He who is JF Mezei said on Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:44:02 -0500:

I think that's wishful thinking (sans facts) for two big reasons:
1. What you hope goes diametrically against what Apple actually said.
2. Apple didn't change their power-hungry single-threaded architecture.

Apple made big changes starting with the 7 with low power and high power
CPU cores, and with the 8/X, The CPU has more dynamic management of
which core is used.

JF Mezei,
You're one of the rare people on this newsgroup who can converse like an
adult, so I appreciate that you bring up this great point.

There's *something* different about the iPhone 6's and 7's that Apple felt
the need to secretly permanently reduce the CPU speeds to less than half
the original in just a year - so - we would *hope* that Apple figured out
what it is that only the Apple CPUs exhibit that kills the batteries in a
year.

Let's *hope* they made those changes - but - if they did make those
changes, then why do they definitely throttle the iPhone 7?

And why did they *say* they would throttle *all* their phones in the
future?

Both those are facts.

So if Apple did "improve" the power - why are they still throttling and
planning to throttle the exact phones you say have power improvements?

Those two facts don't mix well.

So with the 8/X, there is a possibility that the "power management" will
just limit processes to the low power cores instead of throttling the
CPUs.

This would be *great* if it is true.
I *hope* it is true.

But then we have to wonder why Apple clearly said they would throttle *all*
their phones going forward.

Maybe ... and this is just conjecture ... Apple wants to settle the court
cases out of court so they don't want to give the court cases ammo by
admitting wrongdoing ... so maybe that's why Apple *said* they would
throttle moving forward (as if that's "normal" for phones).

Dunno. All I can say is that if they did "fix" the power management, then
they wouldn't need to throttle the newer phones - but they clearly said
they would throttle them. So the facts don't line up.

Apple knows how many amps are needed to run the phone, and how many amps
older batteries of certain size can supply. If the needed amps with low
power cores is less than what battery can supply, then no need for
further throttling.

I think Apple learned a lesson here which is they should test their phones
in the real world - and where the real world happens to include weather
colder than it gets in Cupertino and where the real world happens to be
"aged" batteries of at least the warranty period of 1 or 2 years.

I'm with you that Apple will likely *fix* this problem because they know
that people have to be thinking that they pay $1000 for an iPhone X and in
just one year, it's an iPhone 1/2X in terms of CPU speeds. That's horrid.

Nobody wants half an iPhone X in just one year!

So Apple *has* to fix this problem. Remember, despite the FUD that the
Apple Apologists (e.g., nospam & Jolly Roger) try to spew, this is an
Apple-only problem.

So Apple needs to understand what they did wrong, and how to fix it.

To me, the Occam's Razor answer is they need more realistic battery sizing
or actual "dynamic" (and not just "legally semantically dynamic that is
actually permanent" speed optimization), but, we have to let Apple figure
that one out for themselves.

That article clearly says Apple "won't stop" throttling of *all* newer
iPhones after about one year to about half their original CPU speeds.

Articles are speculation. And limiting access to high power cores is a
form of throttling anyways (except it doesn't actually slow down the CPU).

Actually, that's *not* speculation. Apple said it themselves. So it's just
the article saying a fact which is what Apple said it would do.

I suspect that Apple is playing a clever game (as always), which is that
they will vehemently deny wrongdoing all the while trying to combine the
court cases into a single case that they can settle out of court.

I posit that once they settle out of court, they're free to actually
finally admit the truth and fix the problem - but until then - they can't
be open (because anything they admit will be used in court against them).

In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
to solve that it's not funny. But this is a long post so we can leave the
solution to later.