Slashdot Mirror


Apple Investigated By France For 'Planned Obsolescence' (bbc.com)

AmiMoJo shares a report from the BBC: French prosecutors have launched a probe over allegations of "planned obsolescence" in Apple's iPhone. Under French law it is a crime to intentionally shorten the lifespan of a product with the aim of making customers replace it. In December, Apple admitted that older iPhone models were deliberately slowed down through software updates. It follows a legal complaint filed in December by pro-consumer group Stop Planned Obsolescence (Hop). Hop said France was the third country to investigate Apple after Israel and the U.S., but the only one in which the alleged offense was a crime. Penalties could include up to 5% of annual turnover or even a jail term.

313 comments

  1. Re: $$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    *Planned* obsolescence is a crime in France, not obsolescence per se. Thus, your comment is moot.

  2. Re:$$S by Goonie · · Score: 1

    How in the hell is the average consumer supposed to assess the durability of a smartphone?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  3. Re:$$S by Askmum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Very nice, are you ready to pay for a smartphone like you pay for a durable product like a car? A decade of usable life can be arranged as long as you are willing to accept tradeoffs such as price, weight, form factor and features. Not interested? Than STFU. Market delivers what customers are asking for.

    Methinks that when I shell out $1000 for an I-phone, it is a durable product. You may have a point with el cheapo $50 smartphones, but then they break. They do not suffer from planned obsolesence.

  4. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    put Tim Cook in Jail for ruining this company.

  5. Having an almost 10 year old Huawei U8150... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can say that the 'el cheapo' (well it was 180 when it came out, and ~50-80 when it was discontinued) has lasted me far longer than basically everyone I knew with a 600+ dollar contract phone. Basically all of them replaced it before the 2 year replacement period due to physical damage, failed batteries, or drops in the toilet.

    While my phone wouldn't have survived that last one, it survived the former for years and is still running to this day. It won't be replaced until 2G GSM is turned off for good.

    1. Re:Having an almost 10 year old Huawei U8150... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which phone is that?

    2. Re:Having an almost 10 year old Huawei U8150... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      judging by the naive use of the site's awkward subject field, something called a U8150

  6. Yes, Some Reasonable Regulation Please by BBCWatcher · · Score: 2

    Maybe. Cars have never been better, so "more like a car" is quite appealing, actually. I know I don't want my smartphone (or the other airline passenger's smartphone) to behave like a Samsung Galaxy Note 7. It shouldn't electrocute anybody, it should be secure (and not only when the manufacturer first shipped it), and it should fully honor my privacy requirements. It should be repairable and not more fragile than a snowflake in Bangkok. I should be able to use it to summon an ambulance or police officer reliably, with my correct location, and even if I don't have the correct SIM and only have a weak signal on another carrier's tower (or a Wi-Fi connection). It should support truly important public safety alerting, such as "tornado approaching." It should not jam the signals of the whole neighborhood's baby monitors. If I ever get a hearing aid, I ought to still be able to hear the other caller.

    In short, yes, there is some appropriate role for government regulation of smartphones.

    1. Re:Yes, Some Reasonable Regulation Please by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Maybe. Cars have never been better, so "more like a car" is quite appealing, actually.

      That's debatable; it depends on what you value about them. Cars have never been safer, but they also have never been heavier. My 1997 Audi A8 Quattro weighs about 3800lb wet, and that's the lightest example of the breed. The later ones get up over 4500lb! But a W126 500SEL is only around 3500lb! And that's a car with ABS, pretensioners, and great unibody design. And then there's electric power steering; my A8 has hydraulic, but all the modern cars seem to have electric, and it feels dead. And of course, the A-pillars are massive on most new vehicles, so you can't see out of them as easily as the old ones.

      So yeah, unless you care about handling, feel, or visibility, new cars are better.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. samsung by geekymachoman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Related to this.. but not 100 % ontopic..
    Every time I updated my samsung s3 (i still use it) it got slower and slower.. until i just gave up.

    Everybody I talked to said the same thing, about other manufacturers too.

    I gave up updating my phone. I don't have anything I cannot live without on it (it's a phone people).. I don't install apps on it except maybe 2-3 apps such as Chrome, Guitar Tuner and LINE Messanger.

    1. Re:samsung by n329619 · · Score: 2

      Also 100% not ontopic but related to op.

      You said you "don't install apps on it except maybe 2-3 apps such as Chrome, Guitar Tuner and LINE Messanger". If so, you could just backup your app data, factory reset and reinstall those apps. It doesn't tell us why your s3 got slower but it can make your phone faster.

    2. Re:samsung by antdude · · Score: 1

      But no fixes like for security and bugs. I wished they did those old support. Frak the new features.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:samsung by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between getting slower due to bogged down bloated software, and getting slower due to limiting CPU speed. While I agree with the sentiment the updates have over time added features too which basically makes it a trade-off.

      Phones are only now getting to the Windows 7 era of computing, a point where they are baseline enough that there's little to add in the core OS to bloat it down. I expect the trend of getting slower not to continue (by accident, I'm sure there are nefarious reasons for it too).

    4. Re:samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, I have the same experience with Samsung Note 3. I've greatly extended its lifespan by switching to LineageOS (and byuing a new battery).

    5. Re:samsung by c · · Score: 1

      Every time I updated my samsung s3 (i still use it) it got slower and slower.. until i just gave up.

      Lose the bloat.

      Every Android device I've owned back to an HTC One S has run faster with better battery life once I gave up on vendor updates and switched to CM/LineageOS.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    6. Re:samsung by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      My Moto G didn't get first-party software update for long enough to notice this, but when I switched to LineageOS it got faster. New versions of Android have a faster JIT and AOT compiler for Java than the one that my phone originally shipped with. Much of this performance is eaten by more complex apps, but the apps that haven't suffered from creeping featureitus are noticeably faster.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very much this.

      My 2013 MotoG (now a backup phone) is faster than ever with LineageOS (I'm now using the Android 7.1.2 build). Considering it has only 1GB RAM and 16GB storage it is surprisingly usable. Strangely enough, it feels faster than a MotoG 3 with standard firmware. I just had to drop Firefox, as it is currently super slow on old hardware.

    8. Re:samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:samsung by msk · · Score: 1

      LineageOS

  8. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's such BS and Apple users pay a premium as it is. "Durable" has nothing to do with "obsolete". I own a "durable" iPhone 4S - arguably the most "durable" phone they ever made - hell, it feels heavy in your hand - it's perfectly functional yet it has been rendered obsolete by Apple which quit releasing updates for it without warning. The day I bought it I had no idea how long it would be supported because Apple doesn't publish this information. That sounds like planned obsolescence to me. When you buy a Mac or iPhone you have no idea how long it will be supported once the warranty expires. Contrast that with Microsoft which publishes that e.g. Windows 7 will be supported until 1/14/2020: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet and they publish this shit like 10 years in advance.

  9. What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple implemented a technical solution that kept phones usable for LONGER than other phone makers. By not shutting down randomly as the battery aged, by trying to maintain a day of battery life in the phone for a longer period of time, Apple was delaying the time when a user might have to repair or replace a phone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they could have just made the battery user-replaceable, like in almost every other phone.

    2. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you bought a phone within the last five years?

    3. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by gravewax · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I could believe that IF they were popping up a message on users screen explaining the slowdown and that users could just buy a new battery so that they don't think it is time to buy a new phone.

    4. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They implemented a technical solution that saved them money. As I have explained before, it's a design flaw caused by specifying an inadequate battery and then not doing a full life cycle test on it.

      This issue is well understood. The datasheet for the battery will give you the current delivery capability over its lifetime, specifying the worst case. You can also buy rather expensive battery simulators to test your hardware with an aged battery.

      Other manufacturers did that. Apple either did it or got lucky on older phones. With the 6 they screwed up. In Europe design flaws have to be resolved in the customer's favour, and if found to be deliberate they can be a crime.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The alternative behavior is random shutdowns or restarts, and a battery that lasts a very short time. If Apple had done nothing, don't you think people would assume their phone was broken and needed replacement?

      Bottom line is that Apple allowed the devices to function for longer, without the user having to do anything. It might have been nice to explain, but should it be criminal not to?

    6. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Yes. About 4 years ago. Funny enough the battery is replaceable and still in good shape.

      Ok, it's neither a Samsung nor an Apple product, it's some cheap model I never heard about before, but when cheap crap offers better service than brand names, it's time to reconsider.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      And there is no reason to at least TELL the people? Instead just degrade their phone's performance, but of course not to convince them they have to buy a new one.

      C'mon. If you believe that, I have a nice bridge for sale with a clear view of the San Francisco skyline.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Juju · · Score: 1

      I'd agree if Apple didn't try to make it impossible for users to change their battery!
      Making the thing hard to open, gluing everything inside, charging $90 for swapping and putting too small batteries in their phone is ground to sue alone.
      Apple is going out of their way to try to get people to buy a new phone instead of fixing the one they already own, and they are known for it, so this is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

      Since people are too stupid to vote with their wallet, someone has got to do it. And I hope other's will follow, and not just Apple which is probably the worst offender but definitely not alone.
      All electronics should be fixable, batteries should be accessible and changeable without voiding warranty. Repair guides for repair shops should be mandatory. Connectors (and chargers) should be standard.

      And here comes the car analogy: if apple made cars, you could only service them in apple garages to fit new apple tires and apple brake pads. Does this sound reasonable?

      --
      Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
    9. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      No, the alternative behaviour is that they recall and give your a fixed phone. That's what Google did.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Apple implemented a technical solution that kept phones usable for LONGER than other phone makers. By not shutting down randomly as the battery aged, by trying to maintain a day of battery life in the phone for a longer period of time, Apple was delaying the time when a user might have to repair or replace a phone.

      No, what Apple did was force a "feature" down on consumers without telling them, or giving them the option themselves to enable or disable it. THAT is the real issue here. Had they simply done that, and explained the reasoning being the "feature" as you have, it would have probably played out a LOT differently for Apple. Now, they appear sneaky and nefarious for doing this, even if they were ultimately trying to help.

      Being honest and upfront still matters to consumers. Go figure.

    11. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      What utter crap. You ever heard of a battery charge indicator? Clue - its on the top right of the screen on most phones and - surprise! - it gives people an idea of how much charge is left! So now, there wouldn't be "random" shutdowns, and if apple built a product where you could change the battery this wouldn't be an issue in the first place would it Mr Shill?

    12. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Funny how no other phone makers have problems with their phones shutting down. Apple gimped their device to cover up their fucked up power system design. Nothing more nothing less.

    13. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by not+flu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The battery indicator doesn't work under these conditions. I had a couple of random shutdowns when battery indicator was over 30% on my iPhone 5 before I started wondering how come my phone lasts for days now without a recharge. If it wasn't for the lack of security updates for a 5-year-old phone I wouldn't even be looking for a replacement.

    14. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they had to replace it AAAAAANYWAYS, thats how we finally arrived at the battery gate, so many shitphones were running so slow people finally NOOOOTICED

      the problem for all your entire set of excuses is that you sometimes people forget that theres MIIIIIIILLIONS of other devices with batteries, several years older than shitphones, that work perfectly fine today, because if every single device would be running x2 slower every year, or getting crashes every year old the battery gets, THEEEEEN:

      NONE
      OF
      MY
      SHIT
      WOULD
      WORK

      ever, but they do, and thats how semi intelligent people outta know apple were doing VERY shady shit

    15. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      No, the alternative behaviour is that they recall and give your a fixed phone. That's what Google did.

      How is this a plausible solution to batery life? Should all tech companies be required to constantly repair their devices for problems that arent actually faults (And its not a fault, because the battery is functioning as designed). Techniology would become ridiculously expensive. No battery on earth lasts forever, and as a result pretty much all countries with legislatively guaranteed life (of machine) warranties like australia excempt batteries because batteries aint got long lifes.

      Apples actions objectively extended the life of batteries.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    16. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by gravewax · · Score: 1

      No the alternative behaviour is to tell the user what is happening and let them choose whether they want to slowdown the device, run the risk of crashes or get a new battery. By not telling them they have mislead the user into thinking their phone needs replacing.

    17. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do other manufactures continue to do this?

      Best Android phones with a removable battery (August 2017)
      https://www.androidauthority.com/best-android-phones-removable-battery-697520/

    18. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      specifying an inadequate battery

      Source? I haven't heard that Apple's batteries were somehow inferior to those used by the rest of the industry. Do the batteries used by other manufacturers last longer than 1-2 years, or do their phones reboot at random once they start under-volting the CPU?

    19. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      LiPo batteries come in various shapes and sizes. One of the main differences is the size of the cathode. The larger it is the more current that the battery can supply. Apple selected a battery design with a smaller cathode than required, presumably to save space and make their phones a fraction of a millimetre thinner.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Yes, if they designed in an unsuitable battery then they should redesign the phone to correct the problem and then offer free repairs/replacements.

      If the phone was 0.02mm thicker they could use a battery with a bigger cathode, and avoid this issue entirely. Alternatively they could talk to battery manufactures and find a clever way to increase the cathode size without altering the phone. It might be possible with newer chemistry or something.

      Again, the only other manufacturer that had this issue was Google with the Nexus 6P, and they replaced every affected device.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree what apple did is shitty. A battery is a wear item, just like the breaks in your car are wear items. They degrade with age and have to be replaced at some point. You don't demand that your car manufacturer replace your car because your breaks are worn. What apple should have done is put some notification that the battery has degraded to the point the phone needs to be throttled to keep it from shutting down/crashing and indicate that you can replace the battery to restore full functionality. Just like how breaks on a car have a wear indicator strip that makes what wretched screeching sound once the breaks have worn to the point that they need to be replaced. I'd wager most people don't even know that sound is from a piece of metal put there on purpose to make that wretched screeching sound once the pads are worn down enough and the metal strip starts rubbing against the brake disc. Most people just hear a horrible sound and are like oh shit let me take my car to the mechanic.

    22. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's battery is not inferior by design (ie. it is not faulty), it is inferior because they put an undersized battery in that is not specd to provide the current draw the phone needs at full load once the battery has degraded over the course of 2 years or so.

      Apple put in an undersized battery because when you try and make your phone that thin, that is the only option. Had they chosen to make their phone a couple MM thicker they could have put a properly sized battery in it.

      It's like taking a flashlight that uses D cell batteries, but taking undersized AA cells and putting them into some kind of shim so they will fit inside the case of the flashlight. The AA cells will work, but since they are undersized they won't provide the expected life time that proper D batteries would have.

    23. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a fault when they design the case so you can't replace the battery... typically a "user replaceable part".

    24. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or...just make the batteries replaceable. We've lived for nearly 80 years (so far) working with technologies where the batteries can be replaced. So what if the battery has to be replaced every 3-4 years instead of every couple months?

      "I want the thinnest phone possible, so I can put the thickest, ugliest case on it to keep it from breaking".

