4 ms·
Before the whole "batterygate" thing[1], there were forums and discussions on macrumors and similar inquiring about the feasibility of inserting no-op codes dee
by nofunsir 1y ago
Before the whole "batterygate" thing[1], there were forums and discussions on macrumors and similar inquiring about the feasibility of inserting no-op codes deep below the kernel that would kick in under certain conditions. Post-batterygate, you can't find anything NOT about batterygate when searching.
1] Which I still firmly believe WAS indeed a power-supply design failure that would have forced a massive hardware recall had they not done something (slowing down the os). I believe it encompassed everything from inaccurate CPU power estimates to something actually incorrect with the PCB design, causing brown outs - and not merely a battery-aging red herring as is the reported scandalous reason they were "caught". In fact, I think Apple is GLAD that all it amounted to was some philosophical hullabaloo about protecting your poor aging battery.
To clarify, I suspect the "aging battery" merely exposed the real issue - the incorrect PS design - which Apple successfully covered up.
- mnurzia 1y agoDo you have any links to these discussion posts? This sounds very interesting, and I'm intrigued to learn more about the hardware explanation for this phenomenon.
- nofunsir 1y agoNope. I know a couple were on macrumors forums. And to be clear, there were suspicions of Apple slowing down devices to get you to upgrade far before Batterygate. It used to be painfully obvious, but with apple's protections it wasn't knowable.