|
|
|
|
|
|
by asendra
3035 days ago
|
|
|
Because it was found out that they were doing the battery thing. If not, he and everyone else would have continued suffering a poor experience without knowing that it was a battery problem, or bought a new iPhone. I know that’s what happened to me with my 6s at least. |
|
|
People seem to be tacitly dismissing the problem the CPU throttling ostensibly fixes -- iPhones with worn batteries just shutting down instantly without warning when an application asks for more power than the battery's now capable of delivering -- but I've experienced it. It's a real problem. And while it's a subjective call as to whether that's more infuriating than CPU throttling is, I can tell you, it's really infuriating. And it's not some kind of crazy only-Apple thing; it's a problem with battery technology. It happens with Android phones, too, and their "solution" is what Apple's was until they rolled out the throttling: nothing. Eventually you figure out you have a battery problem because your phone keeps spontaneously shutting down! Yay.
If we're going to criticize Apple for this, maybe it should be for making this change without notifying users. The iPhone can presumably determine when its battery is sufficiently worn that it's facing the choice between CPU throttling and spontaneous shutdowns, and it should let the user know when it crosses that line.
But the notion that Apple is deliberately crippling phones to get you to buy new ones faster has always been...odd. They do want you to buy new phones, to be sure, but they want you to buy new phones from them. If you stop trusting them, you're less likely to going to do that, unless you're very heavily "into" the Apple ecosystem -- which most consumers arguably aren't. (At least half my friends with iPhones rarely install applications other than Spotify, Telegram, and the occasional game -- and I live in Silicon Valley. These folks aren't Mac users, either, and so I suspect they don't feel very much lock-in pressure at all.)