      Why not just manufacture a phone that won't break if it falls off the nightstand, and one that has a battery that can be replaced, since it is the most likely part that needs to be replaced? Is it too much to ask for these days? It's a frickin' phone, not a piece of modern art...

    25. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're actually quite simple to work on as all of the internals are modular and the glue is a necessity.

      The rest of your comments are on point.
       

    26. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brakes are replaceable though, you aren't forced by Ford to buy a new car when the brakes start to lose function.

    27. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Apple implemented a technical solution that kept phones usable for LONGER than other phone makers. By not shutting down randomly as the battery aged, by trying to maintain a day of battery life in the phone for a longer period of time, Apple was delaying the time when a user might have to repair or replace a phone.

      Precisely.

    28. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I could believe that IF they were popping up a message on users screen explaining the slowdown and that users could just buy a new battery so that they don't think it is time to buy a new phone.

      They have already said that's what they are going to do in future releases of iOS.

    29. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      The alternative behavior is random shutdowns or restarts, and a battery that lasts a very short time. If Apple had done nothing, don't you think people would assume their phone was broken and needed replacement?

      Bottom line is that Apple allowed the devices to function for longer, without the user having to do anything. It might have been nice to explain, but should it be criminal not to?

      VERY well-stated!

    30. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Apples actions objectively extended the life of batteries.

      And that's why all these bullshit lawsuits and "Investigations" are doomed to fail, as well they should.

    31. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      It is a fault when they design the case so you can't replace the battery... typically a "user replaceable part".

      Really? There are a LOT of devices that have non-user-replaceable batteries, and haven't for YEARS:

      1. Pacemakers, infusion pumps and other medical devices.

      2. Most computer motherboards these days, at least the ones still with batteries.

      3. Some remote controls.

      4. Handheld 2-way radios.

      5. Some cordless tools and appliances.

      6. Some rechargeable flashlights.

      7. Most laptops these days.

      8. Bluetooth headsets and earbuds.

      9. Many hearing-aids.

      etc.

    32. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      What utter crap. You ever heard of a battery charge indicator? Clue - its on the top right of the screen on most phones and - surprise! - it gives people an idea of how much charge is left! So now, there wouldn't be "random" shutdowns, and if apple built a product where you could change the battery this wouldn't be an issue in the first place would it Mr Shill?

      Hey stupid!

      Of COURSE iPhones have a "battery indicator", just like EVERYONE. But what was happening was that, the "averaged" battery indicator (just like everyone else's) does not show INSTANTANEOUS drops due to INSTANTANEOUS power requirements; power requirements that are many, many times that of the "steady state" power drain, but which last generally only fractions of a second, or a few seconds (except in the case of running Benchmarks, which are NOT "real-world" tests, unless specifically designed that way).

      These instantaneous power drains can exceed the ability of a battery that is either old (which raises the internal resistance of the battery), or cold (which works against the battery's ability to supply power, period). When a battery cannot supply enough power (in this case, current) to meet demand, even instantaneous demand, the laws of physics say that what happens is the VOLTAGE takes a dive. That can result in the power-management circuitry and software shutting-down the phone to protect stuff like RAM and FLASH from "brownout" conditions during writes, and the CPU from "brownout" conditions, which can result in completely unpredictable behavior. But the user just knows that their phone mysteriously shut-off when the battery indicator showed "plenty" (usually 10 to 30 percent) charge remaining.

      So, I hope you have learned something here, Hater. Because you sure didn't have this knowledge when you wrote your ignorant comment.

      Thanks for playing!

    33. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by danomac · · Score: 1

      I bought mine 30 months ago, also not a Samsung or Apple, and it's just starting to show battery degradation.

      Oh look, I found a new OEM battery from the manufacturer for $29, and all it takes is 10 seconds to pop the back cover off and change it, and it'll be good for another 30 months...

    34. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      With the 6 they screwed up.

      My iPhone 6, bought back when they came out in September, 2014, and used continuously ever since, just showed 93% battery capacity using the popular (and supposedly accurate) "Battery Life" App.

      Geekbench 4 CPU scores were actually BETTER than average, and the Compute score was only "off" by about 100 points.

      No "Slowdown" felt or observed, either. Ever.

      So, it is NOT a "Design Defect". It COULD be a battery-supplier-problem (ask Samsung about those!); but if so, it didn't affect MY phone. At all.

    35. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      LiPo batteries come in various shapes and sizes. One of the main differences is the size of the cathode. The larger it is the more current that the battery can supply. Apple selected a battery design with a smaller cathode than required, presumably to save space and make their phones a fraction of a millimetre thinner.

      Quit spreading FUD.

    36. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a phone from 2013 that just work. No random reboots, no slowdown. I had to factory reset it a couple of times but besides that what I get is just less and less time between charges.

      This is the expected behavior of an old phone. By slowing down the phone Apple is not doing anybody a favor but themselves.

    37. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I'd agree if Apple didn't try to make it impossible for users to change their battery!
      Making the thing hard to open, gluing everything inside, charging $90 for swapping and putting too small batteries in their phone is ground to sue alone.

      Liar, Liar, Hater Liar.

      Battery Replacement: $79. Do try to keep up.

      iFixit praising Apple for NOT using GLUE to hold batteries down in recent models, unlike Samsung, for instance.

      https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/i...

      https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/S...

    38. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Funny how no other phone makers have problems with their phones shutting down. Apple gimped their device to cover up their fucked up power system design. Nothing more nothing less.

      Selective Blindness?

      https://apple.slashdot.org/com...

      https://apple.slashdot.org/com...

      Not another maker, but the iPhone 5, which nobody is accusing of having a defective design:

      https://apple.slashdot.org/com...

      And that's just from ONE article.

    39. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These instantaneous power drains can exceed the ability of a battery

      ... that was underspec'd to save money, or spec'd to serve some random hipster inspired design requirement. If the battery quality/capacity was adequate, the iPhones, woudn't have that sort of problems so soon in their usable lifetime.

      There, corrected it for you. You are welcome.

    40. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bottom line is that Apple allowed the devices to function for longer, without the user having to do anything. It might have been nice to explain, but should it be criminal not to?

      VERY well-stated!

      NOT!

      Apple underspec'd the batteries to save monies and tried to hide it from public to save even more monies. I guess it is very, very much criminal.

    41. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could believe that IF they were popping up a message on users screen explaining the slowdown and that users could just buy a new battery so that they don't think it is time to buy a new phone.

      They have already said that's what they are going to do in future releases of iOS.

      That and offer free battery replacements, after all the original one was clearly underspec'd. Except they won't.
      That's criminal and someone should go to jail. I hope France do it for the greater good of humanity.

    42. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/12/12886058/iphone-7-specs-competition
      "At IFA 2016, I watched Huawei advertise its new Nova phones by noting they have almost double the iPhone 6S’ 1,715mAh battery capacity. This is the typical asymmetry between an iPhone and its nearest Android rivals. To compete with the iPhone’s battery life — the effect of the spec — Android manufacturers have to build consistently larger batteries to offset inefficiencies."

      "Inefficiencies"... ohhh, the irony!

    43. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah. Sounds like a lot of apple-only physics going on here. Fact is they made a sub-performing phone and tried to cover that up with software sandbags. And lied about it. That why so many of these lawsuits are going to succeed. apples legal team and budget will be stretched very very thin.

    44. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The battery is replaceable, costs you $29 including the new battery.

    45. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my whole point.

    46. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL cute.
      Im sure you were cheer leading apple suing Samsung for 2 billion $. How did the work out?
      Im sure you were here saying the same thing about apples ebook price fixing. Oops; found guilty.
      Im sure you thought the University of Wisconsin lawsuit was doomed to fail too; but they won.

      Your predictions seem a bit off; possibly because apples version of the story and the truth are usually polar opposites.

       

    47. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      [Rubbish snipped]

      "So, I hope you have learned something here, Hater."

      Hater? Do yourself a favour and grow up fanboy.

    48. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it wasn't. The whole point is that Apple intentionally make the brakes non replaceable, to force you into buying a new car. And then when you don't take the hint, slowing down your car until you see the Apple way, and pay for more shiny.

    49. Re:What Apple was doing was opposite, going longer by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      [Rubbish snipped]

      "So, I hope you have learned something here, Hater."

      Hater? Do yourself a favour and grow up fanboy.

      Alright.

      If not a "Hater", then an ignoramus.

      If you don't know that a Battery Indicator is useless for tracking or displaying micro or milli-second-long current spikes, then you are ignorant of how they work and what they display.

      Being ignorant is excusable; however, accusing someone that points out that fact of being a "fanboy" is, er, NOT.

  10. Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime? by mykepredko · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the overwhelming answer to this question will be "Yes", but I wonder if there are cases where implementing downgrading of capability in technology products is justified and even argued as necessary.

    - What about a phone that only provides communications on a radio protocol that is going obsolete and would cost the carrier (and the customer) much more to support it? (In Canada, CDMA service ended on May 31st - would it have been so bad for customers to get new product before the shut off date?)
    - What about processor technology that has issues that the manufacturer cannot fix but has software work arounds which are expensive to maintain (especially on older systems), causes problems on other devices in the system and causes an overall performance degradation? (Any apparent relationship to the Intel/ARM64 Spectre and Meltdown bugs is non-coincidental.)

    Personally, I think Apple should be fined/jailed for dropping the operating performance of older iPhones in order to drive sales of the new devices - and, I would not label this "Planned Obsolescence" per se but damaging customer-owned product in order to generate new sales.

    But, if the supplier can demonstrate that it is in the customer's best interest for strongly encourage them to replace their existing technology AND it is not price gouging the customers (ie the replacement product is made available at cost) should this be illegal?

  11. Re: $$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's coincidence, not collusion. I thought Correct the Record stopped paying you guys?

  12. What about the iPhone 4S and iPad 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both these devices received "free" updates to iOS 9 that made them measurably slower in every single task. They take longer to boot, animations aren't as smooth and often stutter, it takes longer to open applications, Safari can't have as many tabs open, etc, etc, etc. Of course, Apple spun that update as a "good thing", despite the fact that they knew it would slow those devices down.

    So this isn't exactly anything new. They just got caught because of the undersized batteries they're using in their "thin" designs, and then admitted it because they knew dealing with the fallout from that would cost the company less than doing a full recall for every affected device (which is to say, all of them, because they're quite literally defective by design).

    Someone needs to step up and slap them with a fine that makes the shareholders go "Oh... Oh shit...", because a few million will never be enough. They purposefully built and sold a defective device that they knew was going to fail, and now they should pay dearly for that mistake.

    1. Re:What about the iPhone 4S and iPad 2? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      because they're quite literally defective by design).

      If they are "Defective by DESIGN", then why, oh, why does my iPhone 6, purchased on September 2014, just return a 93% battery life with the popular "Battery Life" App? And why, oh, why did it actually score BETTER than the average on Geekbench 4 CPU scores?

      If it were Defective by DESIGN, then ALL devices would show at least SOME indication of that design-weakness.

      But they don't.

  13. Nor do iPhones by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    I know a lot of people that use iPhones for many, many years. After a while you may have to replace the battery but that is expected for any battery powered device; in no way is there "planned obsolescence", instead there is a falloff in updates but you can continue to use the device for many years beyond that. It's not like Apple disables devices after a certain period of time, they keep working even after they are no longer supported.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Nor do iPhones by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Well, I wish I had fallen off the update bandwagon before it made my iPhone and iPad unusable. The only iDevices that perform the same as the day I bought them are my iPods. Which do not get updates (they are not iPod Touch versions).

    2. Re:Nor do iPhones by Higaran · · Score: 1

      There is planned obsolescence, apple has said as much. When you intentionally hinder a product to worsen it, after you've release a newer better product, that is exactly planned obsolescence. Apple claims it was to improve battery usage or what ever, but that is the worst PR excuse that I've ever heard.

    3. Re:Nor do iPhones by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      They only slowed down the devices after detecting a problem with the battery which would have made the device shut down unexpectedly. I once had an iPhone 5 that suffered from that problem: battery would decrease to about 25% and then the whole device would suddenly shut off without warning.

      So you have a choice: replace the battery or accept lower performance to keep the device from shutting down randomly.

      This is not because the device is old, but because the battery has a problem (for example after having been dropped, or discharged too deeply too many times). I don't see how you can call this planned obsolescence.

      It's like a car that detects a problem in the ignition system and therefore limits engine power until it's fixed. Would you sue the car company for that?

    4. Re:Nor do iPhones by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 0

      I know a lot of people that use iPhones for many, many years. After a while you may have to replace the battery but that is expected for any battery powered device; in no way is there "planned obsolescence", instead there is a falloff in updates but you can continue to use the device for many years beyond that. It's not like Apple disables devices after a certain period of time, they keep working even after they are no longer supported.

      Not to mention what is stupid France going to say when Apple counters (truthfully) that they were trying to EXTEND, not SHORTEN the useful lifespan of the product, AND also help the environment by reducing the number of batteries and phones being thrown away.

    5. Re:Nor do iPhones by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      They only slowed down the devices after detecting a problem with the battery which would have made the device shut down unexpectedly. I once had an iPhone 5 that suffered from that problem: battery would decrease to about 25% and then the whole device would suddenly shut off without warning.

      So you have a choice: replace the battery or accept lower performance to keep the device from shutting down randomly.

      This is not because the device is old, but because the battery has a problem (for example after having been dropped, or discharged too deeply too many times). I don't see how you can call this planned obsolescence.

      It's like a car that detects a problem in the ignition system and therefore limits engine power until it's fixed. Would you sue the car company for that?

      Exactly!

    6. Re:Nor do iPhones by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with Apple is that they always feel they should make these decisions FOR people instead of telling them it is happening and letting them make the choice.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:Nor do iPhones by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      The problem with Apple is that they always feel they should make these decisions FOR people instead of telling them it is happening and letting them make the choice.

      Most people enjoy Apple products precisely BECAUSE they don't HAVE to become an expert in things they really don't care about to use their products effectively. It doesn't make them "stupid", anymore than someone who doesn't care to know what goes on in their car's engine compartment is "stupid" because the car manufacturer "decided for them" what size radiator would be appropriate for their car's engine.

      And, besides, Apple has already said they are going to provide much more detailed battery and performance information in subsequent versions of iOS, and will most likely make it a user-choice to accept Apple's attempts at keeping their device running with a degraded battery, or maybe even have some sort of "how much?" control over the performance adjustments.

    8. Re:Nor do iPhones by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      You don't have to be an expert to say 'Allow my phone to reduce speed to extend battery life' or 'Always run at full speed'. You could even add a car analogy.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Nor do iPhones by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be an expert to say 'Allow my phone to reduce speed to extend battery life' or 'Always run at full speed'. You could even add a car analogy.

      Which is why I pointed out that Apple has already said they are going to expose more battery data and power controls to the user.

      Learn to read.

    10. Re:Nor do iPhones by sabri · · Score: 1

      You could even add a car analogy.

