6 ms·

Does Apple come across as a company that needs to resort to such tactics to force people to buy new phones? They build better devices (faster, more memory, bett

by geuis 16y ago

Does Apple come across as a company that needs to resort to such tactics to force people to buy new phones? They build better devices (faster, more memory, better battery) that in themselves are enough to entice users to upgrade if they desire. The accusations of this lawsuit are honestly more likely of cell carriers (here's looking at you, Verizon).

dantheman 16y ago
I don't know if you had a 3G, but the IOS4 upgrade made adamant on my decision to ditch the iphone and go to android.. It would lag out for 3 or 4 seconds while dialing a number -- it became unusable as a basic phone, let alone a smart phone. It had nothing to do with the carriers.
- Saad_M 16y ago
  iOS 4.1 did fix all of the performance problems that the iPhone 3G did have. The real problem here is the amount of time it took Apple to implement the fixes required.
  - semanticist 16y ago
    4.1 did not fix all the problems: many people (including me!) find that the OS is still much more sluggish than it was on 3.x. I still see delays of up to several seconds in between keystrokes when typing sometimes, which makes typing really unpleasant and frustrating. It tends to get worse over time until I reboot my phone, given that the iPhone 3G has less RAM than the 3GS or 4 I guess there's a memory leak somewhere that hasn't been fixed, but there's likely other issues too. It really did feel like Apple didn't even bother to test the iPhone 3G, which is madness.
    - Poiesis 16y ago
      I don't have to restart regularly, but I can agree that it's slower than iOS 3.x, sure. The typing lag is indeed the worst; it was horrid on 4.0 and is occasionally laggy still. I can't figure out why it seemingly wasn't tested on the old hardware though. Maybe it was just with the bare install? It just seems uncharacteristic.
boredguy8 16y ago
Yes. I mean, the term "resort" is pretty pejorative, but having worked with Apple products in both the design (video/audio composition and editing) and education (5,000+ UG), Apple's 'planned obsolescence' is pretty devastating. The two ready-to-hand examples: LogicPro - the migration from a dongle-based system to a non-dongle system was an utter nightmare where some people were able to maintain their old license and pay the upgrade price while others couldn't. PPC -> Intel - the migration in driver architecture was a nightmare across the entire Apple ecosystem. "Better/faster/just works" did not apply here at all. As a classic example: the version of Final Cut released shortly after the architecture switch was unable to run natively on Intel. Shortly after the Universal Binary version was released, Apple broke compatibility with After Effects plugins and instead replaced it with FxPlugin and once again caused a huge disruption. So yes, it does in fact seem like the sort of thing Apple would do.
- Zev 16y ago
  For an overwhelming majority of applications out there, it really was just "recompile and it works" or even using Rosetta for the interim, until the developer got around to it. Apple even created a script that automatically converted scalar types into an architecture-safe equivalent (int -> NSInteger, for example). Final Cut, Adobe CS and a few other major products are the exception to the migration, not the rule. I've spoken to people who used to work on Final Cut. It has one of the largest codebases that I've ever heard of. Plus, Final Cut wasn't done in Objective-C and Cocoa. It is a C++ application with a completely custom UI, done by Macromedia over a decade ago. Its not even a full 64-bit application yet.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - sudont 16y ago
      The problem with that is Apple is a consumer-facing company, and one that targets a subset of early-adopters in VALS known as "experiencers." This specific psychographic is well known for spending money on products with social cache. This social value is partially driven through the "wow" factor of Apple's secretive product release cycle, meaning that developers who don't like it can go lump it and head over to developing for Microsoft or Google's platforms. When you say they sacrifice "users," you're right, but those users aren't priority #1. EDIT: Parent comment was deleted. Was about how inconsistent product release cycles and roadmaps degrade user experience.

by geuis 16y ago

dantheman 16y ago

I don't know if you had a 3G, but the IOS4 upgrade made adamant on my decision to ditch the iphone and go to android.. It would lag out for 3 or 4 seconds while dialing a number -- it became unusable as a basic phone, let alone a smart phone. It had nothing to do with the carriers.

Saad_M 16y ago
iOS 4.1 did fix all of the performance problems that the iPhone 3G did have. The real problem here is the amount of time it took Apple to implement the fixes required.
- semanticist 16y ago
  4.1 did not fix all the problems: many people (including me!) find that the OS is still much more sluggish than it was on 3.x. I still see delays of up to several seconds in between keystrokes when typing sometimes, which makes typing really unpleasant and frustrating. It tends to get worse over time until I reboot my phone, given that the iPhone 3G has less RAM than the 3GS or 4 I guess there's a memory leak somewhere that hasn't been fixed, but there's likely other issues too. It really did feel like Apple didn't even bother to test the iPhone 3G, which is madness.
  - Poiesis 16y ago
    I don't have to restart regularly, but I can agree that it's slower than iOS 3.x, sure. The typing lag is indeed the worst; it was horrid on 4.0 and is occasionally laggy still. I can't figure out why it seemingly wasn't tested on the old hardware though. Maybe it was just with the bare install? It just seems uncharacteristic.

boredguy8 16y ago

Yes. I mean, the term "resort" is pretty pejorative, but having worked with Apple products in both the design (video/audio composition and editing) and education (5,000+ UG), Apple's 'planned obsolescence' is pretty devastating. The two ready-to-hand examples: LogicPro - the migration from a dongle-based system to a non-dongle system was an utter nightmare where some people were able to maintain their old license and pay the upgrade price while others couldn't. PPC -> Intel - the migration in driver architecture was a nightmare across the entire Apple ecosystem. "Better/faster/just works" did not apply here at all. As a classic example: the version of Final Cut released shortly after the architecture switch was unable to run natively on Intel. Shortly after the Universal Binary version was released, Apple broke compatibility with After Effects plugins and instead replaced it with FxPlugin and once again caused a huge disruption. So yes, it does in fact seem like the sort of thing Apple would do.

Zev 16y ago
For an overwhelming majority of applications out there, it really was just "recompile and it works" or even using Rosetta for the interim, until the developer got around to it. Apple even created a script that automatically converted scalar types into an architecture-safe equivalent (int -> NSInteger, for example). Final Cut, Adobe CS and a few other major products are the exception to the migration, not the rule. I've spoken to people who used to work on Final Cut. It has one of the largest codebases that I've ever heard of. Plus, Final Cut wasn't done in Objective-C and Cocoa. It is a C++ application with a completely custom UI, done by Macromedia over a decade ago. Its not even a full 64-bit application yet.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - sudont 16y ago
    The problem with that is Apple is a consumer-facing company, and one that targets a subset of early-adopters in VALS known as "experiencers." This specific psychographic is well known for spending money on products with social cache. This social value is partially driven through the "wow" factor of Apple's secretive product release cycle, meaning that developers who don't like it can go lump it and head over to developing for Microsoft or Google's platforms. When you say they sacrifice "users," you're right, but those users aren't priority #1. EDIT: Parent comment was deleted. Was about how inconsistent product release cycles and roadmaps degrade user experience.