Apple throttled your iPhone by cutting its speed almost in H

[Savageduck]

On Jan 4, 2018, rickman wrote
(in article <p2m0uh$c1p$1@dont-email.me&gt:

Savageduck wrote on 1/3/2018 6:26 PM:
On Jan 3, 2018, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article <fb56fkF54akU1@mid.individual.net&gt:

On 2018-01-03, rickman<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote on 1/3/2018 5:05 PM:
On 2018-01-03, harry newton<harry@at.invalid> wrote:
He who is Jolly Roger said on 3 Jan 2018 06:25:53 GMT:

Get some new material, old foolish troll.

Think about

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

I think we can see who the troll is. Anyone who o feels the need to post
four times complaining about someone being a troll *is* a troll.

"Gosh, I KNOW, right? And anyone who calls out a racist for being a
racist *is* racist, y'all!"

Bullshit reasoning. The asshole currently known as "Harry Newton" has
been trolling the Apple news groups and belittling complete strangers in
them literally for hours a day for years now. He constantly changes his
name to avoid kill filters and pollutes the otherwise peaceful Apple
news groups with lame trolls filled with lies and misguided opinions.
Here's an incomplete list (and counting) of his names:

Paul B. Andersen, Adair Bordon, Liam O'Connor, Juan Camilo Blanco,
Alphonse Arnaud, Danny D., Vinny Perado, Whitney Ryan, Tony Cito, Adam
H. Kerman, Werner Obermeier, Steven Bornfeld, Winston_Smith, Mitch
Kaufmann, Paul M. Cook, E. Robinson, Alice J., P. Ng, Tam Nguyen, VPN
user, Joe Clock, Marob Katon, Chris Rangoon, AArdvarks, Conradt, Gustl
Hoffmann, Henry Jones, Tatsuki Takahashi, AL, Horace Algier, Karl
Schultz, Arthur Conan Doyle, Algeria Horan, Horace Algier, Raymond
Spruance III, Martin Chuzzlewit II, John Harmon, Yanis Bernard, Stijn De
Jong, Abe Swanson, Misha Vasiliev, Tomos Davies, Chaya Eve, Lionel
Muller, Roy Tremblay, Frank S, Chaya Eve, Blake Snyder, harry newton,
Harold Newton

Multiple regulars in these news groups call him out on his lame-ass
trolls. But little, old *you* have decided to step in and support the
troll. Good work, there, junior!

Also, the cross posts to unrelated groups, and groups where he anticipates
some sort of support, and/or validation, are a pretty good clue as to the
trollish nature of posts from the Santa Clara nymshifter.

This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen a number of ham groups destroyed by
this sort of behavior. One person is accused of being a troll, but they
aren't really a problem. They make their posts and people either read them
or ignore them. The problem arises when vigilantes try to "deal" with the
problem by turning the topic from the original to being about the accused
troll. Instead of solving anything, they make the problem 10 times worse.

That is what's going on here. I was reading the thread and considering the
issues in the discussion until someone threw a turd in the punch bowl. The
presence of the "enforcers" is more disruptive than the original thread. It
should be very easy to killfile the offender and/or the entire thread.

Oh, but then someone on the Internet would be wrong without knowing it!

https://xkcd.com/386/

I've killfiled JR, we'll see if the problem improves.

The problem will continue, because the actual news group spoiling, anti-Apple
agenda holding troll, is the nymshifting OP. He taunts with his provocative
bait knowing that he will precipitate the thread into a flamewar. Many of the
usual participants, such as JR, Lewis, nospam, and others seem to be unable
to resist to temptation to engage with him. I for one will not entertain
playing into the trollish flamewar trap he sets in the Apple NGs and cross
pollinates to other groups which have no interest in things Apple.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

 

[harry newton]

He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:17:11 -0500:

this is an Apple-only problem

nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
other device that uses a battery.

there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.

Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first
year.

This is the key point, rickman, where you and almost all the logical people
who bought iPhones (and even logical people who didn't buy them) would have
presumed that the CPU speed of a phone would be the same on day 1 when the
reviews come out as it would be on day 366 after a year of ownership.

