useful behaviour of "giving good directions".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a solution. It's a trade off like every other decision.
Immagine having a car whose gas tank you are not allowed to refill...
I feel like more transparency would have been welcomed, but aside from that this is a "no win" situation, since you have to pick a winner: - Do you degrade performance but leave screen-on time relatively unchanged? - Do you degrade screen-on time but leave performance relatively unchanged? Most Android devices seem to do the opposite (lose screen-on time, but keep performance relatively unchanged). Different people w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know they do it when the battery gets really bad, they could move it up to happen sooner. I just imagine it would fit into the planned obsolescence narrative too easily.
My 2014 MBA has recently started saying this, but I haven’t noticed any sudden change in battery life, I still get 5-6 hours.