The iPhone 6s fix was in 10.2.1, not 11. And if you still don't believe me that the problem is unique to the 6-series iPhone maybe you'll believe Apple instead:
Since you're convinced it happens on other phones as well perhaps you can point me to the Apple's repair advisories for those as well, like the one I posted above for the 6s.
I use an iPhone 7, so your imaginary narrative about me being an Android fanboy was about 2 minutes of wasted effort on your part. I previously owned a 6s that had the battery issue we're discussing, which started manifesting only 4 months into owning the phone. And your explanation that this problem always existed in previous iPhones but took years for Apple to cultivate and understand, with that understanding conveniently intersecting with the iPhone 6 release cycle is the least compelling theory you've presented thus far. Apple sold hundreds of millions of previous iPhone models that didn't have this issue.
By systemic I meant one which is endemic to a specific model of phone. There are QC issues in all electronic devices and batteries - it's unavoidable when you sell 1.5 billion of something. Aggregating a cross-section of QC issues across a variety of models to compare against a systemic issue with one specific model of phone isn't very methodical.
Funny how the rise in value of Bitcon has suddenly taken on so many social meanings when it fact it's just another speculative rush, in a long list of speculative rushes throughout human history.
There is no systemic issue with aging batteries triggering voltage-drop shutdowns other phones like there is on the iPhone 6-series. There were 1.5 billion smartphones sold last year - pointing me to a google search with a random sampling of QC issues on those 1.5 billion units doesn't persuade.
I've never seen this on a phone other than the iPhone 6-series and your ridiculous claim that it's due to the iPhone being used "years longer" than other phones is absurd on its face considering iPhone 6's were resetting within their first year of use.
No other phone has this issue of shutting down for a battery aging through it's normal useful life so I'm not sure why your're so stumped about how Apple could have achieved this.
It is preferable to have a slower iPhone than it is to have it rebooting.
It is preferable to design a phone and its power system so that it doesn't have a flaw that causes it to reboot over the expected useful life of the battery. It's also preferable that if you fail this design goal, you fix the phone and the battery rather than sneaking in software that slows the phone down to unusable levels.
It's a problem because the design of the phone and battery allows the voltage on older batteries to intermittently drop enough to cause the phone to shut off unexpectedly. Rather than disclose this issue and fix the phone/battery at their cost (which would be into the hundreds of millions of dollars), Apple decided to cover up the problem with a software fix that slowed users' phones by a significant amount without disclosing that fact to them.
Should you decide to cancel our fine cable TV package. Once the repeal of net neutrality is complete you might letters like this from your favorite cable-based internet provider.
You could just as easily argue it's easy to track someone down by where they bought something. The fact there are other, weaker links in the privacy chain in using any store of value for purchases doesn't invalidate the unique privacy protections in the currency itself. As for positive vs negative societal impacts, that's a morality question - freedom from morality is part and parcel of freedom itself.
Bitcoin will end badly but due to its speculative nature, not from its privacy aspects.
Stiglitz believes those who endeavor to protect their rights such as privacy must be doing something illegal. It's the old "it shouldn't matter if you have nothing to hide" defense of infringing on civil liberties. He also claims bitcoin has no societal value - the fact people are using it in society is prima facie evidence he's wrong about that as well.
With all the recent news about potential vulnerabilities in Intel's Management Engine, I wonder if Apple's motivation for this is to bypass Intel's ME black box and replace it with something they have complete control over.
Facebook's entire business model is to sell targeted advertising. That requires huge amounts of data to be collected on its users. Asking Facebook to "regulate" itself by limiting the information it collects is akin to asking it to limit how much profit they make. It ain't going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone 6s fix was in 10.2.1, not 11. And if you still don't believe me that the problem is unique to the 6-series iPhone maybe you'll believe Apple instead:
https://www.apple.com/support/iphone6s-unexpectedshutdown/
Since you're convinced it happens on other phones as well perhaps you can point me to the Apple's repair advisories for those as well, like the one I posted above for the 6s.