Nobody (but Apple & the Apple Apologists) has even tried to defend the
secret, permanent, and drastic halving of the CPU speeds as being
"beneficial" for "prolonging the life" of the phone.

I can understand why Apple says that (they have a dozen lawsuits to not
give any ammunition to), but it's harder to understand the logic of the
defense that we should have known all along that Apple would halve the
speeds based on what Apple said it put in the iOS 10.2.1 release (and 11.2
for the iPhone 7).

"iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your
iPhone or iPad. It also improves power management during peak
workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone."
<https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US>

Affected phones were:
iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE.
<https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/>

A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
battery ages. I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new
for two or three years. Do you not understand the issue?

Bear in mind that it is a fact that I am the one who first broke the news
to the Apple newsgroups of the problem, and who first broke the news of
Apple's apology about the problem - so I am vehemently hated by the Apple
Apologists (nospam, Jolly Roger, Savageduck, Snit, BKonRamp, etc.).

You have to understand that on the affected iOS newsgroups, there is a set
of bona-fide lifer Apple Apologists who hate any fact that is truthful but
not what they like to hear.

So they will *destroy* any thread that contains facts that they don't like,
using a variety of techniques, some of which you've seen here, all combined
with guile and vitriol and ill logic, where, in the end, they always
attempt to destroy truthful facts like any competent cancer would.

You have Jolly Roger exclaiming today that an Apple battery is as easy to
replace as a "user replaceable" battery for example, which is just patently
ridiculous - and yet - he makes that claim with a straight face. Worse,
Jolly Roger consistently fabricates content that never occurred, just so
that he can appear witty (to himself?) by responding to that completely
fabricated content!

Why does Jolly Roger habitually fabricate quoted content?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FJ0ScwZ9sLE/d40Bp9jKDQAJ>

You have nospam insisting that Apple duly informed its users with that
cryptic 10.2.1 release-note blurb, and you have Savageduck trying to skirt
facts with semantic outliers such as iOS-based non-Apple cameras, and you
have BK@Onramp.net who consistently high-fives other people's posts but has
never once (ever!) added technical value to any thread in his entire life!

All of these ill-logical people resort to complete and utter fabrications
of non-existing functionality, whenever confronted with patently
unassailable facts - that they don't like.

Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/vcq3ESStmlc/bjhf9Z5vBAAJ>

That's the kind of people you're currently dealing with.

Apple would seem
to have either not given this attention in the design stage (indicating
incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery
deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of
operation (with potential warranty issues).

It seems from all the evidence (quoted elsewhere already), that Apple
didn't test the product thoroughly enough (they admitted as much that they
were blindsided by the initial shutdowns) and then, after the second series
of reports came in, Apple finally realized what happened.

The "fix" is clear - which they already apologized for not communicating
(but only because they got caught so they had to apologize).

The fact is that they implemented a secret solution that is permanent and
drastic (cutting CPU speeds to less than half after only one year of use).

The conjecture is "WHY" they did that.

I posit, with logical thought, that they realized how BIG of a problem this
design flaw is, and they realized they didn't have ANY options to fix it in
software that were palatable to the customer.

They certainly *could* have implemented a recall, where they provided the
customer with a better design - but they took the easy way out - which was
to secretly mask the design flaw.

This is all well described already in valid factual references I've
supplied in each of my posts, so I will let you decide who is a troll on
this newsgroup, and who is providing valid referenced facts.

<https://www.computerworld.com/article/3245048/mobile-wireless/apple-makes-its-intent-on-the-battery-fiasco-clear-and-not-in-the-way-it-wanted.html>
Title:
"Apple makes its intent on the battery fiasco clear.
And not in the way it wanted."

 

[harry newton]

He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:09:25 -0500:

And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me. I guess that shows he
isn't trolling.

You have to understand, rickman, that the Apple Apologists *hate* me, with
a vengeance, because I speak facts that they don't like.

I call out Jolly Roger on his trolls (if you run a search for the
combination of Jolly Roger and troll on the iOS newsgroups, he comes up on
top, by far, since he calls every fact he doesn't like, a troll).
http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone

BTW, I always *add* value to a newsgroup, so who do you think *created*
those tinyurls in the first place? I did.

