Apple throttled your iPhone by cutting its speed almost in HALF!

Until it changes its name.

snipped-for-privacy@Onramp.net wrote on 1/4/2018 3:27 PM:

JR has gone *far* beyond pointing out a troll. He has gone so far beyond that he has become the troll. To point out that you think someone is a troll only takes a single post of a few lines. His less annoying posts were the uneducating, "So few facts, so much time. Life's hard for an old troll!" and "Get some new material, old foolish troll." When I point out his excessive complaining he only comes back with much more annoying posts. These are not intended to be educational to anyone. These are the rantings of someone who feels he is on a mission, a very misguided mission.

Just as bad are the many posts attempting to justify his behavior.

It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts. But you have to consider the noise level they bring as well. In this thread all but one post was noise. That's an unacceptable level.

actually, it's extremely unusual.

trolls post for a reaction, not for content.

Unlike you, I was learning something about the topic issue until I was sidetracked by the multiple troll accusation posts. In this thread Harry's posts are on topic at least.

How about we just don't respond to the posts we don't like? I don't see any value in discussing this further, so I won't be replying to posts about the trolling going on and in particular to posts containing personal insults.

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:05 PM:

And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me. I guess that shows he isn't trolling.

nospam wrote on 1/3/2018 8:38 AM:

Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first year. A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the battery ages. I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new for two or three years. Do you not understand the issue? Apple would seem to have either not given this attention in the design stage (indicating incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of operation (with potential warranty issues).

The extent of Harry's trolling of the Apple news groups extends far beyond this thread, junior. You're clueless.

Ah, is that what you did with my posts?

No, they were filled with lies, like:

"Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in half"

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices with batteries that are on the way out.

And:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

No, it doesn't. You, on the other hand, are in very shady territory and company.

rst

he

em

Dayum, but you know next-to-nothing about battery chemistry and/or the agin g process. Knowing now that you are likely unencumbered by the thought proc ess (insult) and likely on the Spectrum (not an insult, but a reach for an explanation for your apparent-deliberate ignorance), batteries age. They ag e in two ways: a) Not able to deliver the necessary amperage at a given voltage for as lon g as before. b) Not able to deliver sufficient voltage as before. Subset: voltage is OK, but the amperage is not.

This is true of every kind of chemical battery from a liquid lead-acid batt ery used for backing up POTS systems to a Tesla battery.

I keep radio-control submarines. On them, I have a device that reads the st ate of the battery, and if it goes critical, immediately surfaces the boat, and will not permit diving. I can determine the age of the battery by when that happens on a run.

Again, this is a chemical issue true of every kind of chemical battery over time. Cell phones make heavy demands on batteries depending on what they a re asked to do. Some simply cannot meet that demand with an old battery, an d so 'limit' the phone much as the "Sub-Safe" device does. That Apple expla ined this badly is the issue. Not what happened.

Getting back to Jimmy Neutron - he offered a Conspiracy-Based explanation f or an obvious phenomenon in order to light off his personal tempest in his virtual teapot. It was neither thoughtful, nor offered as a basis for actua l discussion.

Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

yep.

put simply, the peaks are clipped.

for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or web surfing, there is no slowdown.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

how so?

nothing he's written has any basis in fact (despite his claims otherwise).

he is regularly proven wrong. he claims things can't be done on ios or macs even though it's been explained to him *exactly* how to do it. he snips to alter context to avoid admitting he's full of shit.

nope.

what it shows is that you'll believe anything without verifying it.

it doesn't. it's not based on how old it is.

it depends on the battery health and the specific power demands at the time.

exactly what it does.

'nearly as well' means there's a noticeable effect.

laptop batteries also have a *much* higher capacity than what's in a phone and capable of much higher peaks.

they are also powering a different processor with different power demands in a product with a different thermal profile along with numerous other differences.

in other words, not a good comparison.

far more than you do.

both false.

By your definition you have become a troll. IOW why don't take your own advice and not respond as you have several times. JR has less posts about this than you now.

Where's the evidence that all (or even the majority) of iPhones are impacted in the first year? Answer: it doesn't exist because it's bullshit hyperbole.

Apple devices *do* continue to operate as the battery ages. I've got an eight year old iPad 1st generation sitting right here beside me that's working just fine on the original battery. And the feature in question actually extends the *runtime* of devices with dying batteries rather than putting so much load on them they fail outright and shut down the device. Personally, eeking out every little bit of runtime possible happens to be precisely what I *expect* from the OS that runs on my devices. Is that something that sets Apple users apart from the rest of the herd?

Just two or three? I'm posting this on a six year old MacBook Pro with the original battery (486 cycles and counting and 88% healthy) without any issues. I have an iPhone 3GS that still works on the original battery. I have a 2010 iPhone 4 in the car as a dedicated dashcam that still runs great too.

Do you?

Nonsense. Apple's customers have good experiences, which is why Apple tops customer satisfaction and rakes in the profits. Real-world use trumps some blogger with a slant any day.

Anecdotes and hyperbole don't equate to pandemics. This entire "issue" is a big, overblown bucket of bullshit from people who don't understand the engineering involved. And a few months from now it'll be forgotten and replaced with the next new "scandal".