      Here is your car analogy

      Your battery is a consumable, just like the tires on your car. Your battery wears out, and so does the tread on your tire. Once the tread gets worn out enough, you can have a blow-out at any time. Apple is simply reducing the maximum output of the engine, to reduce the chances of a blow-out, in the same way as it is reducing the maximum output of the CPU to reduce the chances of a sudden battery failure.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    11. Re:Nor do iPhones by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      We're not talking about what apple 'will do'. Who cares what they do, now that they got their hand caught in the cookie jar. Anyway, if a user can't answer the simple question, they certainly won't be able to correctly interpret battery statistics.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:Nor do iPhones by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along of the lines of reducing speed of driving when you are running out of gas to make it to the next gas station, because cars are more fuel efficient at a slower speed.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re: Nor do iPhones by Brockmire · · Score: 2

      Except your tires have indicators that say how much tread is left so that you can service them rather than continue to operate in lower performance mode UNBEKNOWNST to the operator. Instead of throwing on a low Tire pressure dash light, it just throttles the top speed. Why the fuck do people not get this is the crux of the problem?

    14. Re:Nor do iPhones by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be an expert to say 'Allow my phone to reduce speed to extend battery life' or 'Always run at full speed'. You could even add a car analogy.

      "Slightly slow down top speed to prevent my engine (already in bad condition and in need of replacement) from stalling and have my car come to a screeching halt in the middle of the street when driving at full speed or allow it to run at full speed anyway"? Yeah, idiots like you want that choice. Doesn't make it a good idea though.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    15. Re:Nor do iPhones by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about what apple 'will do'. Who cares what they do, now that they got their hand caught in the cookie jar. Anyway, if a user can't answer the simple question, they certainly won't be able to correctly interpret battery statistics.

      So you are complaining that Apple doesn't give users information that they couldn't understand. Yeah, I see what you did there.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    16. Re: Nor do iPhones by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck do people not get this is the crux of the problem?

      The crux of the problem is that people can't tell when their battery doesn't even remotely last as long as it used to? And that they need Apple to tell them?

      And if Apple did tell them, they'd complain that Apple forced them to replace their batteries, even though they couldn't see that anything was wrong with those perfectly fine batteries and that this was some conspiracy by Apple to sell more batteries?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  14. Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the de by misnohmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've worked in this industry for over a decade (never for Apple) What people don't realize is that batteries age, and so do chips especially when pushed to a limit. Ever wonder why military or even automotive grade chips are running so much slower and cooler? It's because they are rated for much longer lifetime than consumer grade devices - they are limited so they last the required number of years. Consumers want top performance, but they trade lifetime due to stress on the hardware. What Apple did here is cap the device performance increasing the device reliability and potential lifespan.

  15. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    I would suspect that it would generally be better all around for some kind of discounted exchange, especially if we start putting forth measures to increase the salvage from recycling electronics.

    As for CPU performance drops due to inherent security flaws, that's a bit of a tougher question. I think that the only example we have right now is too muddled by a monopolistic control on the market to have a satisfactory solution.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  16. Not obsolete by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    it's perfectly functional yet it has been rendered obsolete by Apple which quit releasing updates for it without warning.

    How is it obsolete?

    You can still download apps for it (any apps that originally supported the 4s).

    You can still browse the web, or use it for maps/GPS.

    You can still email with it.

    You can still make calls with it.

    Again, it's not obsolete - it just lacks features that newer devices have. But just because newer devices have more or better features does not render a device "obsolete".

    My wife has an iPad 2 she still uses. That's not getting updates either but it doesn't matter - she uses it for many hours at a time for Netflix or browsing and it continues to work just fine, as it will until it breaks.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not obsolete by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And no security updates.

    2. Re:Not obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're posting on Slashdot and you don't consider a network connected device that no longer receives security fixes to be obsolete?

      Odd.

    3. Re:Not obsolete by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      There is a quite a difference between say browsing the internet fine and the stuff being dog slow that a person can find it unusable.

      Yes, you can say that this works or that works. But working very very slow, and stuff being unresponsive most of the time is not something I call normal or desirable. It is simply obsolete. And if I could downgrade my ipad 2 to whatever iOS was at the time I would do it without delay. It is just unusable.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    4. Re:Not obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a problem with the phone being insecure crap to begin with.
      It wasn't more secure yesterday.

      Next time, go for a Chinese phone. They typically have instructions on how you root it and install whatever you like.
      Then you can manage your updates yourself.

    5. Re:Not obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superkendall doesn't say bad stuff about Apple.

    6. Re:Not obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Christ, you are such a pathetic little shill.

      Any network connected devices that are no longer receiving security updates is obsolete as far as the company is concerned. Period.

    7. Re:Not obsolete by TheStickBoy · · Score: 1

      You can download/install software for a 486 computer, use can use it.... but I would still call a 486 "obsolete"

    8. Re:Not obsolete by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Let's sum up the answer to this post: "Your 5 year old iPhone is just as obsolete as most Android phones sold right now. Boooh Apple, hooray Android!"

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  17. Yeah, right. Not really. by kivig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where have you seen a phone, laptop or anything with an adequate lithium battery that shuts down randomly due to it being "old"? That thing pushes multiple of it's capacity in current. "Let's heroically overcome the problem we created on purpose!"

    1. Re:Yeah, right. Not really. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Where have you seen a phone, laptop or anything with an adequate lithium battery that shuts down randomly due to it being "old"? That thing pushes multiple of it's capacity in current.
      "Let's heroically overcome the problem we created on purpose!"

      Laptops may have multiples of the current-draw; but they have many MORE multiples of current-CAPACITY in their batteries, and their batteries are generally charged to a much higher voltage than the ones in a smartphone, plus most people don't try to use their laptops and home-phones outside in the winter. Also, with laptops, they have room inside for largish CAPACITORS, which do a LOT to smooth-out the current-spikes seen by the battery; but smartphones simply don't have the room for a 4mm x 4mm electrolytic capacitor or three...

      As for phones (like home cordless-phones), they don't have current SURGES typically; although I have definitely seen my cordless-phone "crash" when trying to ring, or trying to initiate a call.

    2. Re:Yeah, right. Not really. by kivig · · Score: 1

      I'm all ears if I don't know something, but power capacitors? 15C is fairly normal peak load rating for non-high-end power lipos (for 5-30 seconds, which is way more than what can be smoothed with laptop capacitors). Let's assume it is a special snowflake not meant for fast discharge (which is the opposite to logical given the problem, but whatever) rated at 5c peak (which, again, would mean losing power at higher than that, but - whatever). For 2Ah (iphone7) battery that is 10A, or @3V =30W. That amount of heat with passive, low mass cooling would burn any ARM. Now lets assume the battery is a couple years old and can output half of that. The ARM will still let the smoke out trying drown that power.

    3. Re:Yeah, right. Not really. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I'm all ears if I don't know something, but power capacitors? 15C is fairly normal peak load rating for non-high-end power lipos (for 5-30 seconds, which is way more than what can be smoothed with laptop capacitors). Let's assume it is a special snowflake not meant for fast discharge (which is the opposite to logical given the problem, but whatever) rated at 5c peak (which, again, would mean losing power at higher than that, but - whatever). For 2Ah (iphone7) battery that is 10A, or @3V =30W. That amount of heat with passive, low mass cooling would burn any ARM.
      Now lets assume the battery is a couple years old and can output half of that. The ARM will still let the smoke out trying drown that power.

      These are INSTANTANEOUS current slugs, not CONTINUOUS levels. The problem is, as batteries age and-/or get cold, their INSTANTANEOUS current capacity goes to shit.

    4. Re:Yeah, right. Not really. by kivig · · Score: 1

      Well, but the ability to provide constant current for lipo is lower than that for a short peak, is it not? I mean the potential is always there at it's max and it diminishes when the current ramps up as the "chemistry" has to keep up to restore the potential. So, given that instantaneous surge is within relatively continuous capacity, where would be the problem?

    5. Re:Yeah, right. Not really. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Well, but the ability to provide constant current for lipo is lower than that for a short peak, is it not? I mean the potential is always there at it's max and it diminishes when the current ramps up as the "chemistry" has to keep up to restore the potential. So, given that instantaneous surge is within relatively continuous capacity, where would be the problem?

      Well, this is where we depart from my knowledge of LiPo chemistry. I just have to take it on "faith" that those batteries have trouble with large current spikes as they grow older, the charge diminishes, and/or the temperature drops.

      I see what you are saying; but I think it has more to do with "Effective Series Resistance" in the battery, which, as it increases, WOULD affect the ability to supply current "slugs" as needed, if you think of the downstream-electronics as kind of a big capacitor you're trying to keep charged. The ESR of the battery changes the "Time Constant" of the circuit. The battery would be able to keep up over the long term; but not if the "capacitor" is suddenly drained by a increased load.

      It's an imperfect analogy, to be sure; but its the best I can come up with in 1000 words or less (and while stealing time at work!)

    6. Re:Yeah, right. Not really. by kivig · · Score: 1

      "I just have to take it on "faith" that those batteries have trouble with large current spikes as they grow older" - I have not objected that. Of course they do. The initial argument however is that lipos max current is so enormous for electronics that aren't expected to literally fly, that if the battery is just old and otherwise healthy, it's reduced in half or even 4 times surge capacity is still way above what the phone could ever physically handle not to mention require. If, however, after 3-4 years of use, the battery is damaged so badly that it is unable to even fry the cpu, not to mention handling normal use, it means that it was mismatched so that the daily use turns into abuse and it dies prematurely. So they get - #1 a bit cheaper and/or lighter phone, plus #2 a push for consumer to throw it away sooner, plus #3 an excuse to make it less usable even for those that somehow happened not to load the cpu, collaterally giving yet another push to replace it. The #3 part is what I referred to with "Let's heroically overcome the problem we created on purpose!"

  18. Re: What Apple was doing was opposite, going longe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but how is my phone buying behaviour relevant?

  19. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not too familiar with how it was done in Canada with regards to ending CDMA. IMHO, the ideal way would be to have a cutoff date for when CDMA ends. Then have carriers pull all CDMA devices from stores 5 years(at minimum) in advance.

    That way they're not selling devices that have a planned obsolescence. While devices older than 5 years will have an adequate lifespan for the average user.
    I know my first phone, a flip phone running Java MicroEdition continued to run great, and was still running "fine"(modded) when I finally upgraded to an Android; 8 years later.

  20. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outside of moving parts, batteries and leaking capacitors, have you ever had hardware failures in consumer grade electronics? I haven't.

  21. Re:$$S by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    you don't really get it do you? they made it run slower on purpose.

    but they will use their excuse that it was to save battery life and money for the customer.

    never mind dude that.. it's made on purpose to not be repairable and you cannot change the battery and the battery fails after 2 years as per spec to the level where they started slowing them down on purpose, without telling the customer.

    and yeah most people would accept such tradeoffs. but you can't buy a high end internals phone with a removable cover and battery nowadays.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  22. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You two might not, but you must be the 0.01%

    I have.

    Computers:
    Power supplies going bang when they're turned on? Yes.
    Stock RAM becoming defective? Yes
    Graphics cards going defective? Yes
    That's just computer kit, and there's lots more - mobo, cpu, etc, etc.

    Now onto cars:
    switches, relays, becoming defective? Yes.
    ECU/SAM failures due to water ingres (design issue)? Yes
    Defective airbag connector and/or airbag recall? Yes

    Now house electricals:
    My lightbulb stopped working. Amazing. Consumer grade. Yes.
    Etc.

    The list goes on and on. To say you've never had a failure in consumer grade electronics would basically be akin to an outright lie, or you are the single luckiest person on the planet, or an idiot.

    I would not want my phone to reboot in the middle of a 999/112 call because some app needed more current than the battery could supply for a single moment. Throttle the processor, keep the device working, especially in case of emergencies

  23. nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    batteries should be able to be replaced without having to trash the device. My Samsung J1 Ace allows for the battery to be replaced.

    My iPad 2 hardware is still going strong but I'm stuck on iOS 9 and I'm not getting any security upgrades, no OS upgrades and apps are starting to drop dead because the developers don't support old OSes.
    My iTouch 5 battery lasts a day while just sitting around and I am also stuck on iOS 9 something and having the same issues as the iPad that I soent $500 on.

    iOS Apple devices will no longer be purchased by me. They are expensive low value devices.

    1. Re:nonsense. by yabos · · Score: 1

      Yeah they can be replaced, either at the Apple store for $99 USD(now $25 USD for the next year) or a 3rd party shop which can do it as well. You don't have to trash the device.

    2. Re:nonsense. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      batteries should be able to be replaced without having to trash the device. My Samsung J1 Ace allows for the battery to be replaced.

      My iPad 2 hardware is still going strong but I'm stuck on iOS 9 and I'm not getting any security upgrades, no OS upgrades and apps are starting to drop dead because the developers don't support old OSes.
      My iTouch 5 battery lasts a day while just sitting around and I am also stuck on iOS 9 something and having the same issues as the iPad that I soent $500 on.

      iOS Apple devices will no longer be purchased by me. They are expensive low value devices.

      You're whining about your iPad 2?!?

      Gimme a break!

    3. Re:nonsense. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, about $80 (USD) to change the battery, considerably less if the phone is a 6 or newer. You can buy a kit from iFixit for $25 if you prefer. Either choice is a small fraction of the cost of a replacement phone.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  24. Stop criminal scum! by The123king · · Score: 1

    ...or even a jail term.

    LOCK 'EM UP! Throw away the keys!

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  25. Re: $$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans are always so surprised that different countries can have different laws and that, worst of all, US law does not apply.

  26. Apple totally did the right thing here by evanh · · Score: 2

    Everything I've ever owned with lithium batteries has this problem. Eg: My first netbook got cooked in the sun with the power off ... it would vanish from 50% after that.

    I don't own a single Apple product, but maybe I should start buying ...

    1. Re:Apple totally did the right thing here by kivig · · Score: 1

      How a damaged battery is relevant to the subject of them getting old? As for "Everything I've ever owned with lithium batteries has this problem" - Everything I've ever owned with lithium batteries have none of this problem. Not even a single occurrence. Nor I've seen someone having such problems (and people have asked to look at their stuff enough). I've seen lipos losing 90% of capacity after 10 or thereabout years of use, but not any sort of random behavior. Lipos can provide currents that they shouldn't be allowed to (or they damage themselves). If a device can pull so much that even that is not enough it's a fraud in the sense that it was initially paired with battery that will be killed prematurely.

    2. Re:Apple totally did the right thing here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      personally my Samsung has shut down within the range of 25 to 35 percent (and when turned on displayed 0 to 4 percent).

      I still use it and generally it works, but I learned to carry a small powerbank with me, or a laptop.

  27. Re:$$S by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you don't really get it do you? they made it run slower on purpose. but they will use their excuse that it was to save battery life and money for the customer.

