Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by arcticbull 2729 days ago
Thats a very cynical perspective. There's two ways to look at this:

(A) Apple's terrible because they should have released the device with a "better" battery. One that's not "defective". One that could allow the CPU to run at full-throttle all the time for the usable life of the device. They slowed the device secretly to match the capabilities of the battery because they're trying to cover up a manufacturing defect, and they dont want to foot the bill for repairing everyone's phones.

(B) Apple was trying to get the most performance possible out of the physical capabilities of the battery. Unfortunately, it turned out that as the battery aged, due to physical changes, the battery couldn't keep up with the demands of the CPU running as fast as they thought it could over time. To prevent devices from shutting down and forcing users to replace the battery/phone earlier, they scaled CPU performance with battery age and therefore capabilities. Because batteries are consumable and their performance characteristics change over time. This means that the phone always give you just as much performance as physically possible at any given age.

IMO (B) is way, way more likely than (A).

1 comments

The ~60 lawsuits [1] filed over this point to (A) in my opinion.

If this was normal behavior, we would see similar throttling on previous iPhones, Android's and laptops.

[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2018/02/26/iphone-slowdown-class-a...

We constantly hear about phones that die before reaching 0%, or losing the last 20% very fast. Google Nexus 6P comes to mind.

I'm fairly confident that what apple did was the most logical thing. They should have been more informative about it, but it's better than a phone dying at 20%.

I’ve had many Android phones that experience unexpected shutdowns when their Li-Ion battery degrades.

This is a limitation of Li-Ion battery technology. It has nothing to do with OS or phone manufacturering like you keep trying to imply.

This isn’t really up for debate.

What is up for debate is how a manufacturer should handle this limitation and communicate it to customers.

Filed in the US (a heavily litigious society) against what was recently the worlds largest company (so right or wrong if they lose they can definitely pay)? I'm shocked that they found only 60 groups who could be both cynical and litigious :P Put yourself in their shoes.