4 ms·

You are being extremely disingenious (lying yourself?) They are not "outright lying" like you claim, considering you explain why what they're saying is true ("

You are being extremely disingenious (lying yourself?) They are not "outright lying" like you claim, considering you explain why what they're saying is true ("phone throttling its power draw" = slowing down)

matthew28845 3y ago
Purism is insinuating that the primary reason why Apple throttled phones was to force you onto a new one, which is false. I think most people would rather have a phone that runs slow than a phone that randomly shuts off (increasing the lifespan compared to doing nothing and making people think their phone was broken.) Where Apple went wrong was not telling anyone they were throttling their devices, and not letting you force them to run at full power (which they changed later after the media backlash.)
- fsflover 3y ago
  > primary reason why Apple throttled phones was to force you onto a new one, which is false If you believe Apple's marketing, it's false. If you look at customers' reaction, it's likely true. There were a lot of complains after every update, and the only known solution was to buy a new phone.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Or replace the battery. I had one of the affected phones and it performed exactly the same with a new battery as it had with the original one during the first couple of years.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      The whole point of the class action lawsuit is that most people didn't know this.
      - acdha 3y ago
        That’s not the claim which Purism made or which is being repeated in this thread – because there’s obviously limited marketing value in saying “battery health used to be hard to tell on our competitor’s device but it’s been easy for over 6 years”.
        fsflover 3y ago
        Reread my above comment. The effective result of Apple's action is forcing people to buy next phone.
        acdha 3y ago
        Yes, that’s the claim Purism is using in their marketing but it’s predicated on the reader not checking the details and realizing that to the extent it was ever true, it was limited to a short period of time in 2017 between when the battery management behavior changed and when the UI warnings were added. It’s also worth noting that multiple government investigations and lawsuits have failed to turn up any evidence supporting the conspiratorial claims about forced updates. I know that Purism’s marketing strategy has to be convincing you to buy a product which is inferior on many counts but I think it’s a mistake to do things like this attacking their competitors because the “free is better” framing is fundamentally about trust. If they’re dishonest about something we can easily assess, how much can we trust the claims they’re making about things which are much harder to prove?
        fsflover 3y ago
        > it was limited to a short period of time in 2017 between when the battery management behavior changed and when the UI warnings were added You are technically right, but important part you are missing is that the Apple's behavior has only ended after they were sued. > things which are much harder to prove Which things? All code is FLOSS btw.
        acdha 3y ago
acdha 3y ago
Now keep reading all the way to the third sentence in the quote, where they characterize the motivation as getting people to buy new phones, when Apple, and other manufacturers, claim to be doing it to keep older phones usable. Now, if it was some random internet poster I might excuse this as fanboys being tedious or spending too much time on clickbait sites but this is an official publication from a direct competitor. They have to have expertise in this subject to be capable of building devices and anyone capable of designing a phone is going to know this is a real problem.

matthew28845 3y ago

Purism is insinuating that the primary reason why Apple throttled phones was to force you onto a new one, which is false. I think most people would rather have a phone that runs slow than a phone that randomly shuts off (increasing the lifespan compared to doing nothing and making people think their phone was broken.) Where Apple went wrong was not telling anyone they were throttling their devices, and not letting you force them to run at full power (which they changed later after the media backlash.)

fsflover 3y ago
> primary reason why Apple throttled phones was to force you onto a new one, which is false If you believe Apple's marketing, it's false. If you look at customers' reaction, it's likely true. There were a lot of complains after every update, and the only known solution was to buy a new phone.
- acdha 3y ago
  Or replace the battery. I had one of the affected phones and it performed exactly the same with a new battery as it had with the original one during the first couple of years.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    The whole point of the class action lawsuit is that most people didn't know this.
    - acdha 3y ago
      That’s not the claim which Purism made or which is being repeated in this thread – because there’s obviously limited marketing value in saying “battery health used to be hard to tell on our competitor’s device but it’s been easy for over 6 years”.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        Reread my above comment. The effective result of Apple's action is forcing people to buy next phone.
        acdha 3y ago
        Yes, that’s the claim Purism is using in their marketing but it’s predicated on the reader not checking the details and realizing that to the extent it was ever true, it was limited to a short period of time in 2017 between when the battery management behavior changed and when the UI warnings were added. It’s also worth noting that multiple government investigations and lawsuits have failed to turn up any evidence supporting the conspiratorial claims about forced updates. I know that Purism’s marketing strategy has to be convincing you to buy a product which is inferior on many counts but I think it’s a mistake to do things like this attacking their competitors because the “free is better” framing is fundamentally about trust. If they’re dishonest about something we can easily assess, how much can we trust the claims they’re making about things which are much harder to prove?
        fsflover 3y ago
        > it was limited to a short period of time in 2017 between when the battery management behavior changed and when the UI warnings were added You are technically right, but important part you are missing is that the Apple's behavior has only ended after they were sued. > things which are much harder to prove Which things? All code is FLOSS btw.
        acdha 3y ago

acdha 3y ago

Now keep reading all the way to the third sentence in the quote, where they characterize the motivation as getting people to buy new phones, when Apple, and other manufacturers, claim to be doing it to keep older phones usable. Now, if it was some random internet poster I might excuse this as fanboys being tedious or spending too much time on clickbait sites but this is an official publication from a direct competitor. They have to have expertise in this subject to be capable of building devices and anyone capable of designing a phone is going to know this is a real problem.