    They didn't make it run slower in general, they limited the top speed of the CPU. The reason is not to save battery life, it's because the battery could already not support that top speed. All they did was make it not shut down. It's like a car that had a top speed of 120 Mph, but because of age it can no longer safely do that, so it tops out at 100. Any driving below that speed in unaffected.
    If you have a complaint, complain that the battery wasn't designed to last longer.

  28. Feature, not bug by nagora · · Score: 5, Informative

    All Apple had to do was advertise this from the start as a feature and let you turn it off if you wanted to; competitors would have been rushing to copy it! They've been strung up by their own controlfreakery and secrecy. Idiots.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:Feature, not bug by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      All Apple had to do was advertise this from the start as a feature and let you turn it off if you wanted to;

      If they let you turn it off, you'll either set your phone on fire or it will be shutting itself off periodically when you use too much CPU. Either one of these things makes Apple look bad, so no, your solution is not a solution. Thanks for imagining that you're smarter than Apple engineers, though!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Feature, not bug by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      There is no excuse for not informing the user that the phone is being throttled. None.

    3. Re:Feature, not bug by nagora · · Score: 1

      "Thanks for imagining that you're smarter than Apple engineers, though!"

      Have you not been warned about using daddy's /. account?

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    4. Re:Feature, not bug by PPH · · Score: 1

      This.

      Even if users can't turn it off, a message to the effect that throttling has been engaged to save a weak battery would have gone a long way to making this a complete non-issue.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Feature, not bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why this is malice cus i dont buy that they would be smart enough to program this "feature" but to stupid to implement a pop-up notice.
      And no fire was never a part of the problem random shutdowns was. And yes if you need to degrade the performance becus of faulty hardware then you should inform the user. The choice to not inform reeks sales department long way.

    6. Re:Feature, not bug by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sure, I agree with this completely. My issue is with the idea that this is a bad fix. It's a reasonable fix on a bad design.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    I think Apple should be fined/jailed for dropping the operating performance of older iPhones

    They didn't drop the operating performance. They limited the top speed. A speed which the aging battery already could not support, but now instead of shutting down the phone continues to function. Any operations not requiring that top speed are unaffected and function as always. If you want to complain, complain that the battery wasn't designed to last longer.

  30. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    If you had worked in the industry you would know that you design your hardware to only work over the lifetime of the battery. Every battery datasheet has graphs and tables giving you the performance over its lifetime.

    Keep in mind this started well within the warranty period. Apple did it to avoid millions of warranty battery replacements.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  31. Re:$$S by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Market delivers what customers are asking for.

    Could you please point to the market that thinks that thinner and thinner phones are more important than stability and battery life?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Re:$$S by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    By dropping it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  33. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by misnohmer · · Score: 1

    First, battery and chip wear are independent. You can possibly replace the battery, but less likely to replace the main SoC. If the slowdowns began during the warranty period, that means that either Apple pushed the chip and/or the battery harder to get good benchmarks on new devices, or their modeling of typical usage is too conservative, with people hitting the throttle threshold earlier than expected. Usually throttling will kick in based on battery age, temperature, open circuit voltage, source resistance, and how long the peak current was drawn in the last second, few seconds, days or even total since new. Similar restrictions apply to chips like the main SoC and even voltage regulators.

    Bottom line is, the harder you use your phone, the faster it ages. If this French challenge will hold, that will result in Apple "smoothing" the aging by either limiting performance across the board, or start limiting it based on daily or weekly usage (for example you will only be allowed peak performance for so many minutes per day) which isn't necessarily what consumers want, but it would prolong the phone life with everyone getting nice performance in the morning, and those who use it heavily seeing slowdowns later in the day.

  34. Re:$$S by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yay for car analogies. Especially if they fall flat on the face because any car that can for some odd reason due to its manufacturer's decision no longer reach the top speed would be subject to recalls...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I think the first rule should be that there is a clear 'map of obsolescence', that the communication should be clear, and that there are decent warranties. You can't rely on the PR for that. There are a lot of factors involved, some avoidable, some deliberate, some unavoidable. Making it hard to replace a battery is a form of intentional obsolescence so it should be made very clear.
    Durability is another area. It is 'optimized' everywhere now and it is hard to measure but it can be covered by warranties.

    Obsolescence is becoming a major design issue, and it can even be pushed from above, through laws arranged with lobbyists. Environmental norms for cars for instance generally have built in obsolescence and they raise the bar for newcomers and small players.

  36. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    As the behavior of the device would have been worse if Apple did nothing, it takes a special kind of shit to suggest Apple was doing this to drive sales.

  37. Re:$$S by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    No, markets often do not deliver what the customer is asking for.

    There is no such thing as an unregulated market. There may be over-regulated markets, or under-regulated markets. Markets, by their very nature, come about thanks to regulation.

  38. Not just Apple. by antdude · · Score: 1

    Many companies do this too. :( Maybe companies can make users pay to keep support of old stuff going.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  39. Re:$$S by geekmux · · Score: 2

    Very nice, are you ready to pay for a smartphone like you pay for a durable product like a car? A decade of usable life can be arranged as long as you are willing to accept tradeoffs such as price, weight, form factor and features. Not interested? Than STFU. Market delivers what customers are asking for.

    Oh, so customers asked for phones to be made entirely of highly breakable glass? Non-removable batteries? Indiscernible display resolution upgrades? Removing the headphone jack? No memory expansion option? Software behind a walled garden? No ability to install 3rd party OS? Massive amounts of telemetry? So thin it bends and breaks in your pocket? Proprietary physical connectors requiring dongles?

    Vendors have been following the manufacturing mantra that caters to one thing and one thing only; Profits. They don't give a shit about what you want. You'll get what what makes them the most money. And they've been doing this for years now, so STFU about them delivering what consumers are asking for.

    Greed knows no limits when consumer demand is immeasurable. We thought a $1000 price point would never be eclipsed. It's now been crushed. The $1500 smartphone is coming soon. After all, I'm sure you asked for acoustical sound, vibra-touch interface, and a 16K display resolution...

  40. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Not everyone throws stuff away after first use.

  41. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you remind me, when did switches and relays stop being moving parts and when did light bulbs become electronics?

    I may have been lucky, but I have never had a power supply, graphics cards or RAM fail (although I have had to RMA new DIMMs that had errors once) and I don't think I have been particularly lucky. Of course it can happen, but it is much, much less likely for electronics to fail within the first decade or so of use than it is for (electro-)mechanical parts.

  42. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    If you were a just and honest person, you'd know that suicide is the only proper course for you.

  43. Re: $$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I loved iPhone 4s - it was indeed quite a piece of engineering. And I loved iOS 6.

    Everything after that was junk.

  44. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by geekmux · · Score: 1

    I've worked in this industry for over a decade (never for Apple) What people don't realize is that batteries age, and so do chips especially when pushed to a limit. Ever wonder why military or even automotive grade chips are running so much slower and cooler? It's because they are rated for much longer lifetime than consumer grade devices - they are limited so they last the required number of years. Consumers want top performance, but they trade lifetime due to stress on the hardware. What Apple did here is cap the device performance increasing the device reliability and potential lifespan.

    Unless you're one to beat the living shit out of your device physically, the main component going "bad" is the battery, which used to be a component that was replaceable and even upgradable by the end user.

    Phones come with a 1-year warranty usually tied to a 2-year contract (where they often finance the cost of the phone with it). Due to the cellular contract length, consumer expectations are two years, plain and simple. Vendors need to stop being so damn greedy and offer a two-year warranty. If they can't design a battery to last more than a year (e.g. 1000 cycles) then offer a free battery replacement after a year. Making these products reasonably more durable isn't rocket science, and hardly requires military-grade hardware upgrades.

  45. That should be the USER choice by aepervius · · Score: 2

    The fact they hid it, and never left it in user hand is suspicious, especially since they DO have a mechanism that at 20% you battery you can switch to a low power mode. They could have it pop up like "your telephone is discharging rapidly we will put you in lower power mode". But no, they hid it. to me that is an evidence they were well aware of potential backlash.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:That should be the USER choice by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They implemented an automatic low power mode. Not implementing it would cause random crashes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  46. Re:$$S by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Very nice, are you ready to pay for a smartphone like you pay for a durable product like a car?

    At just a little shy of $1000 I already pay for it like a car. Hell I pay for it more than most laptops. Why do most laptops seem to last longer?

  47. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could have also just made the battery user-replaceable, like in most other phones.

  48. I am in the same boat with my I9000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am still searching for a good rom to run on my I9000. I am currently running the latest CM released just before they disbanded the project. Phone works fine but apps get slower and slower. It is a shame.

  49. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Ever wonder why military or even automotive grade chips are running so much slower and cooler? It's because they are rated for much longer lifetime than consumer grade devices - they are limited so they last the required number of years.

    No you haven't worked in the industry for a decade. With a line like that I will wager that you haven't worked in the industry for even a day. There are very big differences between the automotive / military grade chips and they go miles beyond life expectancy (something that is usually handled through derrating).

    In any case it's quite telling that Apple seem to feel a need to derate their 2 year old phones. (Posted from a non-derated 4 year old phone that has suffered dearly at my hands).

  50. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the slowdowns began during the warranty period, that means that either Apple pushed the chip and/or the battery harder to get good benchmarks on new devices, or their modeling of typical usage is too conservative,

    Yea, that's precisely the point. Apple overstated the battery life. Their design switching to slowing down to provide for longer battery life is not what was advertised to users. Certainly, having the iPhone having constantly reduced performance after the battery charge was reduced wasn't well stated and in a conservative design wouldn't happen. Of course, such would have meant a substantially larger battery, probably. That would have possibly cut into sales. Meanwhile, making it clear and maintain the battery size would have meant effectively requiring the battery be replaceable--and I don't mean technically replaceable but an actually, even an idiot could do it, replaceable battery.

    So, in its own way, it's clear that wasn't planned obsolescence. It was fraud. It wasn't that Apple had the best tech and great engineers. It was they were doing bad engineering and using software to patch over the inevitable problems. Trying to sell it as some sort of advantage to the consumer misses the point.

  51. A Weinstein Moment for Consumer Electronics by ytene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you look at the trends in consumer electronics over the last few years, designed-in obsolescence has become a feature from a range of different classes of device and a broad range of vendors.

    For example, consider laptop/netbook computers, which arrive with major components such as CPUs, batteries, RAM and storage all soldered and/or glued in place. All of this makes it much harder to upgrade or use these products in a versatile way.

    The same is true for almost all class of tablet, although I'd note that some Android devices [phones and tablets] do come with micro-SD card slots, which do allow for storage upgrades and flexibility.

    On the desktop we are moving away from the "assembled" style of computer offered by Dell or Gateway from the 90s and 00s and now we seem to be trending towards all-in-one systems where, once again, everything is soldered or glued down and the potential for upgrades of individual components is virtually non-existent.

    Or in the software business, where the latest editions of software are no explicitly programmed so that they cannot be operated on older generations of processors [which, ironically, may not have some of the vulnerabilities found with more modern chips] but with the net effect of forcing people to upgrade what might have been perfectly reasonable hardware just if they want to run modern software. Nor is this limited to Operating Systems - the same deadly embrace includes things like graphics cards and driver stacks and the compatibility demanded by "modern" games... all of which force upgrades to new GPUs, which in turn force upgrades to new OS editions... which force upgrades in hardware.

    The hard part about this - for consumers at least - is that this sort of change is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" from the perspective of a tech company. This is because the companies that follow the trend will make more sales, be more profitable and thus displace those companies who had been willing to put the customer first. In other words, we have a situation in which market forces [profits for manufacturers] actually induce and encourage them to adopt practices which will be harmful to consumers in the long run.

    Our society anticipated that situations like this might come to be from time to time, setting up regulatory institutions of government to ensure that consumer rights were protected and that facilities such as "right to repair" and "right to upgrade" were included. Unfortunately we are slowly but surely seeing these protections eroded, either by cuts to those agencies and/or [witness the recent actions of the FCC dumping telecoms disputes on the FTC] woefully overloaded.

    We are told that in a capitalist environment, market forces win out and thus the consumer is protected because the market demands that only the best companies survive to offer the best products or services to people. Unfortunately, as we've seen with consumer electronics, the consumer now has virtually no worthwhile protection from any of these questionable practices.

    We should applaud what France are trying to do here, and we should hope that this drives positive change.

    The Consumer Electronics Industry has been sorely in need of a "Weinstein Moment" for a while now. Forced Upgrades, inability to repair and built-in-obsolescence have been spreading like cancer throughout the modern technology world, making a few companies super-rich at the expense of millions or billions of consumers' pockets.

    That needs to change.

    1. Re:A Weinstein Moment for Consumer Electronics by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Products being glued or soldered up won't change as a result of this. This is only about products that perform less of their original function over time (as the iphones did). It's about products that stop working at some arbitrary time in the future, arguably like HP printers that suddenly won't accept non-HP ink.

      Your ability to upgrade and/or replace components has nothing to do with 'planned obsolescence'. If you buy the fastest computer on earth today, but in a years time a new faster computer comes out - that's not planned obsolescence, that's just a product ageing.

      Likewise, let's say you buy a phone that can run all the apps in all the app stores. In 6 months time, a new type of app is invented that your device can't run. Since your device is just a computer, it could (in theory) get a software update to let it run this new app format. If the manufacturer refuses to give your device that update, it's still not 'planned obsolescence' - it might be shitty after-sales care, but it's not illegal by this or any other law. Your device still does what it did when you bought it and there's no (legal) requirement to make products do more in the future than they do today.

      Things start to get interesting with products like Tesla cars. I seem to remember a software update went out that reduced the amount you're allowed to exceed the speed limit in 'autopilot' mode. That sounds like 'planned obsolescence' because you now have less than you had when you bought the car, but since it's all illegal anyway, does it matter? IMHO I suspect it does still matter, because you might argue you drive on private roads or tracks or something, but the courts will decide one day, I suspect.

    2. Re:A Weinstein Moment for Consumer Electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. This is an apple moment. Dont drag the rest of the industry down to apples level of deception.

    3. Re:A Weinstein Moment for Consumer Electronics by ytene · · Score: 1

      There are models in the Dell XPS laptop range that solder components to the motherboard...

      Microsoft's Surface Pro 3 is glued together.

      Samsung Galaxy Tabs are glued together.

      But please don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudice.

      As it happens, though, I think you're statement does point to one truth... Apple, I think it is fair to say... really started the practice of assembling consumer electronics in a way that made repair or upgrade next-to-impossible. As a result of this, Apple customers have purchased replacement product instead of repairing their devices, which has led [however minimally] to increases in Apple products. I think other companies have seen this and decided to copy Apple, not because what they have done is correct, but because it has helped boost Apple's profits.

      So I think you are entirely unreasonable and factually inaccurate if you try to claim that this practice is unique to Apple. But I think that you are likely correct if we translate your claim to be, "Apple started the practice of making it exceptionally difficult to repair or upgrade their products... and the rest of the industry has followed..."