No, it shows that you aren't knowledgeable enough to see his idiocy.

Exactly, and the benefit is a device with longer runtime towards the end of its battery life. I'll take it.

Yup. But details like that don't fit the troll narrative.

Yes.

On Jan 4, 2018, rickman wrote (in article ):

The problem will continue, because the actual news group spoiling, anti-Apple agenda holding troll, is the nymshifting OP. He taunts with his provocative bait knowing that he will precipitate the thread into a flamewar. Many of the usual participants, such as JR, Lewis, nospam, and others seem to be unable to resist to temptation to engage with him. I for one will not entertain playing into the trollish flamewar trap he sets in the Apple NGs and cross pollinates to other groups which have no interest in things Apple.

He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:17:11 -0500:

This is the key point, rickman, where you and almost all the logical people who bought iPhones (and even logical people who didn't buy them) would have presumed that the CPU speed of a phone would be the same on day 1 when the reviews come out as it would be on day 366 after a year of ownership.

Nobody (but Apple & the Apple Apologists) has even tried to defend the secret, permanent, and drastic halving of the CPU speeds as being "beneficial" for "prolonging the life" of the phone.

I can understand why Apple says that (they have a dozen lawsuits to not give any ammunition to), but it's harder to understand the logic of the defense that we should have known all along that Apple would halve the speeds based on what Apple said it put in the iOS 10.2.1 release (and 11.2 for the iPhone 7).

"iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your iPhone or iPad. It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone."

Affected phones were: iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE.

Bear in mind that it is a fact that I am the one who first broke the news to the Apple newsgroups of the problem, and who first broke the news of Apple's apology about the problem - so I am vehemently hated by the Apple Apologists (nospam, Jolly Roger, Savageduck, Snit, BKonRamp, etc.).

You have to understand that on the affected iOS newsgroups, there is a set of bona-fide lifer Apple Apologists who hate any fact that is truthful but not what they like to hear.

So they will *destroy* any thread that contains facts that they don't like, using a variety of techniques, some of which you've seen here, all combined with guile and vitriol and ill logic, where, in the end, they always attempt to destroy truthful facts like any competent cancer would.

You have Jolly Roger exclaiming today that an Apple battery is as easy to replace as a "user replaceable" battery for example, which is just patently ridiculous - and yet - he makes that claim with a straight face. Worse, Jolly Roger consistently fabricates content that never occurred, just so that he can appear witty (to himself?) by responding to that completely fabricated content!

Why does Jolly Roger habitually fabricate quoted content?

You have nospam insisting that Apple duly informed its users with that cryptic 10.2.1 release-note blurb, and you have Savageduck trying to skirt facts with semantic outliers such as iOS-based non-Apple cameras, and you have snipped-for-privacy@Onramp.net who consistently high-fives other people's posts but has never once (ever!) added technical value to any thread in his entire life!

All of these ill-logical people resort to complete and utter fabrications of non-existing functionality, whenever confronted with patently unassailable facts - that they don't like.

Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?

That's the kind of people you're currently dealing with.

It seems from all the evidence (quoted elsewhere already), that Apple didn't test the product thoroughly enough (they admitted as much that they were blindsided by the initial shutdowns) and then, after the second series of reports came in, Apple finally realized what happened.

The "fix" is clear - which they already apologized for not communicating (but only because they got caught so they had to apologize).

The fact is that they implemented a secret solution that is permanent and drastic (cutting CPU speeds to less than half after only one year of use).

The conjecture is "WHY" they did that.

I posit, with logical thought, that they realized how BIG of a problem this design flaw is, and they realized they didn't have ANY options to fix it in software that were palatable to the customer.

They certainly *could* have implemented a recall, where they provided the customer with a better design - but they took the easy way out - which was to secretly mask the design flaw.

This is all well described already in valid factual references I've supplied in each of my posts, so I will let you decide who is a troll on this newsgroup, and who is providing valid referenced facts.

Title: "Apple makes its intent on the battery fiasco clear. And not in the way it wanted."

He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:09:25 -0500:

You have to understand, rickman, that the Apple Apologists *hate* me, with a vengeance, because I speak facts that they don't like.

I call out Jolly Roger on his trolls (if you run a search for the combination of Jolly Roger and troll on the iOS newsgroups, he comes up on top, by far, since he calls every fact he doesn't like, a troll).

BTW, I always *add* value to a newsgroup, so who do you think *created* those tinyurls in the first place? I did.

For example:

Why did I create them?

For the good of all, as I've been on Usenet for decades, being an old octogenarian (where you'll note Jolly Roger always tries to insult me for simply being old).

What the Apple Apologists you're dealing with absolutely hate, are facts that they don't like so they attempt to defame and destroy the bearer of those valid verified facts.

For example, this is my thread on the iOS newsgroups which *broke* the news to them that Apple was caught secretly throttling CPU speeds. Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device down to trick you into buying a new device

When you skim that thread, you'll instantly see how the Apple Apologists react to truthful facts and how the others on the iOS newsgroup who are not Apple Apologists, react.

They are two completely different mentalities (which you're noticing). a. Adults who can converse using logic and facts, and, b. Apple Apologists (e.g., nospam, Savageduck, Jolly Roger, BKonRamp, etc.) who can, but don't.