4 ms·

This was done to keep the device from restarting in scenarios where degraded batteries were unable to supply enough power. It wasn't a nefarious scheme to get u

This was done to keep the device from restarting in scenarios where degraded batteries were unable to supply enough power. It wasn't a nefarious scheme to get users to upgrade.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
a) Prosecutors in the US and EU allege that both Apple and Samsung did in fact participate in a nefarious scheme to get users to upgrade. I realize that Apple and Samsung say they didn’t do that but I don’t think they are being honest. This thing where tech workers take tech companies at face value when said companies have repeatedly demonstrated their dishonesty is... really something. b) At any rate, “Apple deceitfully handicapped older products to cover up a more serious (but fixable) flaw, knowingly pushing customers into unnecessary upgrades” is really not any better than “Apple deceitfully handicapped older devices to push consumers into unnecessary upgrades.”
- mullingitover 6y ago
  I don't see why we should take prosecutors (who have their own goals and ambitions, operating in a political environment) at face value either. There's little to lose in pursuing a company with deep pockets, and a lot to gain.
  - sorisos 6y ago
    What would they gain?
    - gwd 6y ago
      Well one former prosecutor recently became Vice President of the United States. In any case, District Attorney is an elected position on most places, and having a reputation for being tough on the "bad guys" is a good way to get re-elected.
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    I would call this “being so skeptical that your brain falls out” since you could make the same argument (about either politics or money) with scientists, human rights advocates, programmers, etc. “Actually you can’t trust anybody and all viewpoints are equally suspect” isn’t as enlightened as you think. In this specific case Apple and Samsung have been proven dishonest and manipulative, and they have a far stronger legal/financial incentive to lie than separate groups of prosecutors in the US and many separate EU member states. I also find a conspiracy internal to Apple/Samsung much more plausible than a conspiracy across attorneys general from 34 US states.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      > “Actually you can’t trust anybody and all viewpoints are equally suspect” isn’t as enlightened as you think. Only trusting viewpoints that agree with your personal biases isn't enlightened, either. > "In this specific case Apple and Samsung have been proven dishonest and manipulative" is an unvarnished falsehood. The throttling wasn't across the board, it was triggered in specific circumstances related to the state of the battery. There was never any evidence that this was a scheme to defraud customers.
fulafel 6y ago
This can be viewed as a battery defect, especially if it's not user replaceable. Battery usable capacity vs longevity is a tradeoff in how the BMS in configured.
Xevi 6y ago
Wasn't the problem that they did it on devices which were out of warranty and could not even get their batteries exchanged (at least not for a reasonable price)? Which in turn resulted in permanently degraded performance on otherwise usable products.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  It didn't trigger based on warranty, it was specific circumstances. If an in-warranty battery was sufficiently degraded, it would trigger the throttling, and an out of warranty device with a healthy battery wouldn't. > This performance management works by looking at a combination of the device temperature, battery state of charge, and battery impedance. Only if these variables require it, iOS will dynamically manage the maximum performance of some system components, such as the CPU and GPU, in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387

This was done to keep the device from restarting in scenarios where degraded batteries were unable to supply enough power. It wasn't a nefarious scheme to get users to upgrade.

ojnabieoot 6y ago

a) Prosecutors in the US and EU allege that both Apple and Samsung did in fact participate in a nefarious scheme to get users to upgrade. I realize that Apple and Samsung say they didn’t do that but I don’t think they are being honest. This thing where tech workers take tech companies at face value when said companies have repeatedly demonstrated their dishonesty is... really something. b) At any rate, “Apple deceitfully handicapped older products to cover up a more serious (but fixable) flaw, knowingly pushing customers into unnecessary upgrades” is really not any better than “Apple deceitfully handicapped older devices to push consumers into unnecessary upgrades.”

mullingitover 6y ago
I don't see why we should take prosecutors (who have their own goals and ambitions, operating in a political environment) at face value either. There's little to lose in pursuing a company with deep pockets, and a lot to gain.
- sorisos 6y ago
  What would they gain?
  - gwd 6y ago
    Well one former prosecutor recently became Vice President of the United States. In any case, District Attorney is an elected position on most places, and having a reputation for being tough on the "bad guys" is a good way to get re-elected.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  I would call this “being so skeptical that your brain falls out” since you could make the same argument (about either politics or money) with scientists, human rights advocates, programmers, etc. “Actually you can’t trust anybody and all viewpoints are equally suspect” isn’t as enlightened as you think. In this specific case Apple and Samsung have been proven dishonest and manipulative, and they have a far stronger legal/financial incentive to lie than separate groups of prosecutors in the US and many separate EU member states. I also find a conspiracy internal to Apple/Samsung much more plausible than a conspiracy across attorneys general from 34 US states.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > “Actually you can’t trust anybody and all viewpoints are equally suspect” isn’t as enlightened as you think. Only trusting viewpoints that agree with your personal biases isn't enlightened, either. > "In this specific case Apple and Samsung have been proven dishonest and manipulative" is an unvarnished falsehood. The throttling wasn't across the board, it was triggered in specific circumstances related to the state of the battery. There was never any evidence that this was a scheme to defraud customers.

fulafel 6y ago

This can be viewed as a battery defect, especially if it's not user replaceable. Battery usable capacity vs longevity is a tradeoff in how the BMS in configured.

Xevi 6y ago

Wasn't the problem that they did it on devices which were out of warranty and could not even get their batteries exchanged (at least not for a reasonable price)? Which in turn resulted in permanently degraded performance on otherwise usable products.

mullingitover 6y ago
It didn't trigger based on warranty, it was specific circumstances. If an in-warranty battery was sufficiently degraded, it would trigger the throttling, and an out of warranty device with a healthy battery wouldn't. > This performance management works by looking at a combination of the device temperature, battery state of charge, and battery impedance. Only if these variables require it, iOS will dynamically manage the maximum performance of some system components, such as the CPU and GPU, in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387