    4. Re:A Weinstein Moment for Consumer Electronics by ytene · · Score: 1

      I think we're in vehement agreement on two subtly different aspects of this story. I agree with you that we're primarily discussing components which degrade with time [specifically batteries in this instance]. But that is only a major problem if the battery cannot be easily replaced.

      What I have tried to observe is that many items of consumer electronics sold today have been specifically designed so that they cannot be easily repaired [i.e. through the replacement of a failing battery]. My perception of this is that such a restriction encourages people to buy replacements instead of getting a repair.

      Indeed, in mid-December, I had to take my Mac Mini to the Apple Southampton Store in the UK, because High Sierra had bricked it [a file system formatting issue]. Whilst I was waiting for that to be repaired, I sat and listened to another customer raising concerns that their iPhone [I'm not sure if it was a 5 or 6] could not hold a charge for a full day. The Apple representative went out of their way to discourage the customer from asking for a replacement battery and tried instead to sell them a new phone. The reply was, "Why should I junk a perfectly good handset, that does all I want and need, which cost me £500 and for which a replacement battery should be £50 ... just because you want me to buy a new iPhone for £700 or more?"

      The point here being that if we allow ourselves to believe that such components cannot be easily repaired or replaced, we allow ourselves to be locked in to forced replacement cycles. This is the reason that I think that the ability to "repair" is absolutely related to planned obsolescence.

  52. Re:$$S by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

    You're missing the point. The phone already cannot handle the top speed. The difference is that now instead of crashing it simply doesn't go that fast. The flaw is in the battery design itself, not what Apple did to mitigate it.

  53. Lightbulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lightbulbs became electronics when they started to include switched mode power supplies.
    All Compact Florescent Light-bulbs (CFL) and LED lamps contain them, and often the power supply fails before the light emitter.
    Driving CFLs
    LED Driver

    1. Re:Lightbulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CFLs are not light bulbs. They are, however, an excellent example of cheap commodity electronics easily lasting ten years in regular use.

    2. Re:Lightbulbs by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Dead wrong. Plenty of LED bulbs that have no switched-mode power supply. Some go as simple as to use a tank circuit to eliminate flicker and then use an LED array configured as a bridge rectifier.

      I can tell you've never actually done any real LED work.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  54. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow.

    if Apple did nothing, it takes a special kind of shit to suggest Apple was doing this to drive sales.

    It takes a special kind of dullard to believe that corporations are your "buddy", and looking out for your best interests.

  55. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This, I can't believe this shit. "I'd rather have my battery overheat and shut off randomly when I have 30% battery left vs having a little slowdown. They should've notified people. But, I side with apple on this.

  56. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very nice, are you ready to pay for a smartphone like you pay for a durable product like a car? A decade of usable life can be arranged as long as you are willing to accept tradeoffs such as price, weight, form factor and features. Not interested? Than STFU. Market delivers what customers are asking for.

    Methinks that when I shell out $1000 for an I-phone, it is a durable product.

    Methinks you and the rest of the $1000 smartphone market should have fucking demanded a longer factory warranty then, instead of ignorantly assuming a higher price tag is going to magically make it more durable.

  57. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the not telling the customer is how we know they were cheating

    if you have mooooney to pay for an iphone, you have mooooney to pay for a new battery every 2 years, when they did slow it down without telling the customer the alternative, that is, changing the battery, so its very obvious what they were doing, you would have to be midly retarded to not get it

  58. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    In the EU the minimum warranty period is 2 years, although some countries go even further.

    Obviously batteries are consumable items, but the way the law usually looks at this is that if the battery is cheap it's okay for the consumer to replace it regularly. If it's really expensive like iPhone batteries are, requiring a special service appointment and considerable cost to get replaced, it needs to last a reasonably long time, like considerably more than the warranty period which is the absolute minimum.

    So even if Apple argues that the battery is consumable, the speed with which it died (my girlfriend's iPhone 6 was about a year old when it started to go from 50% to 2% instantly or randomly crash) they are still on the hook for it.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  59. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're missing the point.

    I think its you who is missing the point.

    Apple designed a phone to literally suck the life outof a battery, causing it to crash on under erstwhile "normal" conditions when the battery gets a bit older (but the device itself still functions perfectly).

    If that is not "planned obsolence" I don't know what is (than again, I've been told that sufficiently advanced ignorance is unrecognisable from (malicious) intent).

    That they wrote something to mitigate the crashes is most likely just because having those happen is not really great advertising. </understatement>
    Especially not when there is nothing which indicates to why it does (thinking of a battery age/usability indicator here - measuring the voltage drop under heavy use perhaps ?).

    .

    But the most damning it all is that they done it silently, without any indication that this diminished "user experience" (to use a buzzword) - and I mean either the crashing or the throtteling here - could be solved by a new battery at the cost of $70 , but instead of that leaving the user to presume that it is their aging phone, and they would need to fork (way) over 10 times as much for a new one to get their old experience back.

    Ofcourse, having to tell customers that a just two year old genuine Apple battery is considered too old to drive their product would not be good advertising either ... <whistle>

    In other words, they were in a no-win situation - but did chose to dig themselves in even further.

  60. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by misnohmer · · Score: 1

    So your argument here is that I used the word "limited" instead of "derated"?

    If you don't believe that all high end chips get slowed down, go build your favorite high end PC hardware (gamer PC built for performance). Image the hard drive, run your favorite CPU and GPU benchmarks. After a couple of years of gaming use, restore the imaged drive and re-run the benchmarks - I bet you would expect your benchmarks to be the same, but they won't be - even though the software will be identical, the hardware will have aged an will be throttled (or as marketing will sometimes call it - the "turbo boost" will no longer boost as high for as long as it did before).

  61. Rich coming from a country that tortures animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course you wont see "tortured and executed duck" on any menus.

    Thats not a crime apparently

    But trying to save a battery is.

    I say turn off the protections in France and make their phones crash.

  62. Re:$$S by cmseagle · · Score: 1

    Your argument (that manufacturers are making phones thinner and giving them smaller batteries despite consumer preference) is weakened by the fact that the iPhone X is the thickest iPhone since the 5 and has a higher battery capacity than every non-Plus model. If those are the criteria are important to you, you should be pleased with the direction Apple took the X.

  63. Re:$$S by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    Everyone but Slashdot users.

    Seriously, go back and listen to tech reviewers gushing about how *thin and beautiful* any given new smartphone is.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  64. Re:$$S by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Let's for a moment imagine that tech reviewers find nothing worth mentioning with the new phones and know that if they don't find anything to praise, they will not be among the select few next time that get a preview model to review...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  65. YOU ALREADY DO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yeah, because cars are durable ... Can't even handle a fucking key scratch. Or bumping againse something!

    Lol, you really picked THE dumbest possibe argument.

    Besides, my Backview BV6000 has no trouble being thrown against a wall and go through a full washing cycle, and is so repairable, the manufacturer himself posted a full disadsembly video, and sells replacement parts on e-bay. They even send you two screwdrivers in the box!
    It does not lack any feature. Only the anti-features. Vanilla Android. Better reception and battery life than any of the big ones.
    Price? 180EUR.

    If you pay Apple prices, you can probably get a handheld supercomputer that survives nukes or something.

  66. Re:$$S by Wootery · · Score: 1

    Market delivers what customers are asking for.

    Yeah?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

  67. Re: $$S by Wootery · · Score: 1

    By gad you're right, it's criminal law.

  68. Battery power indicator is unusable in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You ever heard of a battery charge indicator?

    If only that indicator would, next to how much charge is left, say something about the batteries internal resistance under load ...

    ... which increases when it gets older/used.

    Also: most battery charge indicators are of the relative kind (to the maximum charge they can currently hold). That means that that those indicator show 100% charge, even if that charge would be a fraction of what it could store when it was new.

    Example: How long does your phone currently last on one "100% full" charge, compared with when it was new ?

    .

    But the problem is not about how much charge the battery can hold, it is about how much power gets lost in the ageing battery itself when its under (heavy) load, causing its voltage to drop - until the device cannot function anymore and crashes.

  69. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. If Apple had informed their customers why some experienced 'slowdowns' after an update, that it was because their sealed in deteriorating battery was the real cause, then I'd be okay with that. Instead they left their customers to wonder why.

    It wasn't made known to Apple customers in order to make them feel that they had to buy a new phone. Apple's in the hardware business, it's where they make their money. Since they did not tell their customers, "Oh, it's slow because our software forces it to slow when the battery has gone through 300 charge cycles.", now they are culpable.

  70. Can they also investigate windows 10 spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And maybe help everyone else out by investigating other privacy diminishing companies?

  71. This is kind of where my fallout with BLU by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    I currently run the DirtyCow TWRP LineageOS 13.x Rom, and I am concerned about future BLU Devices such as the BLU Life One X3. I don't want to go back to the BLU Stock Rom under any circumstances. I don't even run GApps. I can't run the LineageOS 14.x Rom because of the Requirement the camera work and I have a Bluetooth headset.

    I got lucky and picked up refurbished R1 HD. to Replace my Studio 5.x. It had not been updated and used the older Rom that could be unlocked to load LineageOS... More than 6 months have passed and here I am debating another handset because unless I move back to the Stock Rom, I have no means to patch against KRACK.

    So the question becomes: Where do I go from here? Do I buy a BLU R2 or BLU Life One X3 now, stick it in a Drawer, and wait some months until a LineageOS Build is made for it?

    XDA Developers Forum doesn't even organize the new devices. News about them is scattered around other forums. I'd hate to have move manufacturers because we are constantly battling BLU's Bullshit on this.

    This needs to be investigated. BLU needs to put up a thing that says: Running a Custom Rom? Need Camera Drivers? Install this APK. And stop locking bootloaders on devices we buy outright! If I can do fastboot oem unlock, it should work.

    1. Re:This is kind of where my fallout with BLU by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This needs to be investigated. BLU needs to put up a thing that says: Running a Custom Rom? Need Camera Drivers? Install this APK. And stop locking bootloaders on devices we buy outright! If I can do fastboot oem unlock, it should work.

      Since they aren't doing that, why are you talking so much about which BLU phone you should buy? Did you receive consideration for your promotion?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:This is kind of where my fallout with BLU by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

      No, they are in a price range I can afford.

  72. Re:Rich coming from a country that tortures animal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do. You. Eat. Meat? How is killing a duck for food any different from the pigs, chicken, cows, fish, and other animals you eat? Have you got any idea what meat production looks like in America? It's the very definition of animal cruelty.

  73. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    No, it is not a durable product. It is a piece of crap that breaks very easily marketed cleverly so you'll ignore its problems. I can sell you $40 worth of parts for $1000 and it'll still be $40 worth of parts. iPhones (not I-phones) are not made much better than cheap Android phones if at all. iPhones often break the second one of the slippery bastards slides out of your hands, so you shell out another $1000 and get a big fat rubbery Otter Box hard case to fix the poor design. My current phone is a few years old and has been dropped more times than I care to remember. It did not break. It is not obsolete. I have to clear caches on it from time to time due to the limited internal storage but that's about it.

    When you shell out any money for an iPhone, you're not getting "a durable product," you're getting swindled.

  74. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, maybe they can extend the life of the cell phone by dropping the CPU speed down when the battery is degraded to maintain battery life and keep a phone going even on a marginal battery.

  75. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Ever wonder why military or even automotive grade chips are running so much slower and cooler?

    They use slower parts because they are cheaper. They use no more hardware than is necessary to do a job, because when Bosch makes a run of a couple million ECUs that will go into various different VWs, Audis, and Lamborghinis, they want to avoid unnecessarily spending tens of thousands of dollars. If a hotter part were necessary to do the job, they would add a fat heat sink to it and fin the case, and in fact automotive manufacturers have done this in the past.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  76. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because any car that can for some odd reason due to its manufacturer's decision no longer reach the top speed would be subject to recalls...

    The car manufacturer made a decision regarding the size of the fuel tank.
    Upon driving the car enough to drain the tank completely, the car could no longer reach its top speed but instead maxed out at zero.

    Yet there was no recall...

  77. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me. I want the phone to fit in my pocket. I don't want to need a 90s phone holster that makes me feel like I'm pretending to be some kind of nerd cowboy.

    That said, that requirement is hampered by the stupid protective cases that must also fit in the pocket, and which IMO aren't really needed anyway, even at the current thinness.

  78. Re:$$S by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Especially if they fall flat on the face because any car that can for some odd reason due to its manufacturer's decision no longer reach the top speed would be subject to recalls...

    No, no it would not. It is perfectly normal for horses to escape the motor over its lifespan. Some modern engines achieve a horsepower target through tuning, and can re-tune themselves to hit that power level consistently as they age and the motor degrades, but nobody is suing GM because a couple of ponies are missing from the paddock on a twenty-year-old Corvette.

    Now, if your car suffered a loss of power during the warranty period, you'd have a claim, and the manufacturer would have to fix it. But you didn't say anything about warranties.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  79. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    They run cooler because they support a wider operating temperature range.

  80. Old versus new by sjbe · · Score: 2

    So yeah, unless you care about handling, feel, or visibility, new cars are better.

    Visibility depends on the particular car. There have always been cars with good and with bad visibility. The 1976 Chevy Impala I drove in high school definitely did not have good visibility (or handling, or fuel economy, or acceleration, or comfort). The safety features of newer cars are a consideration but visibility and safety are not mutually exclusive and never have been. Not to mention that new cars have cameras, sensors and other safety features to provide situational awareness not dreamed of by cars from back in the day.

    As for handling, the argument that old cars handle better is quite simply nonsense unsupported by any evidence. As a general proposition, new cars handle better in pretty much every measurable way, even allowing for their generally heavier curb weights as long as you compare vehicles in similar categories. (no comparing a 1976 Ferrari to a 2010 half ton pickup)

    1. Re:Old versus new by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The safety features of newer cars are a consideration but visibility and safety are not mutually exclusive and never have been.

      Cheapness is a thing. A-pillars have grown and making them small and still having rollover resistance is expensive. This is an issue even for top-end marques.

      As for handling, the argument that old cars handle better is quite simply nonsense unsupported by any evidence.

      Raw, unassisted handling peaked in the 1990s, when suspension geometry technology reached essentially the point we've reached today, but when vehicles were lighter.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Old versus new by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Raw, unassisted handling peaked in the 1990s, when suspension geometry technology reached essentially the point we've reached today, but when vehicles were lighter.

      Ehhhh, I'll give you that technology peaked... mostly.
      But to say that unassisted handling peaked? That's patently false. Even with all driving aids disabled in a modern performance vehicle, they handle stupidly better than anything made in the 90s.
      The heavier cars these days have larger tires. They grip better. They've got bigger brakes. They stop better.
      The tech may not be much different, but if you put someone today who is used to the handling of a big ass car with fat wheels and brakes in command of a factory E30 M3, considered a great handling car with great balance... They're going to fucking die. And it's not because the car is fast, or handles well.

