when do you think that Apple will come out of their long, long innovative, paradigm-changing, new product drought?
That's a difficult question to answer. First let's clarify what we're talking about so we can establish a baseline. Which Apple products do you consider to have been innovative and paradigm-changing?
You each use only 16 gallons per month? Less than half a gallon a day? Is Saturday bath day in your house? Is the last person to bathe the one who drains the tub? I must be misunderstanding what you're saying.
I don't think he meant to say that those language have no grammar. Perhaps he was interpreting the meaning of "grammar taked out" in different way than you did. Is it even possible to have a language without grammar? Doesn't that just leave a pile of words?
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you give this "artificial" term too much value. Nothing flew over my head. I'm sorry if I haven't laid out everything in literal form for you. I'll try to do better next time and not make you have to think.
Slashdot Mirror
it will be better and better as more Autos get on the roads. And once they're all talking to each other and cooperating traffic will be a breeze.
That's a difficult question to answer. First let's clarify what we're talking about so we can establish a baseline. Which Apple products do you consider to have been innovative and paradigm-changing?
You each use only 16 gallons per month? Less than half a gallon a day? Is Saturday bath day in your house? Is the last person to bathe the one who drains the tub? I must be misunderstanding what you're saying.
Oh ok, thanks. Yes, I was thinking of the Hunt Brothers. I remember they dragged gold along with it, to a then unheard of $800 an ounce.
8 hours? That article is dated December 12.
Wasn't the silver bubble due to an attempt to corner the market by a small group?
I don't think he meant to say that those language have no grammar. Perhaps he was interpreting the meaning of "grammar taked out" in different way than you did. Is it even possible to have a language without grammar? Doesn't that just leave a pile of words?
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.
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"
Why would you want answers from people you think of as retards?
I gave specific reasons. I think you need to re-read my posts with a more objective eye.
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.
Value gets created all the time. Turn a pile of wood into a chair? You've created value. As companies do that the financial markets reflect 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.
Sorry, my reply was more harsh than I intended.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because reasons? Why 1800, specifically? Why not, say, $200, or $40?
I think you give this "artificial" term too much value. Nothing flew over my head. I'm sorry if I haven't laid out everything in literal form for you. I'll try to do better next time and not make you have to think.
Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. I'll try not to do it again. :-)
So then you agree that's it's not a poor compromise?
That's why I said secondary, not irrelevant. Honestly, why do I bother even typing this stuff out?