I use an iPhone 7, so your imaginary narrative about me being an Android fanboy was about 2 minutes of wasted effort on your part. I previously owned a 6s that had the battery issue we're discussing, which started manifesting only 4 months into owning the phone. And your explanation that this problem always existed in previous iPhones but took years for Apple to cultivate and understand, with that understanding conveniently intersecting with the iPhone 6 release cycle is the least compelling theory you've presented thus far. Apple sold hundreds of millions of previous iPhone models that didn't have this issue.
If it isn't a design flaw specific to the iPhone 6 then why was this issue not reported en masse on previous IPhone models?
By systemic I meant one which is endemic to a specific model of phone. There are QC issues in all electronic devices and batteries - it's unavoidable when you sell 1.5 billion of something. Aggregating a cross-section of QC issues across a variety of models to compare against a systemic issue with one specific model of phone isn't very methodical.
Did you respond to my comment by mistake? Because that's not what I said.
Funny how the rise in value of Bitcon has suddenly taken on so many social meanings when it fact it's just another speculative rush, in a long list of speculative rushes throughout human history.
There is no systemic issue with aging batteries triggering voltage-drop shutdowns other phones like there is on the iPhone 6-series. There were 1.5 billion smartphones sold last year - pointing me to a google search with a random sampling of QC issues on those 1.5 billion units doesn't persuade.
Apple's map database is downright horrendous. It's almost like they intentionally want to mislead drivers as a practical joke.
I've never seen this on a phone other than the iPhone 6-series and your ridiculous claim that it's due to the iPhone being used "years longer" than other phones is absurd on its face considering iPhone 6's were resetting within their first year of use.
No other phone has this issue of shutting down for a battery aging through it's normal useful life so I'm not sure why your're so stumped about how Apple could have achieved this.
It is preferable to have a slower iPhone than it is to have it rebooting.
It is preferable to design a phone and its power system so that it doesn't have a flaw that causes it to reboot over the expected useful life of the battery. It's also preferable that if you fail this design goal, you fix the phone and the battery rather than sneaking in software that slows the phone down to unusable levels.
Take a left at the smog-obscured road, then continue for 3 miles, veering right of the smog-obscured fork.
It's a problem because the design of the phone and battery allows the voltage on older batteries to intermittently drop enough to cause the phone to shut off unexpectedly. Rather than disclose this issue and fix the phone/battery at their cost (which would be into the hundreds of millions of dollars), Apple decided to cover up the problem with a software fix that slowed users' phones by a significant amount without disclosing that fact to them.
Because that's essentially what they're trying to do in getting people to pay for something they're accustomed to getting for free.
Considering we're now talking about the breach they paid to keep secret.
Should you decide to cancel our fine cable TV package. Once the repeal of net neutrality is complete you might letters like this from your favorite cable-based internet provider.
For single-core performance, and even that is optimistic. The 835 is 43% slower than the A10 in single-core performance.
Darn that Intel SpeedStep.
You could just as easily argue it's easy to track someone down by where they bought something. The fact there are other, weaker links in the privacy chain in using any store of value for purchases doesn't invalidate the unique privacy protections in the currency itself. As for positive vs negative societal impacts, that's a morality question - freedom from morality is part and parcel of freedom itself.
Bitcoin will end badly but due to its speculative nature, not from its privacy aspects.
Stiglitz believes those who endeavor to protect their rights such as privacy must be doing something illegal. It's the old "it shouldn't matter if you have nothing to hide" defense of infringing on civil liberties. He also claims bitcoin has no societal value - the fact people are using it in society is prima facie evidence he's wrong about that as well.
I will be petitioning for a federal investigation into this scourge of the Application world.
With Windows 10 relegated to business and engineering-only roles.
Trump's Mar-A-Lago gets approval to hire 70 foreign workers
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trumps-mar-lago-approval-hire-70-foreign-workers-51041012
With all the recent news about potential vulnerabilities in Intel's Management Engine, I wonder if Apple's motivation for this is to bypass Intel's ME black box and replace it with something they have complete control over.
Facebook's entire business model is to sell targeted advertising. That requires huge amounts of data to be collected on its users. Asking Facebook to "regulate" itself by limiting the information it collects is akin to asking it to limit how much profit they make. It ain't going to happen.