    3. Re:Old versus new by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But to say that unassisted handling peaked? That's patently false. Even with all driving aids disabled in a modern performance vehicle, they handle stupidly better than anything made in the 90s.

      Bollocks.

      The heavier cars these days have larger tires. They grip better. They've got bigger brakes. They stop better.

      You could get all that stuff on cars before, or swap it on. And it was common to do so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  81. I did not know France had this law! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like it. French jails must be full of inkjet printer manufacturer employees.

  82. Re:$$S by nine-times · · Score: 2

    but they will use their excuse that it was to save battery life and money for the customer.

    That's not quite what they said. They said as the battery got older and didn't work as well, a surge of activity could cause the phone to draw more power than the battery could deliver, which caused the phone to turn itself off. They already had functionality to throttle the CPU in order to save battery life, so they adjusted the way that functionality worked to prevent the phones from crashing.

  83. It's the fact they didn't tell anyone by sjbe · · Score: 1

    If you have a complaint, complain that the battery wasn't designed to last longer.

    That's not the problem. The problem was that they didn't tell anyone they were doing it. Had they been up front about this behavior, people could have evaluated whether they cared or not (most probably wouldn't care) and made their purchasing decision accordingly. But instead Apple tried to pull a fast one and now that is biting them in the ass.

    Them slowing down the device for a reasonable technical problem is fine. Not telling anyone they are doing it and pretending it doesn't happen is not fine.

    1. Re:It's the fact they didn't tell anyone by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      That's not the problem. The problem was that they didn't tell anyone they were doing it.

      Yes, that is a problem. Communication is often a problem with Apple. But that's not what started this thread. This thread claimed that Apple was "slowing down phones" so that people would buy a new one. A counter-argument was made that it was an initial design problem, and that Apple's attempt to mitigate was about the best thing they could do. You're hijacking the thread.
      Should Apple have designed a better battery? Yes, I think so.
      Should Apple have better explained the mitigation? Yes, I think so.
      Was the mitigation an attempt to get people to buy new phones? No, that's ridiculous. It made the old phones more useful, not less.

    2. Re:It's the fact they didn't tell anyone by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my reply was more harsh than I intended.

  84. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by misnohmer · · Score: 1

    That is actually incorrect - military grade chips are not from the discount bin. Are the they the fastest bin of parks coming off the line, of course not, but that's not because of cost, but purely because that is not what the spec calls for (and in some processes slower parts are more power efficient, hence less heat). A heat-sink is not going to solve a problem of wear either - it would help, but not. That said, I cannot say any more on the topic, so if you still think so, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

  85. Re:$$S by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    Oh, so customers asked for phones to be made entirely of highly breakable glass? Non-removable batteries? Indiscernible display resolution upgrades? Removing the headphone jack? No memory expansion option? Software behind a walled garden? No ability to install 3rd party OS? Massive amounts of telemetry? So thin it bends and breaks in your pocket? Proprietary physical connectors requiring dongles?

    Some of these things are what make modern smartphones thin and attractive and easy to use. Others are things average users don't care much about. While many geeks are happy with durable bricks and lots of options for hacking, the average consume wants a sleek and stylish phone that's also a status symbol and fashion statement, while being simple and safe to use. They don't care about user replaceable batteries or SD card expansions. They certainly don't care about rooting their phones, and I guaranteed they have never considered replacing their OS.

    Phones that are thin and beautiful constantly outsell phones which are bulkier, sturdier, less attractive, more expandable, user-serviceable, and so on. Did you notice how much flack Apple got for it's "ugly" iPhone case? That should tell you how important aesthetics are to people. No matter how you try to explain the design advantages of the "hump", it still looks ugly, and people hate it for that reason alone.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  86. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by misnohmer · · Score: 1

    I think you flipped the cause and effect. If they run cooler, they may operate at a more narrow temperature range simply because they don't heat up as much. That said, often military or automotive spec parts actually support a wider range of temperatures. Go to ti.com or other chip manufacturers and lookup temperatures for higher grade/more expensive chips, sometimes called "enhanced".

  87. Re:$$S by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    I think its you who is missing the point. Apple designed a phone to literally suck the life outof a battery,

    So do you think maybe I should have written something like "If you have a complaint, complain that the battery wasn't designed to last longer."? Yeah, I guess that would have been good to include in my original post.

  88. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    What about a phone that only provides communications on a radio protocol that is going obsolete and would cost the carrier (and the customer) much more to support it? (In Canada, CDMA service ended on May 31st - would it have been so bad for customers to get new product before the shut off date?)

    Most cell providers offered low-cost phones as replacements, or even free replacements for low-income individuals. Wind was doing that 6mo ago, Bell has had an "upgrade in place" plan for a few years.

    On the other hand, my parents have a 2013 Terrain which was hit with the CDMA upgrade, GM sold millions of vehicles with technology that was being phased out. Then there's cases like Samsung that directly designed their refrigerators to fail after a particular period of time. There's multiple class action lawsuits in the US and Canada over that one.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  89. Re:$$S by houghi · · Score: 1

    I have el cheapo 50EUR phones and they work great after 10 years. Put in a new battery and they just work. Why would they not? Electrons are not slower because of the age of the electric components.

    As long as I can provide power to the phone, they work and I am still not able to play snakes very well. I can still use the phones to call and send and receive SMS.

    The fact that people think it is normal that old hardware runs slower for some reason as if there is some mechanical deteriation, like with a car engine where you will lose some power over time, is an issue of and by itself.

    And if you only talk about durable, those 50EUR phones are more durable than any thing that is cheaper, even if they are not a Nokia.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  90. Re:$$S by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    Nice conspiracy theory, but it's not just reviewers. It's the general public as well. Many Slashdot geeks simply can't fathom why average people actually like Apple products. Almost every geek I know turns their nose up at it. The walled garden, the lack of customization, inability to root, and on and on and on. We buy Android for those particular features, and so we can trick out our phones however we want.

    And every normal smartphone user I run across enjoys their iPhone. Seriously, they don't care about the missing headphone jack, or the inability to replace the battery themselves. They just don't. All their family and friends use iPhones, and they all use Facetime, etc.

    It's sort of similar to Facebook. Geeks like us tend to hate it. Average people love it, because it's simple and convenient for them.
    .

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  91. Re:$$S by houghi · · Score: 1

    What I do not get is why there are no thick Android phones available from alternative brands.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  92. Does anybody actually read up on this stuff? by CrazyBusError · · Score: 1

    The amount of uninformed nonsense on here is astounding.

    The update doesn't "slow down" the phone as such - it limits peak power draws when the battery is down on overall capacity and the spike would cause a reset (which happens in many other manufacturers' phones - FFS google this, people). Most operations of the phone will remain utterly unchanged, just heavy workloads will be slower than previously.

    Say what you like about non-replaceable batteries (hardly specific to Apple) or a badly communicated update, or anything else about them, but the "planned obsolescence" claim is patently nonsense - unless you believe that a phone that runs *some* tasks slightly slower as it ages is forcing users to upgrade more than one that reboots when it hits a CPU intensive task.

    Realistically, this feature should have been in place from the start - it's basic power management, but as usual the howling mob would rather jump on the OMG APPLE EV1L BURN THEM bandwagon than actually take an objective viewpoint.

    --
    -Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
    1. Re:Does anybody actually read up on this stuff? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      Everything I read were performance tests that were showing much slower performance. I have an ipad mini myself that is maybe 2 years old, and it is so slow surfing the web, as far as I can tell it is ANY website, as to be unusable. I have a feeling if I shell out for a new battery it's going to be fine.

    2. Re:Does anybody actually read up on this stuff? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Most operations of the phone will remain utterly unchanged, just heavy workloads will be slower than previously."

      So... iPhones have their own Microsoft-made Meltdown workaround, eh?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Does anybody actually read up on this stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people understand just fine. The problem people have is that Apple intentionally hid this issue so they could get people to buy brand new $700+ phones instead of doing the $80 battery replacement. If the software is limiting power draw in order to prolong the life of the device, then that information can be reported to the user so that the user can make their own choice on whether they want to replace the battery or not, and that information has never been communicated to users either on the device directly or via announcements from Apple.

    4. Re:Does anybody actually read up on this stuff? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      The amount of uninformed nonsense on here is astounding.

      The update doesn't "slow down" the phone as such - it limits peak power draws when the battery is down on overall capacity and the spike would cause a reset (which happens in many other manufacturers' phones - FFS google this, people). Most operations of the phone will remain utterly unchanged, just heavy workloads will be slower than previously.

      Say what you like about non-replaceable batteries (hardly specific to Apple) or a badly communicated update, or anything else about them, but the "planned obsolescence" claim is patently nonsense - unless you believe that a phone that runs *some* tasks slightly slower as it ages is forcing users to upgrade more than one that reboots when it hits a CPU intensive task.

      Realistically, this feature should have been in place from the start - it's basic power management, but as usual the howling mob would rather jump on the OMG APPLE EV1L BURN THEM bandwagon than actually take an objective viewpoint.

      Mods: Please mod parent UP. WAY Up!!!

      That is a PERFECT explanation. Thank you!!!

    5. Re:Does anybody actually read up on this stuff? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Everything I read were performance tests that were showing much slower performance. I have an ipad mini myself that is maybe 2 years old, and it is so slow surfing the web, as far as I can tell it is ANY website, as to be unusable. I have a feeling if I shell out for a new battery it's going to be fine.

      You'd be wrong. That slowness was due to an OS update that was simply a bridge too far for that hardware. I have the same issue with my iPad 2 after upgrading to iOS 9.

      Battery lasts pretty much as long as it ever did (10 hours +); and, other than launching and switching Apps, it seems fine; but especially web browsing is WAY slow.

      But that's an Application issue; NOT a battery issue.

  93. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say your CDMA analogy is flawed. Usually when an older standard like this is eventually disabled, there have been phones on the market for at least half a decade that are dual band CDMA/LTE phones. When that shut off eventually happens your phone just stops using its CDMA radio and uses LTE only. There is no way you could have bought a NEW phone that was CDMA only just months before the CDMA network was turned off. If by chance you were still using a half decade old CDMA only phone, you have reasonably used more than the expected life time of that phone, and usually carriers will go out of their way to identify customers that are still using old CDMA only phones and notify them that they need to upgrade before X date or they will loose service.

  94. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What Apple did here is secretly cap the device performance without notifying the user in any way, and despite massive amounts of speculation they kept their mouths shut until their scheme was detected by a third party.

  95. Re:$$S by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the fix have been to reduce the instances where it would surge but not slow it down otherwise? Instead, they applied the throttle to everything.

  96. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI, Apple does publish how long items will be supported. 5 years after they stop making them

  97. Re:$$S by Askmum · · Score: 1

    The fact that people think it is normal that old hardware runs slower for some reason as if there is some mechanical deteriation, like with a car engine where you will lose some power over time, is an issue of and by itself.

    The problem with older hardware, when it is able to run new software, is that the newer software is usually more powerful, less efficient, larger, so the older hardware will struggle with it. Other than that, you're right. The mechanical stuff will inevitably break at some point but until that it will ususally work fine. I have a Nokia 6310i at home. Not only does it still work (after 15 years), it also turns on with almost a full charge of battery after I haven't used it in over a year. And snake runs as fast as I remember it, maybe even a bit faster because I get slower in my old age :D The ony thing is that it needs some padding between the battery and the shell to make te connection work properly. That's mechanical wear.

  98. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that would be because intel, amd, nvidia are all pulling the same BS that apple is doing. They are pushing their hardware beyond a reasonable limit to get that extra 5 FPS in a review benchmark so they can claim to the the top dawg for a couple months before the competition leap frogs over them.

    If you go back to an era before we had these silly things like turbo boost, like lets take a Pentium 3 for example and did the exact same thing you described a new install nearly 2 decades ago, imaged it, and bench marked with that image today. The performance would be exactly the same as it was 2 decades ago. things like turbo boost are nothing else then sanctioned by the manufacturer overclocking. Overclockers knew 2 decades ago what the risks were of pushing the limits, they would then make that choice that their hardware wouldn't last as long.

  99. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, in its own way, it's clear that wasn't planned obsolescence. It was fraud.

    It is both fraud and planned obsolescence. All the fanboi spin in this thread will not change that.

  100. Re:$$S by Khyber · · Score: 2

    So Apple is lying, because the 4S had its production halted in February of 2016. So why the fuck is the 4S no longer getting updates?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  101. Re:Rich coming from a country that tortures animal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course you wont see "tortured and executed duck" on any menus.

    Is that like "tortured and executed calf" here in the US?

    Moron.

  102. Re:$$S by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Your argument is weakened by the fact the newest iPhones actually have LESS battery capacity than the prior model (iPhone 7.)

    And it is further weakened by the fact that my phone (Kyocera Duraforce PRO) is thicker, with a bigger battery. It is also a tank that has withstood rock slides and a minor mining cave-in.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  103. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good job being pedantic.

  104. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "They didn't drop the operating performance. They limited the top speed."

    When the fuck is speed not considered part of operating performance? What are you smoking?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  105. Let them probe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not "planned" obsolescence.

  106. Re:$$S by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    but they will use their excuse that it was to save battery life

    No they won’t, because it wasn’t designed to save battery life. The fact that people like you are still alleging that false notion, despite evidence to the contrary and the fact that it’s been made clear both in media and comments at tech sites that that is NOT what’s happening boggles my mind.

    What’s actually happening is that older batteries or ones in out-of-spec conditions (e.g. sub-freezing temperatures) are incapable of supplying the necessary voltage for peak performance, so devices have been spontaneously powering down when that happens. Apple’s software update capped peak performance only when needed on those devices (i.e. when it detected a set of conditions that would indicate a high likelihood the device would spontaneously shut down), and only to the degree necessary (i.e. less severe conditions call for lighter throttling), apparently reducing crashes by 70% so far. They’ve indicated their intent to continue fine-tuning the feature to increase its accuracy.

    Given that the alternative to throttling performance is a spontaneous shutdown, I’d actually suggest that this feature is better viewed as a performance boost, since 90% or 80% performance is far better than 0%.

    Also, regarding your claims about battery life, I’m still using a 5 year-old iPhone 5s for my everyday phone. It still lasts through the weekend (albeit barely) on the charge it has when I leave the office on Friday. And I can change the battery. iFixit sells a $29 replacement kit with everything I need, including a new battery, to replace my battery, though I haven’t had the need to do so yet.

    The one thing you said that I do agree with is that they failed to notify the user appropriately. They were already telling users when their battery dropped below 80% of its original capacity, but they should have been telling users when this throttling occurred and why it was occurring. To me, that’s the one thing they got wrong in this situation, but they absolutely shouldn’t be removing this feature, nor even making it a toggleable setting. If anything, this feature should be an industry standard.

