2 ms·
> They were essentially covering up a design flaw with software. My understanding is that the flaw was in the batteries. The c-rating was out of spec so every
by cptskippy 7y ago
> They were essentially covering up a design flaw with software.
My understanding is that the flaw was in the batteries. The c-rating was out of spec so every time the device drew max power it would damage the battery causing it's internal resistance to increase.
Once the internal resistance of the battery was high enough, the max power current draw would result in a voltage drop and "unexpected shutdown".
Did a supplier deliver under spec batteries? Did Apple underspec them? Did they know they were underspec and anticipate power management or something would limit exceeding the c-rating? No one knows because Apple refused to acknowledge that it was a defect or take accountability. All we can do is speculate.
- ogre_codes 7y agoIn a way, Apple got away with a bit of sleight of hand here. They got in trouble for a fix which slowed down phones, but avoided taking heat for hardware issues which might have been much more expensive to remediate. If instead of slowing down their phones, they'd just started crashing repeatedly after a year - 18 months would it have been significantly more expensive?
- cptskippy 7y agoAbsolutely. It was classic misdirection. They even managed to get people to pay for replacement batteries by offering them at a "discount".