3 ms·
Regarding the first, Apple has -- since its renaissance -- consistently had a limited number of products. Limited product lines. They themselves lump users to
by 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.