  107. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think your talking to one of apple lawyers.

  108. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "They use slower parts because they are cheaper."

    No. They often use slower parts because the specification often calls for lower heat, or a design needs to be rigorously tested so there's something older that already meets those requirements and has the testing already validated.

    On the other hand, as I look at my 1970's W-grade (military) tubes driving my 1978 Super Reverb, sometimes things just needs to be overdesigned.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  109. Re:$$S by geekmux · · Score: 1

    Oh, so customers asked for phones to be made entirely of highly breakable glass? Non-removable batteries? Indiscernible display resolution upgrades? Removing the headphone jack? No memory expansion option? Software behind a walled garden? No ability to install 3rd party OS? Massive amounts of telemetry? So thin it bends and breaks in your pocket? Proprietary physical connectors requiring dongles?

    Some of these things are what make modern smartphones thin and attractive and easy to use.

    Thin and attractive? It's a fucking phone, not a girlfriend. And those same features also made it more breakable, which of course creates profits for vendors.

    Others are things average users don't care much about. While many geeks are happy with durable bricks and lots of options for hacking, the average consume wants a sleek and stylish phone that's also a status symbol and fashion statement, while being simple and safe to use. They don't care about user replaceable batteries or SD card expansions. They certainly don't care about rooting their phones, and I guaranteed they have never considered replacing their OS.

    Translation: Consumers don't care how they get fucked over, as long as they look good doing it. Consumers are nothing but narcissists.

    Phones that are thin and beautiful constantly outsell phones which are bulkier, sturdier, less attractive, more expandable, user-serviceable, and so on. Did you notice how much flack Apple got for it's "ugly" iPhone case? That should tell you how important aesthetics are to people. No matter how you try to explain the design advantages of the "hump", it still looks ugly, and people hate it for that reason alone.

    Perhaps we should have zero sympathy and no support for consumers subjected to Bendgate, shattered screens, and battery capacities that wear out well before their finance agreement does. After all, they asked for it.

    I should clarify this mainly applies to US consumers. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this same ignorance existed worldwide; clearly there are some foreign consumers still armed with common sense.

  110. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    No my argument is they fucked up the design from the onset and that CPUs in milspec equipment don't run slow because of the reasons you think.

  111. Re: $$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Planned obsolescence is part of their business model. I have several perfectly good iMacs and Minis that run current (16.04 and 17.10 at the moment) 64bit Ubuntu releases like a champ. But it's been years since they could run the latest MacOS and apps because Apple decided they were too old.

  112. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please lead by example

  113. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure if you mean that a processor chip can degrade over time; but, if you do... NO.


    A processor works or it doesn't. A battery can hold less of a charge the more it's used, till the point it can't hold a charge anymore; but, a processor is either going to work, throw errors, or not work at all. If you are using a windows machine or even an android or an iphone, yes, the performance over time may slow down in general; but, that is do to background processes building up. It has nothing to do with the hardware.


    And, yes, planned obsolescence is a thing, and yes, it is absolutely disgusting.


    Planned obsolescence is when some one discovers a light bulb that can be on for 50 years with out burning out; but the company either chooses to bury the technology and keep making light bulbs that burn out every year or so. Or they take the technology, use it, and just make sure the bulb stops functioning after 3 years so you'll have to buy a new one.


    Batteries wear out. Processors, NO. The internal flash storage, I think, yes, can become non-functional at some point, perhaps; but, no, not a processor. Trendy computer phones are usually phased out of existence by unneeded software changes that require more compute power. An Iphone or Android OS update usually means performance degradation because the software is pushing the same hardware harder.

  114. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you drive a car for a decade you probably need to replace the battery in that as well. Depending on how much driving you do, you'll have to replace it multiple times. It's almost like batteries wear out over time, and commonly need to be replaced....

  115. Re: $$S by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    *Planned* obsolescence is a crime in France, not obsolescence per se. Thus, your comment is moot.

    IOW Android isn't a crime in France, because nobody actually planned that you couldn't update it.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  116. Re:Rich coming from a country that tortures animal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First day shilling for apple?

  117. Re:$$S by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And I could not refill it to the original amount of fuel? That's outrageous! I would definitely expect a recall if the tank gets smaller and smaller with every time I fill it up!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  118. Re:$$S by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Well, probably because GM didn't decide to limit your Corvette to 50mph to ensure you don't notice the missing ponies.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  119. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are engineering tradeoffs of doing that, mostly in volume/weight. Making the battery replaceable requires adding interior barriers, bulkier contacts, latches, etc. those tradeoffs may be worth it to some but not others. For something that most people would do once a year or less, the tradeoffs is a valid option. It can can be replaced with some more skill if it needs to be.

  120. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference is that in the car analogy you propose, that is normal wear and tear. GM is not purposely de-tuning the "twenty-year-old Corvette".
    Nobody here is complaining that their older iPhones are running slower due to wear and tear. This is like GM recalling your car for an "update" and then de-tuning your engine.
    Focus on the facts and not on car analogies.

  121. are you some kind of fanboi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The alternative is to face the fact that the phone is broken. You said it yourself, random shutdowns and restarts, get Apple to fix your broken phone.

  122. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not hard to change the battery though.

  123. Re:$$S by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the fix have been to reduce the instances where it would surge but not slow it down otherwise? Instead, they applied the throttle to everything.

    This is just so much horseshit.

    I wanted to see how my iPhone 6 Plus, purchased when they came out in September 2014, and used consistently up through the present, fared on the Geekbench 4 and Battery Life apps.

    First, my Battery health, according to 2 different Battery Health apps, was 93% on my now over 4 year old battery. So, the idea of "bad battery design" is bullshit.

    And as far as my GeekBench 4 scores, my single CPU score is 1571 and Multi-Core Score is 2671. Both of these are OVER the average reported on the GeekBench site. My overall "Compute" score is 4445, which is within about 100 points of the Average GeekBench score for that model.

    So: Battery NOT worn-out at ALL after 4 years, and according to the SOMEHOW "gold-standard" GeekBench 4, if there is throttling going on, it doesn't seem to be appreciably affecting performance at ALL.

    I know that anecdotes are not data; but they aren't far from it, when a large percentage of the "anecdotes" "line-up".

  124. Re:$$S by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Everyone but Slashdot users.

    Seriously, go back and listen to tech reviewers gushing about how *thin and beautiful* any given new smartphone is.

    Exactly!

  125. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So do you think maybe I should have written something like "If you have a complaint, complain that the battery wasn't designed to last longer."?

    Whooosh! again I'm afraid.

    No, its not the meager lifespan of their own(!) batteries that I questioned. Even though questions should be asked about it, replacing them would just be $70.

    The problem is that they "limited the top speed of the CPU" (as you liked to put it) of the users phone without telling them that they did it, and more importantly why they did it (And no, the crashes where just an effect of, and not the problem itself).

    That witholding of information made it impossible for most all users to come to the conclusion that just a low-cost fix would be needed, and instead drives them, if they wanted their performance back, to spend a lot of money on the next model.

    That is the real problem here. Gauging their customers $999 plus, where a $70 battery replacement would have the exact same result.

  126. Re:$$S by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    What I do not get is why there are no thick Android phones available from alternative brands.

    Hmmm. Imagine that!

    It's almost like "thin is in"...

  127. Re:$$S by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Very nice, are you ready to pay for a smartphone like you pay for a durable product like a car?

    At just a little shy of $1000 I already pay for it like a car. Hell I pay for it more than most laptops. Why do most laptops seem to last longer?

    You're on THIS site and you have to ask that question?

    Wow. Just. Wow...

  128. Re: What Apple was doing was opposite, going longe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your first assumption has not been proven, the batteries failed due to age. It is possible they are bad due to manufacturer defects because there was a small batch that Apple confirmed are bad from manufacturing errors and issued a recall already.

  129. Re:$$S by nine-times · · Score: 1

    Instead, they applied the throttle to everything.

    Not according the the analysis I saw. They basically slowed things down when the CPU was drawing a lot of power.

  130. My mom had that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a Samsung Note 4 and the USB port no longer charging. After trying a couple charger cables, she mentioned it to my sister who got her a new phone. Right after buying the new one, the old one suddenly started charging again... on the same cable.

    We are pretty sure at this point it was some sort of soft-obsolescence thing, but aren't sure how or why.

  131. Re:$$S by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    A longer warranty will not motivate them to make the device less fragile. If anything, the device will become more fragile because if people break their phones for non-warranty reasons, Apple won't have to support them longer.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  132. It feels heavy in your hand by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because of the backglass, which is there for exactly that purpose. The added weight is also why it shatters when it hits the ground. To be fair to the 4, it was the most durable of the iPhones I've bought for my kid.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  133. Same market that buys glossy monitor screens by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because they look nice in the shop (even though they cause eye strain). First impressions matter in sales. It only takes hours to make a sale for a product you're going to have for years.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  134. Jail? [Re:Stop criminal scum!] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [possible jail term in law] LOCK 'EM UP! Throw away the keys!

    But Timmy likes to drop the soap

  135. Re:$$S by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Well, probably because GM didn't decide to limit your Corvette to 50mph to ensure you don't notice the missing ponies.

    Most Corvettes don't have enough power to hit their top speed limiter, which AFAIK is 205 now. Most Corvette drivers don't have enough life left to hit their Corvette's top speed limiter, and finding a place to do it is non-trivial as well, so it would be shockingly unlikely for one of them to notice in the first place. Max-V runs are expensive, dangerous, and uncommon. Where you might notice is in 0-60 runs, since people often measure that kind of thing now. (The car will do it, in this case.)

    However, there is definitely more tuning headroom in Corvette engines, so the engine could degrade somewhat before they had to give up output.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  136. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, markets often do not deliver what the customer is asking for.

    There is no such thing as an unregulated market. There may be over-regulated markets, or under-regulated markets. Markets, by their very nature, come about thanks to regulation.

    Oh, there is a ton of unregulated markets. For example the black dark market. These markets really didn't come about thanks to regulation. And they work wonderfully: in New York, Berlin, London you can get Cocaine faster than Pizza. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5273503/cocaine-delivered-faster-than-takeaway-pizza-in-london/

  137. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I was speaking to the automotive stuff, sorry. I should have made that more clear, although I thought my example did that.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  138. Re:$$S by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    The problem is that they "limited the top speed of the CPU" (as you liked to put it) of the users phone without telling them that they did it

    Yes that is a problem. It's not a problem that this thread is discussing, but yes it is. Do try to follow along while you woosh.

  139. Re:$$S by cmseagle · · Score: 1

    A quick Google finds that the X has a 2700 mAh battery while the 7 has a 1900 mAh battery. My point (that the iPhone X is a move in the direction of thicker phones with larger batteries) stands.

    Glad your ruggedized phone can take some hard knocks - that's what it was designed for. Let's see if it's getting security patches in 6 months (if it's even getting them now).

  140. Apple glued the battery to the case .. by najajomo · · Score: 1

    Apple glued the battery to the case for the sole reason to prevent you changing it yourself.

  141. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    As the behavior of the device would have been worse if Apple did nothing, it takes a special kind of shit to suggest Apple was doing this to drive sales.

    Precisely.

  142. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Outside of moving parts, batteries and leaking capacitors, have you ever had hardware failures in consumer grade electronics? I haven't.

    I have. And as a former electronic bench-tech, I have seen many failures from bad design and under-spec'ed components.

    The iPhone battery is neither of those.

  143. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    I would not want my phone to reboot in the middle of a 999/112 call because some app needed more current than the battery could supply for a single moment. Throttle the processor, keep the device working, especially in case of emergencies

    Well put, sir!

  144. How did it save them money? It cost money. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    They implemented a technical solution that saved them money.

    Sorry, but that is totally false.

    Without Apple's solution, phones would not last a day on battery after a few years, and/or would be random restarting.

    Either way, an iPhone user would have to go to Apple and PAY THEM MONEY - either for a new battery or new phone.

    With Apple's solution in place, it would be a while longer before people would come in for either a new phone or new battery. There is no scenario under Apple's fix where they get more money.

    This issue is well understood

    Not by you it would seem.

    The datasheet for the battery... ...tells you nothing about how the battery will react after two years, under varying loads.

    Other manufacturers did that.

    What you mean is, other manufacturers did NOTHING. If you search you can easily find reports of older Android phones that randomly restart as the batteries age, of phones that mono longer last a day after just six months. Apple's fix means those phones would still be working but I guess the manufactures just want people to buy phones more often...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  145. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Batteries wear out. Processors, NO.

    Sorry, but processors can wear out. It won't be slower, but it will die of frequent use eventually.
    https://m.hardocp.com/article/1998/12/10/intel_employee_on_electro_migration

  146. Er, iphone 3 user here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've conducted an experiment. Admittedly a rather lengthy one. I use an iphone 3gs that still works okay. I decided not to allow upgrades many years ago, so it's still on ios3! Okay, so I have not been able to install apps for a while, but the ones I want are still working fine, (and I do not want the latest shiny anyway). Yes, security updates have not happened for ages, but then I will never use a phone for important security related things.

    Here's the point: I get better battery life out of my old iphone3 than my friend who bought a new iphone a couple of years ago...

    Sure, I can't use Facebook or other similar stuff on my phone, but for me, that's a bonus. I have a phone that works, and I can take notes, schedule reminders and important stuff like that. I'm just wondering how long it can last.

    1. Re:Er, iphone 3 user here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehm, yeah guess how much the GPU cores in your iPhone draws in power compared to, oh wait it doesn't have any never mind.

  147. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so is throttling

  148. Re:$$S by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Nobody here is complaining that their older iPhones are running slower due to wear and tear.

    What? Yes they are. They precisely are. If they aren't made to run slower, a subset of them will crash due to undervoltage, so this is actually Apple keeping their hardware running.

    This is like GM recalling your car for an "update" and then de-tuning your engine.

    Automobile manufacturers sell cars with specified horsepower, but you will not be able to go dyno your vehicle, get a lower result, and return your car on the basis that it doesn't meet the specifications. If an automaker were found to be cheating on the specifications, they might get fined, and there might be a class action suit. You might get five bucks and a keyring advertising the brand that screwed you over, but you wouldn't get a new car.

    Automobiles could be made to last much longer for very little more money. For example, rubber bushings could be replaced with polyurethane; when designed in, they outlast the vehicle. (Some aftermarket replacements will, some won't, depending on the application.) The ones whose material I know of are EPDM. Polyurethane would be similar in cost. There are numerous other small upgrades which could be made which would substantially increase the lifespan of basically every component; a slightly larger bolt here, a little larger oil passage there. But they design them to do a certain job for a certain amount of time, and then they don't care what happens to them.

    How is this different from what Apple is doing here?

    Focus on the facts and not on car analogies.

