Apple throttled your iPhone by cutting its speed almost in H

[rickman]

Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:03 AM:

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.

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

--

Rick C

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

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-07, rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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.

Again, that's not what is actually happening. There's no evidence that
Apple devices have widespread premature battery degradation.

--
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

 

[Harry Newton]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:12:25 -0500, rickman wrote:

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

Rick,
You are logical and stating what any reasonable adult would state.
But you're not dealing with normal thinking adults.

You have to remember whom you're dealing with, where the Apple Apologists
(nospam and Jolly Roger and BK @ OnRamp.net being major Apple Apologists)
will argue *any* semantic avenue they can.

They will state that nobody noticed.
They will state that you should only read Apple MARKETING explanations.
They will state that it was for the good of the consumer.
etc.

You can *predict* everything the Apple Apologists will say because they act
like a cornered rat would act, if that cornered rat were Apple MARKETING
herself.

They'll never admit the truth.
They'll twist out of the logical trap with clever semantic distortions.
And, when all else fails, they'll outright tell boldfaced lies.

In addition, Jolly Roger (more so than the rest) will simply call any fact
he doesn't like, a troll.

If you haven't already noticed this, then just continue what you think is
an adult conversation with them ... and it *always* devolves to what I
stated above (and worse).

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-07, Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

Blah blah blah blah blah Apple Apologists blah blah blah

Boring troll is boring. ZZZzzz...

--
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 <p2tke2$sk9$3@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

if *you* were the product manager, what would *you* do, given that
batteries age and there's no getting around that?

 

[nospam]

In article <p2tkb0$sk9$2@dont-email.me>, rickman
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

except that the batteries are not degrading prematurely, nor is apple
trying to avoid warranty replacements. that's just ludicrous.

in fact, apple is well known for replacing/repairing devices *out* of
warranty for no charge. it's not a given, but it happens more often
than one might expect.

 

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:10:58 -0500, rickman
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

It had nothing to do with avoiding the warranty. Period.

 

[Harry Newton]

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:06:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

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.

You are an adult.
Notice that the Apple Apologists will always claim the opposite of what a
normal adult claims.

Why?
I don't know why.

I just know that's what they do.
* Jolly Roger (who claims all truths are lies)
* nospam (who tells you only to read what Apple Marketing writes!)
* Savageduck (who can only high-five what the others claim)
* BK onRamp (who hasn't ever added one iota of technical value yet)
etc.

Bear in mind, these Apple Apologists are not normal adults so when you try
to reason with them, they try to drive you nuts will their clever
contortions.

You're seeing them work you in action as we speak.

 

[Harry Newton]

On 7 Jan 2018 18:14:52 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Again, that's not what is actually happening. There's no evidence that
Apple devices have widespread premature battery degradation.

Notice the absurd claims of the Apple Apologists.

They can't even believe their own claims.

And yet they make them.

 

[Harry Newton]

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:42:43 -0500, nospam wrote:

except that the batteries are not degrading prematurely, nor is apple
trying to avoid warranty replacements. that's just ludicrous.

Notice that these Apple Apologists make claims that even they can't
possibly believe if they're normal adults.

 

[Harry Newton]

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:01:10 -0600, BK@Onramp.net wrote:

> It had nothing to do with avoiding the warranty. Period.

Notice that it was *secret*, *permanent*, and *drastic*, but, of course, to
the Apple Apologists, it had nothing to do with the warranty.

One has to wonder if the Apple Apologists can possibly believe their own
words.

 

[Harry Newton]

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:42:40 -0500, nospam wrote:

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

if *you* were the product manager, what would *you* do, given that
batteries age and there's no getting around that?

What I would do is figure out the problem, and then figure out a remedy.

I would propose to Apple Marketing two solutions and let them pick:

1. Secretly, permanently, and drastically throttle CPU speeds, hoping
nobody notices the subterfuge, or,
2. Openly admit fault & replace the defective phones with a trade in to a
re-designed phone when that redesigned phone is designed.

I'd let Apple Marketing pick the solution (since they are admittedly one of
the best marketing organizations in the world).

 

[Harry Newton]

On 5 Jan 2018 03:53:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

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

Have you *ever* posted any on-topic technical value to a thread?

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-07, Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com> wrote:

On 5 Jan 2018 03:53:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

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

Have you *ever* posted any on-topic technical value to a thread?

Yep, you just ignore those posts.

Sad, old foolish troll. You're fooling nobody.

--
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

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 1/7/18 4:57 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Sad, old foolish troll. You're fooling nobody.

Actually, he's doing an excellent job on Rickman.

--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-08, Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> wrote:

On 1/7/18 4:57 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Sad, old foolish troll. You're fooling nobody.

Actually, he's doing an excellent job on Rickman.

Touche!

--
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

 

[Harry Newton]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:22:09 -0600, Fox's Mercantile wrote:

> Actually, he's doing an excellent job on Rickman.

Adults have a knack for intelligent conversation that you Apple Apologists
haven't progressed to yet.

 

[Chris]

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

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

My point is that the user experience wasn't impacted until *after* the
discovery. Only then did people go, "Oh yeah. My phone /is/ slowing down."
Post hoc discovery is hard to trust.

to mitigate the problems of a battery that is degrading prematurely
in order to avoid warranty replacements, that's a problem in itself.

I don't think there's any evidence that batteries were degrading
prematurely on a large scale.

 

[Chris]

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

Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:03 AM:
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.

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

Eventually all batteries do that. How the batteries are (mis)used controls
how soon that happens.

I can't imagine you're suggesting that all worn out batteries be replaced
for free, so where would *you* draw the line?

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Please stop feeding the Troll. There is no discussion (or conversation) to be had here. This horse is dead, skinned, quartered, flayed, flensed, rendered and jerked - and was so since the very first post on the subject.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

p.s.: I expect Jimmy Neutron will re-constitute itself as a new alias any moment now, as it has pretty much used this one up. So, please be aware and do not respond to the next iteration.