For example:
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
http://tinyurl.com/sci-electgronics-repair

Why did I create them?

For the good of all, as I've been on Usenet for decades, being an old
octogenarian (where you'll note Jolly Roger always tries to insult me for
simply being old).

What the Apple Apologists you're dealing with absolutely hate, are facts
that they don't like so they attempt to defame and destroy the bearer of
those valid verified facts.

For example, this is my thread on the iOS newsgroups which *broke* the news
to them that Apple was caught secretly throttling CPU speeds.
Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device down to
trick you into buying a new device
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/GdEtzzrc9F0%5B1-25%5D>

When you skim that thread, you'll instantly see how the Apple Apologists
react to truthful facts and how the others on the iOS newsgroup who are not
Apple Apologists, react.

They are two completely different mentalities (which you're noticing).
a. Adults who can converse using logic and facts, and,
b. Apple Apologists (e.g., nospam, Savageduck, Jolly Roger, BKonRamp, etc.)
who can, but don't.

 

[harry newton]

He who is harry newton said on Fri, 5 Jan 2018 00:08:08 +0000 (UTC):

BTW, I always *add* value to a newsgroup, so who do you think *created*
those tinyurls in the first place? I did.

For example:
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
http://tinyurl.com/sci-electgronics-repair

Why did I create them?

For the good of all, as I've been on Usenet for decades, being an old
octogenarian (where you'll note Jolly Roger always tries to insult me for
simply being old).

OOoooops. Typo.

Here are the URLs I created for the good of all, so that *facts* can be
researched easily and so that the immense effort most of us put into adding
value to Usenet can be harvested to the benefit of others.

http://tinyurl.com/sci-electronics-repair
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad
http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone
http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-system
http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-apps
http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux
etc.

Note: When Google took over dejanews, and when TinyUrl came out years ago,
I added the Windows newsgroups - but Google consistently breaks them over
the years, so I eventually gave up adding Windows newsgroups for tinyurl
convenience.

 

[harry newton]

He who is Jolly Roger said on 4 Jan 2018 22:23:50 GMT:

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
permanent

This is a good topic for adult logical discussion...

Title:
How to take advantage of Apple's $29 iPhone battery replacement program
right now
URL:
<http://bgr.com/2018/01/01/iphone-battery-replacement-29-how-to-iphone-slowdown-scandal/>
Quote:
"There is no way to toggle Apple's hidden throttling on or off
within the company's iOS software. Instead, the only way to disable
an iPhone slowdown is to install a new battery in your phone."

This was already referenced in the iOS newsgroups here:
Title:
For anyone who still thinks the iPhone throttling isn't *permanent* - read this article
URL:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wq4r6ALKewE>

 

[harry newton]

He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:57:04 -0500:

This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen a number of ham groups destroyed by
this sort of behavior.

Hi rickman,

I too have been on Usenet since the early days, so we've seen groups
utterly devastated by this cancer, such as what happened here:
http://tinyurl.com/alt-free-newsservers

And yet, not to the (somewhat) related newsgroup:
http://tinyurl.com/news-software-readers

In many cases over the decades where we both have seen a newsgroup fall
into the cesspool, it's only a *handful* of viciously angry posters who
ruin the newsgroup for everyone else who is just trying to learn from the
immense tribal knowledge of all the members of the group, as a whole.

I don't know, offhand, whether you come from the android side or from the
electronics side (where I love Jeff Liebermann, who lives near me, but
we've yet to meet fact to face), so I apologize for the behavior of the
folks whom I call Apple Apologists (after having dealt with them for years
and trying to figure out why they act the strange way that they do).

Of the Apple Apologists you're dealing with, here's a characterization:
1. nospam - by far - the most clever and most knowledgeable of them all
2. Jolly Roger - nonsensically consumed by his own vitriol and rage
3. BKonRamp - if you find him ever adding value - I'll send you money!
4. Savageduck - he is knowledgeable (hence useful) on digital photography
but he hates iOS facts as much as the others - so he's unreasonable but
still very useful because he's expert at digital photography
REFERENCE: http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital

Overall, they're useful, where, in my killfile, even after two decades on
Usenet, is only Snit (whom you haven't experienced yet, I think), who is a
*perfect* example of an Apple Apologists - in that he even created a public
video attempting to "refute" my facts (which are always correct since
they're all validated by references), which he trolled incessantly over 400
times, where even I had to plonk him.