    No, we've done that already, but this thread is about car analogies. And my point was actually that using a car analogy here was dumb. Most people on Slashdot don't understand either cars or the automotive industry enough to be allowed anywhere near a car analogy.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  149. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apple should be fined and assigned a corporate watchdog like they had when they were found guilty of ebook price fixing. apple has proved itself too corrupt a company to be trusted to function unchecked.

  150. Re:$$S by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Thin and attractive? It's a fucking phone, not a girlfriend. And those same features also made it more breakable, which of course creates profits for vendors.

    These features also make a girlfriend more likely to break up with you and run away without another guy. Sturdy and reliable is best.

  151. Re:Rich coming from a country that tortures animal by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

    It's France mate. Never heard of foie gras?

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  152. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a problem that this thread is discussing, but yes it is. Do try to follow along while you woosh

    It isn't ?

    You could have fooled me, if only looking at your reply to "gl4ss" (Msg #559668) a few spots up.

    So yes, it really is all this whole thread is about. Not that their batteries suck so much that the iPhones they are in crash when they get older, and not that they thought it would be a good idea to limit the maximum operating speed to mitigate those crashes.

    But its certainly is all about how they did it. Secretive, and allowing their buyers to believe that only spending a lot of money would solve the degraded performance (first caused by the older, not anymore up-to-par battery, later by their throtteling - pardon me - their 'limiting of the maximum CPU operating speed').

    .

    By the way, its quite telling that your reply boils down to a "no it isn't!" blurb, whith zero indication to what - according to you - it than is all about.

    Than again, the best way not to get rebuttals on what you say is to say nothing. Confucius would be proud. :-)

  153. how about android software updates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I buy an android phone that only gets one OS update, perhaps 12 months from the purchase date, is this not also just as bad? The (lack of) software updates are in fact planned vs. a battery that is subject to user-specific usage patters like charge cycling.

    I am pretty careful charging my phone at work, so I've got a good condition Galaxy Note 3 running its original battery that I consider obsolete due to security holes in its Samsung Android distribution. Now I use an iPhone.

  154. Re:$$S by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    You could have fooled me

    I see that.
    I don't know what message you're referring to, as there is no message with that number. Why not post a link instead? The topic of the thread is the claim that Apple is "slowing down" old phones so they can sell new ones. My posts dispute that notion. You've changed the topic to Apple not properly disclosing what their mitigation did. I have no quarrel with that, but it's not what the thread was about. For what it's worth I think they did two things wrong. They didn't communicate, and, more importantly, they designed a battery that's not a durable as it should be. But I don't think they limited the top speed in order to sell phones, as that's ridiculous. They made old phones more useful, not less.

  155. Re:$$S by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    By the way, its quite telling that your reply boils down to a "no it isn't!" blurb

    I gave specific reasons. I think you need to re-read my posts with a more objective eye.

  156. Re: What Apple was doing was opposite, going longe by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    So you fully understand it as a deficient design but refuse to call it that? It's a bad design. Plain and fucking simple.

  157. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    If you had kept reading for just one more sentence you would have seen the answer to your question, but I will paste it here for your convenience: "A speed which the aging battery already could not support"

  158. Re: $$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Came here to say exactly this, thank you. They forced updates onto the phone until it becomes slow (you can't go back to earlier iOS) then they abandon it, forcing people into a new phone. I have an original iPad and the iOS updates slowed it to the point that running Safari on any page with mild javascript would cause it to crash (due to an out of memory condition, iPad 1 had 256mb RAM I believe). It became completely unusable

  159. False premises by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Cheapness is a thing. A-pillars have grown and making them small and still having rollover resistance is expensive.

    Of course cost is a consideration and a crude design will typically be cheaper than an expensive one. However thick A pillars do not necessarily make for bad visibility if they are shaped cleverly and even if they did would you prefer a car that turns into crumpled aluminum foil in the event of a rollover?

    Raw, unassisted handling peaked in the 1990s, when suspension geometry technology reached essentially the point we've reached today, but when vehicles were lighter.

    Even if I accept your premise about "raw unassisted handling peaking" (which I do not) that doesn't mean handling has degraded since then. It's pretty clear that handling has improved quite a lot in the last 20 years. You don't have to take my word for it either - cars from the 90s are still on the road. It's not even a contest. Furthermore there is a LOT more to handling than suspension geometry and I disagree that suspension technology hasn't improved in the last 20 year either.

  160. Eloquence by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Bollocks

    What an eloquent rebuttal. Full of facts and logic. I bow to your debating prowess.

    You could get all that stuff on cars before, or swap it on. And it was common to do so.

    Your argument is that because we could tune a car to perform better that cars from 20 years ago are the equal of those today? Dumbest argument I've heard in quite a while.

    1. Re:Eloquence by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your argument is that because we could tune a car to perform better that cars from 20 years ago are the equal of those today? Dumbest argument I've heard in quite a while.

      That's because you didn't understand the argument.

      The cars themselves from 20 years ago were mechanically the equal of cars today, power output aside. And I personally don't feel a need for more than five or six hundred horsepower, which was easily attainable on a streetable vehicle back then by slapping turbos on a V8. No rocket surgery was needed. To be honest, I've had the most fun in cars under two hundred horses, because you can wring the snot out of them and still keep them on the pavement.

      If I want a car to drive for me, I want the car to drive for me. I don't mind a little bit of defeatable traction control and some ABS in a vehicle I'm driving, and if it is very good an automatic transmission is all right because it actually makes the car better, but I don't want yaw control and all that other BS. I want the car to have all that if it is driving me around, but that stuff takes the fun out of driving. I don't want electric power steering — hell, I barely want electrically variable damping. I don't want torque vectoring, or rear wheel steering. All of that stuff is just a distraction from driving.

      I also want a self-driving minivan with hub motors, skid steering during parking, and a big squishy chair that lets me recline and take a nap. I'm not a luddite, I appreciate technology. But modern cars have become bloated, and are increasingly doing the driving for you. I don't want any of that unless I can have all of it.

      Anyway, back on topic; the cars of 20 and even 25 years ago had all of the important things we demand from cars, like being able to go over bumps gracefully, but none of the things we didn't, like remotely compromisable infotainment systems. They had superior front visibility, and while I don't pretend that rollover protection isn't important, it's folly to imagine that forward visibility isn't important either and it's ridiculous to claim that A-pillars haven't grown. The average modern vehicle still has a narrow tire for efficiency reasons, but now it also has a short sidewall which reduces ride quality when traveling over broken pavement. That was always an option, you could change out your wheels for something like that in the aftermarket, and guess what? The dealer will always charge you more for wheels than you could get an equivalent for from someone else. Brake performance is similarly stale; while more makers now make high-end cars with big brakes, average braking distance hasn't really improved since four wheel discs with ABS became common. Most vehicles still have the smallest brakes that will stop them in an acceptable amount of time, and their braking force is in any case limited by the width of the tires.

      Therein lies the rub: If vehicles have become substantially heavier, and tires have only gotten a little wider, then handling is actually compromised. And this is actually what AFAICT literally every member of the automotive press has said! The cars have gotten heavier, so you need more expensive rubber to get the same stopping distances. And while you can make a heavy car behave like a light car while the tires are stuck to the pavement, nothing can make it do that while you've broken them loose. You can pour enough power into the tires to keep the car under control in a situation where more acceleration will fix it, but you can't magically reduce lateral inertia.

      People love the BRZ because it returns to that lightweight formula. The new Miata could have had more power, but that would have made it heavier. There are a couple of cars, therefore, that actually get this right. But most of them are bloated now, and most vehicles use advanced materials not to reduce weight so much as to make more weight available for sound-deadening materials and the like. I like a quiet car, but I like MPG more, and I like handling even more than that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  161. Re:$$S by Khyber · · Score: 1

    It got a security patch two days ago. Unlike your iDevices where Apple lies about support (The 4S quit being manufactured in Feb 2016 and
    Apple claims to support a device for 5 years after they cease production of the model. Why is the 4S not getting any patches or upgrades?)

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  162. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Got news for ya - That's not the battery, that's the fault of the Apple designers. I've taken plenty of 'dead' iPhone batteries and hooked them up to an ammeter. They're more than capable of delivering 1C or greater.

    This is entirely the fault of Apple engineers for failing to understand basic electronics design.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  163. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    Whatever the reason, the phones already could not support that processor speed without shutting down. So your smart-ass comment was inapplicable, but instead of simply acknowledging that like a civilized person you change your tack. Good on you.

  164. Re:$$S by cmseagle · · Score: 1

    Apple claims to support a device for 5 years after they cease production of the model.

    Source?

  165. Disagreement != Misunderstanding by sjbe · · Score: 2

    That's because you didn't understand the argument.

    Disagreeing does not mean I didn't understand the argument but thanks for the condescension.

    The cars themselves from 20 years ago were mechanically the equal of cars today, power output aside.

    I'm an automotive engineer with 20 years in the industry and run a company that makes parts for car companies. That argument is simply not true. Pick any measure you want and any automotive engineer worth their salary can show you how cars today have overall improved on cars from 20 years ago. Reliability, performance, power, traction, safety, durability, handling, materials, etc. It doesn't matter - cars today have as a whole improved across the board even in the fact of additional complexity. Your argument that cars haven't improved mechanically in the last 20 years is easily shown to be false as a general proposition.

    If you want to argue that we are into diminishing returns on the improvement in cars then I can probably get on board with a reasonable argument to that effect. But claims that car mechanicals peaked in the 1990s and have gone no where since is just preposterous.

    Anyway, back on topic; the cars of 20 and even 25 years ago had all of the important things we demand from cars, like being able to go over bumps gracefully, but none of the things we didn't, like remotely compromisable infotainment systems.

    Saying cars 20 years ago could go over bumps adequately is true but it's false to say cars today don't do it any better. To argue otherwise is to claim that tens of thousands of automotive engineers have wasted their time for the last 20 years.

    Therein lies the rub: If vehicles have become substantially heavier, and tires have only gotten a little wider, then handling is actually compromised

    The width of tires is not remotely the only consideration. What tires are made of matters FAR more and that has improved. Furthermore, there is a lot more to handling than simply the tires. A car can be heavier and have better handling. While weight does play an important role, it isn't even close to the only factor that matters. Handling is a function of the sum of the parts and there is more than one equation to get it right.

    People love the BRZ because it returns to that lightweight formula. The new Miata could have had more power, but that would have made it heavier.

    Seriously? You're using a 2 seat sports car as an example of why all cars are no better than ones from 20 years ago? People love the BRZ and Miata because it's a fun and inexpensive little sports car for people who want fun and inexpensive little sports cars that drive well. Not everyone wants that and it's inappropriate to extrapolate that market segment to cars in general. It's one way to get a great handling car but not the only way. Good handling can be achieved in many ways. You'd be daft to argue that a Corvette or a BMW M4 doesn't handle well but light weight wasn't the primary goal of those cars. The lightweight sports car is merely one way to get excellent handling and not the only way. But even staying with the example you provided the Miata of today is measurably better than the one from 20 years ago.

    1. Re:Disagreement != Misunderstanding by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The width of tires is not remotely the only consideration. What tires are made of matters FAR more and that has improved.

      You can put new tires on old cars. In fact, it's irresponsible not to do so. That is not a mark in favor of new cars. It's in favor of new tires.

      Seriously? You're using a 2 seat sports car as an example of why all cars are no better than ones from 20 years ago?

      I'm using them as examples of why light weight is better. But you continually mischaracterize what I'm saying.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  166. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Sounds like your girlfriend would have a warranty claim if she lived in the EU (you don't say whether or not she does). Stuff does fail within warranty periods, and nobody seems to complain about it if the device is actually fixed or replaced. I don't see the connection with the Apple soft slowdown to avoid crashes, though.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  167. Re:$$S by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    They're advertised for thinness, in many cases. That suggests to me that people who actually do market research for a living and aren't pseudonymous Slashdot posters have observed that lots and lots of people want thin. The fact that it's not just Apple suggests to me that different people have come up with the same conclusion, and so it's likely no total rubbish.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  168. Re: $$S by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    "Over 4 years" . You can't call bullshit and then immediately fail basic math. September 2018 hasn't happened yet.

  169. Re: $$S by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    "Over 4 years" .

    You can't call bullshit and then immediately fail basic math. September 2018 hasn't happened yet.

    Actually, I fail at typing or proofreading. Too many "GeekBench 4"s, and I got happy and typed 4 years.

    Sorry!

    But my battery is STILL not worn out.

  170. Re: Except Apple actually prolonged the life of th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Batteries wear out. Processors, NO. The internal flash storage, I think, yes, can become non-functional at some point, perhaps; but, no, not a processor.

    False. Processors absolutely will degrade over time. There are a variety of mechanisms, mostly involving quantum mechanics stuff - traps, damage due to high energy electronics, and so forth. Diffusion of the gates is another issue.

    Some of the issues will cause failures, others will cause slowdowns.

    You can not escape thermodynamics: everything fails eventually.

    Many of the failure modes for older chips operated over very long time spans, so nobody worried about them. But as we push the limits on density, power, and so forth we also force shorter lifespans.

    If this isn't clear, then read a textbook on IC fabrication. You may need to read a book on solid state physics as well.

  171. Re:$$S by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Odd. To me it feels more that this "want" for thinness is artificially created. If you tell people long enough that they want something, they'll eventually really want it.

    It seems that me and a few others that I know are immune to this effect. I can't think of any reason why I want my phone to be even thinner. We have reached the point of "sufficiently thin" long ago. Don't get me wrong, I don't want the Mars-bar style phones back, but anything thinner than a centimeter is ridiculous.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  172. Re:$$S by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    You and I are not typical smartphone buyers, and probably lots of our friends aren't either. (My phone is about 7mm, according to my calipers. Making it 1cm thick would be increasing the thickness 50%, and it would no longer easily fit into all the pockets I keep it in.)

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  173. 5% of turnover... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Presuming Apple are found guilty, and don't overturn it on appeal, take it to a higher court......and don't have a few BILLIONS to throw at lawyers..... that 5% might actually only be a few million dollars, since we all know Apple are not exactly transparent in their accounting....

    I wish the French legal system a lot of luck and hope they really sting Apple, but somehow I doubt even a 'good' result will make much of a dent in the Apple juggernaut.

  174. Re:Except Apple actually prolonged the life of the by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    They often have to underclock chips to be able to work from -40 to +85C (or even +125C). It has nothing to do with lifetime. Commercial and industrial grade should last the same as long as they are operated between 0 and 70 C.

  175. Re:Should Planned Obsolescence for Tech be a crime by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Whatever the reason, the phones already could not support that processor speed without shutting down. So your smart-ass comment was inapplicable, but instead of simply acknowledging that like a civilized person you change your tack."

    You say as your first words are "Whatever the reason," which means you lost. good on you!

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  176. Re:$$S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Apple is lying, because the 4S had its production halted in February of 2016. So why the fuck is the 4S no longer getting updates?

    So either Apple is lying - or you can't read. They say nothing about software - probably because that isn't covered by law anywhere.