3 ms·

I don't know about 28% in four months. But this whole controversy reminds me of a few years ago. When people were very happy with their iPhones (including som

I don't know about 28% in four months. But this whole controversy reminds me of a few years ago. When people were very happy with their iPhones (including some of my friends), because they manifested and maintained "battery life" that their friends' Android phones did not. Maybe Apple shouldn't have hidden what they're doing. Maybe it's arguably a legitimate trade secret (I'd hardly be in favor of "patenting" the functionality). Anyway, now Apple's "shit" for how they manage battery degradation. A couple of years ago, or whenever, before all this upset: They were "the shit" with respect to battery durability -- as perceived by users in their charge lifetimes. At least, among some of my friends. And some press, IIRC. And whatever. Apple's not magic. Their batteries degrade, too. On the other hand, the vertical integration and efficiencies they are engineering into their newer chipsets? Pretty amazing. P.S. I'm no Apple Fanboy. Just recalling how perspectives change.

viraptor 9y ago
I think you're making a mistake of treating users of X as a homogenous group. Some users were not happy with how the performance and the battery degraded. Some were happy with the power usage over time. Some were happy to point out how they're better than the users of Y. All of that is still the case. What changed is that "I think my iPhone is getting slower, but I'm going to replace it with a new one anyway" is not interesting news, but "it's been proven why it's getting slower, now I feel ripped off because I didn't actually need to upgrade the whole phone, just the battery" is interesting.
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  Regarding the first, Apple has -- since its renaissance -- consistently had a limited number of products. Limited product lines. They themselves lump users together, to some degree; and many argue for this advantage: High quality products that "just work", and don't make me choose between fifty-odd variations. Regarding the latter, I generally agree. I'd much rather know what's going on and have the choice of spending circa $100 (supposedly formerly $80, now $30 for a year), to replace the battery. (And a separate pox on "thin" making all these batteries unremovable; but I guess that's my personal preference.) Maybe Apple knowingly benefited from uninformed user upgrading. How much of that was battery/throttling, and how much of that was Apple users wanting to have the latest and greatest -- for functionality and performance, or just for status? We may never know. But, as I mentioned, the perceived charge lifetime and durability of same, were -- as far as I saw -- major marketing/selling points of iPhones. And I recall myself grumbling about how my Android phones' charge lifetimes were decreasing, mere months into the devices lives. I don't know whether this could have been patented (like stupid rounded-corners patents and so many other things). But, it wasn't. Was Apple obligated to reveal this "secret sauce"? I don't know. For most people, the implementation seemed to work out fine. Friends with 3 and 4 year old iPhones, while many Android users could barely make it to 2 years (for multiple factors, not just charge lifetime -- e.g. timely and ongoing updates, anyone?). I wish there was a phone that wasn't so wholly owned by big corporations. As opposed to its users. But it seems to be the nature of our world.
stouset 9y ago
People think technology is magic. When they find out it's not magic, and hard decisions were made around tradeoffs that they had no input in, they doubt the reasoning behind those decisions. IMHO throttling the phones was the correct decision for the vast majority of their users. Warning about degraded battery performance would be preferable, but when do you do this? If this is an adaptive behavior, it may be throttling to 99% early on in the phone's life — so when do you alert? At 95% two months in? At 80% performance a year in? Apple can make another decision here, but people will still find ways to argue about the specifics.

viraptor 9y ago

I think you're making a mistake of treating users of X as a homogenous group. Some users were not happy with how the performance and the battery degraded. Some were happy with the power usage over time. Some were happy to point out how they're better than the users of Y. All of that is still the case. What changed is that "I think my iPhone is getting slower, but I'm going to replace it with a new one anyway" is not interesting news, but "it's been proven why it's getting slower, now I feel ripped off because I didn't actually need to upgrade the whole phone, just the battery" is interesting.

pasbesoin 9y ago
Regarding the first, Apple has -- since its renaissance -- consistently had a limited number of products. Limited product lines. They themselves lump users together, to some degree; and many argue for this advantage: High quality products that "just work", and don't make me choose between fifty-odd variations. Regarding the latter, I generally agree. I'd much rather know what's going on and have the choice of spending circa $100 (supposedly formerly $80, now $30 for a year), to replace the battery. (And a separate pox on "thin" making all these batteries unremovable; but I guess that's my personal preference.) Maybe Apple knowingly benefited from uninformed user upgrading. How much of that was battery/throttling, and how much of that was Apple users wanting to have the latest and greatest -- for functionality and performance, or just for status? We may never know. But, as I mentioned, the perceived charge lifetime and durability of same, were -- as far as I saw -- major marketing/selling points of iPhones. And I recall myself grumbling about how my Android phones' charge lifetimes were decreasing, mere months into the devices lives. I don't know whether this could have been patented (like stupid rounded-corners patents and so many other things). But, it wasn't. Was Apple obligated to reveal this "secret sauce"? I don't know. For most people, the implementation seemed to work out fine. Friends with 3 and 4 year old iPhones, while many Android users could barely make it to 2 years (for multiple factors, not just charge lifetime -- e.g. timely and ongoing updates, anyone?). I wish there was a phone that wasn't so wholly owned by big corporations. As opposed to its users. But it seems to be the nature of our world.

stouset 9y ago

People think technology is magic. When they find out it's not magic, and hard decisions were made around tradeoffs that they had no input in, they doubt the reasoning behind those decisions. IMHO throttling the phones was the correct decision for the vast majority of their users. Warning about degraded battery performance would be preferable, but when do you do this? If this is an adaptive behavior, it may be throttling to 99% early on in the phone's life — so when do you alert? At 95% two months in? At 80% performance a year in? Apple can make another decision here, but people will still find ways to argue about the specifics.