You really need to listen to the first minute of this video before I tell
you the key facts about these Apple Apologists (who are not normal people):
Title: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

Once you listen to the first minute of that video, you then need to know
that the Apple Apologists here (nospam, Jolly Roger, BK, etc.) all *agreed*
with him, numerous times.
It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0%5B26-50%5D>

For example, here's a direct quote from "nospam" on the facts I presented:
"Harry can't back anything he says, mostly because it's false.
what's even worse, he continues with his bogus claims after being
proven wrong with actual facts (not the ones in his delusional head)."

Notice how the Apple Apologists (who are not normal adults), claim to have
facts, and they claim to have been providing proof all along, and they do
it in such as self-serving way that you have to wonder if they actually
*believe* a single word they utter (they're that different from normal
people!)...

But get this - none of them, even after all that vitriol, know the
difference between a megabit and a decibel!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/BK4Vtbg9BwAJ>

Yup. They whole time they've been just blatantly *fabricating* non-existent
iOS functionality. Why? They hate the bearer of facts!

Here's how I tried to respond to the Apple Apologists (with facsts):
"One look at the graph it outputs proves that it's just a speedtest app.
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg>
The Apple Apologists insist it's a wifi signal strength app.
Why when it's a fact iOS apps can't graph wifi signal strength over time?
Meanwhile, the Android Fritz app clearly show Y-axis decibels (not Mbps).
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritzapp.jpg>
As does the Android WiFi Analyzer app wifi signal strength timeline:
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzer.jpg>

The problem here, which I've noticed over the decades happens in spades in
the Apple-related newsgroups, is that there is a clan of people who
viciously hate the bearers of facts that they just don't like.
What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0>

So they react by *fabricating* functionality and then arguing for a billion
posts that what they claim exists, actually exists (when, in fact, it does
not). Just look at this thread, initiated by Jolly Roger himself:
Apple Is Being Slandered For What Chemistry Cannot Fix
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zM-uvnUrSCk>

Any thread that deals with facts on the iOS newsgroups that the
iOS apologists don't like, follows this same formula.

1. Someone states a valid fact about Apple that they don't like.
2. They deny the fact - almost always with childishly idiotic "logic"
3. More facts are provided in response to the fake denials
4. That incenses them so much they resort to vicious insults (JR)
5. Or they resort to extremely clever semantic contortions (nospam)
6. Or, they simply say that every fact is wrong (Savageduck)
7. And they pile on and high-five and support each other (JKonRamp)

Any casual reader of the thread gives up reading because of the cancer
above (which is exactly their goal).

It happens every time.
Just watch.
Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY>

That's the kind of people you're dealing with.

Years ago, I termed them "Apple Apologists"; but you can term them whatever
you think is appropriate.

They are not like normal adults in that viciously and repeatedly attack the
bearer of truthful facts they don't like.

 

[harry newton]

He who is Fox's Mercantile said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:39:11 -0600:

> It won't until you killfile harry newton.

You have to realize whom you're dealing with when you deal with these Apple
Apologists who claim everyone else is a troll but they themselves.

This single screenshot explains it all graphically in a way words can't:
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg>

One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:
itle: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>]

In that video, the Apple Apologist Snit claims that iOS does have the
functionality that I proved long before it does not.

Worse - the Apple Apologists you're dealing with *congratulated* Snit for
"proving Harry wrong" when, in fact, absolutely none of the Apple
Apologists knew the difference between a decibel and a megabit!
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritzapp.jpg>
<http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzer.jpg>

And yet, there must have been at least *400 additional posts* where nospam
claims to have proven it to us numerous times, and where Jolly Roger claims
that we're all "old fools" for not believing their completely baseless
claims.
It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0%5B26-50%5D>

So that's something like 800 posts, almost all of which are the Apple
Apologists denying what is, to normal adults, obvious fact.

Why do the Apple Apologists act this way?
I do not know the answer.

Every single time they post, I have to ask myself:
a. Are they really clueless (they don't know a megabit from a decibel?)
b. Or, do they do this on purpose (since they post it 800 times!)

I still don't know the answer to that question.
Do you?

 

[rickman]

pfjw@aol.com wrote on 1/4/2018 5:32 PM:

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 5:17:15 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/3/2018 8:38 AM:

Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first
year. A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
battery ages. I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new
for two or three years. Do you not understand the issue? Apple would seem
to have either not given this attention in the design stage (indicating
incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery
deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of
operation (with potential warranty issues).

Rick C

Dayum, but you know next-to-nothing about battery chemistry and/or the aging process. Knowing now that you are likely unencumbered by the thought process (insult) and likely on the Spectrum (not an insult, but a reach for an explanation for your apparent-deliberate ignorance), batteries age. They age in two ways:
a) Not able to deliver the necessary amperage at a given voltage for as long as before.
b) Not able to deliver sufficient voltage as before. Subset: voltage is OK, but the amperage is not.

This is true of every kind of chemical battery from a liquid lead-acid battery used for backing up POTS systems to a Tesla battery.

I keep radio-control submarines. On them, I have a device that reads the state of the battery, and if it goes critical, immediately surfaces the boat, and will not permit diving. I can determine the age of the battery by when that happens on a run.

Again, this is a chemical issue true of every kind of chemical battery over time. Cell phones make heavy demands on batteries depending on what they are asked to do. Some simply cannot meet that demand with an old battery, and so 'limit' the phone much as the "Sub-Safe" device does. That Apple explained this badly is the issue. Not what happened.

Getting back to Jimmy Neutron - he offered a Conspiracy-Based explanation for an obvious phenomenon in order to light off his personal tempest in his virtual teapot. It was neither thoughtful, nor offered as a basis for actual discussion.

Wow! You think you understand the issues, but nothing you said was
relevant. This is not really a technical issue, this is a business issue.
Yes, batteries wear out with time and use. So do a lot of things. A
properly designed product will take into account all the issues of using
batteries. The bottom line is the phone was not designed properly to even
have a 1 year working life without performance problems.

Your submarines have nothing to do with it.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[rickman]

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM:

In article <p2m958$bs8$1@dont-email.me>, rickman
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

but remember
this is an Apple-only problem

nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
other device that uses a battery.

there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.

Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first
year.

it doesn't. it's not based on how old it is.

it depends on the battery health and the specific power demands at the
time.

A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
battery ages.

exactly what it does.

I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new
for two or three years.

'nearly as well' means there's a noticeable effect.

laptop batteries also have a *much* higher capacity than what's in a
phone and capable of much higher peaks.

they are also powering a different processor with different power
demands in a product with a different thermal profile along with
numerous other differences.

in other words, not a good comparison.

Do you not understand the issue?

far more than you do.

Apple would seem
to have either not given this attention in the design stage (indicating
incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery
deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of
operation (with potential warranty issues).

both false.

Ok, you seem to think it is acceptable for a product to no longer meet
specifications before it is out of warranty. I don't. We'll have to agree
to disagree.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[rickman]

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM:

In article <fb7nrmFn2gnU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.

actually, it's extremely unusual.

trolls post for a reaction, not for content.

And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.

No, they were filled with lies, like:

"Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
half"

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
with batteries that are on the way out.

yep.

put simply, the peaks are clipped.

for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or
web surfing, there is no slowdown.

And:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out. But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability. That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[nospam]

In article <p2mmp7$103$2@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, you seem to think it is acceptable for a product to no longer meet
specifications before it is out of warranty.

i said nothing remotely close to that, and nobody, not even apple, said
it no longer meets specs within or without warranty.

I don't. We'll have to agree
to disagree.

only because you don't understand what's *actually* going on.

 

[nospam]

In article <p2mmui$103$3@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

 

[rickman]

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM:

In article <p2mmui$103$3@dont-email.me>, rickman
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-05, harry newton <harry@at.invalid> wrote:

He who is Fox's Mercantile said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:39:11 -0600:

It won't until you killfile harry newton.

Blah blah blah blah Apple Apologists blah blah blah

You're a broken record, old fool.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[nospam]

In article <p2mpds$ctg$1@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?

no, and the only article you should read is from apple itself, not
random journalists, some of whom have an agenda. there's a lot of
misinformation out there.

the slowdown only occurs with peak demands, not baseline performance,
and only with a battery that has degraded over time (which they all do)
to where it can't supply enough current for those peak demands.

the reason it's done is to avoid sudden shutdowns when the battery
voltage drops too low when pushed too hard, which is *far* more
annoying and also risks data loss and possible hardware damage.

when apple made the change last year, customers noticed a significant
*reduction* in sudden shutdowns. that's a good thing.

if the battery is healthy or the phone isn't being pushed hard (e.g.,
email, web surfing, text messaging, etc.), it's *highly* unlikely that
anyone will notice a difference. most of those tasks are *not*
cpu-bound, with the device waiting on the user to tap something or
other.

keep in mind that all devices, including android, are susceptible to
battery limitations, something the various articles neglect to mention.

one of *many* posts on the topic:
<https://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s4/322719-galaxy-s4-sh
uts-down-randomly.html>
Okay, I've had my phone for a few months now, and over the past week,
it has been shutting itself down, even though there is plenty of
battery left.
It seems like when I'm "stressing" the phone alittle bit, I can
reproduce the problem. For instance, it usually happens when I browse
around and multitask - jumping from one app to another... Also, if i
just load the game GTA III, which is somewhat heavy to run, it shuts
off within 10 minutes, usually less.
Also, I'm unable to reproduce the problem if I plug the phone to a
power charger.

batteries have limitations. the way to avoid shutdowns is to limit peak
demands so that the voltage doesn't drop to where the phone shuts off.
there's no getting around the laws of physics and battery chemistry.

and there have been lawsuits too:
<http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05/26/amended-complaint-filed-ongoing-
nexus-6p-early-shutdown-bootloop-lawsuit/>
The Nexus 6P lawsuit we previously reported on twice in April has
been recently amended, and the venue of the suit seems to have
changed to northern California. The latest filings have expanded the
total number of actions in the suit from 10 to 23, with claimants
hailing from 11 different states.
....
...some Nexus 6P's have been experiencing bootloops, a situation in
which the phone doesn't correctly start, but sits unresponsively on
the startup animation. The other battery-related defect manifests
itself as the phone suddenly shutting down long before the battery
indicator would predict.

 

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC), harry newton wrote:

One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:
itle: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
URL: <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>]

In that video, the Apple Apologist Snit claims that iOS does have the
functionality that I proved long before it does not.

*How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd behavior?*

Even today, just now, moments ago, nospam, probably the most informed of
all the Apple Apologists, just posted this, which is patently false, and,
in light of the entire thread of proof - one has to wonder:
a. Is nospam really that stupid (and the answer is clearly no - he's smart)
b. Then why does he claim fabricated iOS functionality as if it exists?

I don't know WHY the Apple Apologists aren't normal adults.
But the fact is they lie as openly and as easily as if it's natural.

Here's what nospam just posted:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/YYB2LmdTAAAJ>

Verbatim quote from me:
"It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time"
Verbatim response from nospam:
"yes they can and you've been told how.
why do you keep lying?"

*How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd behavior?*

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-05, Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC), harry newton wrote:

One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:

*How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd
behavior?*

And now he's talking to himself with two different nyms...

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[Chris]

rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM:
In article <fb7nrmFn2gnU3@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.

actually, it's extremely unusual.

trolls post for a reaction, not for content.

And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.

No, they were filled with lies, like:

"Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
half"

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
with batteries that are on the way out.

yep.

put simply, the peaks are clipped.

for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or
web surfing, there is no slowdown.

And:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

Batteries are not covered under warranty unless shown to be truly defective
- not just swear and tear.

 

[Chris]

rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM:
In article <p2mmui$103$3@dont-email.me>, rickman
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?

Not as I read it.

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.

 

[rickman]

Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:06 AM:

rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM:
In article <p2mmui$103$3@dont-email.me>, rickman
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?


Not as I read it.

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.

It's not just an issue of transparency, if the user experience is being
impacted to mitigate the problems of a battery that is degrading prematurely
in order to avoid warranty replacements, that's a problem in itself.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998