He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:17:11 -0500:

this is an Apple-only problem

nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
other device that uses a battery.

there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.

Yes, but it doesn't have to impact the operation of the product in the first
year.

This is the key point, rickman, where you and almost all the logical people
who bought iPhones (and even logical people who didn't buy them) would have
presumed that the CPU speed of a phone would be the same on day 1 when the
reviews come out as it would be on day 366 after a year of ownership.

Nobody (but Apple & the Apple Apologists) has even tried to defend the
secret, permanent, and drastic halving of the CPU speeds as being
"beneficial" for "prolonging the life" of the phone.

I can understand why Apple says that (they have a dozen lawsuits to not
give any ammunition to), but it's harder to understand the logic of the
defense that we should have known all along that Apple would halve the
speeds based on what Apple said it put in the iOS 10.2.1 release (and 11.2
for the iPhone 7).

"iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your
iPhone or iPad. It also improves power management during peak
workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone."
https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_US

Affected phones we
iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE.
https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/

A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
battery ages. I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new
for two or three years. Do you not understand the issue?

Bear in mind that it is a fact that I am the one who first broke the news
to the Apple newsgroups of the problem, and who first broke the news of
Apple's apology about the problem - so I am vehemently hated by the Apple
Apologists (nospam, Jolly Roger, Savageduck, Snit, BKonRamp, etc.).

You have to understand that on the affected iOS newsgroups, there is a set
of bona-fide lifer Apple Apologists who hate any fact that is truthful but
not what they like to hear.

So they will *destroy* any thread that contains facts that they don't like,
using a variety of techniques, some of which you've seen here, all combined
with guile and vitriol and ill logic, where, in the end, they always
attempt to destroy truthful facts like any competent cancer would.

You have Jolly Roger exclaiming today that an Apple battery is as easy to
replace as a "user replaceable" battery for example, which is just patently
ridiculous - and yet - he makes that claim with a straight face. Worse,
Jolly Roger consistently fabricates content that never occurred, just so
that he can appear witty (to himself?) by responding to that completely
fabricated content!

Why does Jolly Roger habitually fabricate quoted content?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FJ0ScwZ9sLE/d40Bp9jKDQAJ

You have nospam insisting that Apple duly informed its users with that
cryptic 10.2.1 release-note blurb, and you have Savageduck trying to skirt
facts with semantic outliers such as iOS-based non-Apple cameras, and you
have who consistently high-fives other people's posts but has
never once (ever!) added technical value to any thread in his entire life!

All of these ill-logical people resort to complete and utter fabrications
of non-existing functionality, whenever confronted with patently
unassailable facts - that they don't like.

Why do iOS apologists incessantly fabricate fictional iOS functionality?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/vcq3ESStmlc/bjhf9Z5vBAAJ

That's the kind of people you're currently dealing with.

Apple would seem
to have either not given this attention in the design stage (indicating
incompetence) or they made a conscious decision to allow battery
deterioration to impact the operation of the phone in the first year of
operation (with potential warranty issues).

It seems from all the evidence (quoted elsewhere already), that Apple
didn't test the product thoroughly enough (they admitted as much that they
were blindsided by the initial shutdowns) and then, after the second series
of reports came in, Apple finally realized what happened.

The "fix" is clear - which they already apologized for not communicating
(but only because they got caught so they had to apologize).

The fact is that they implemented a secret solution that is permanent and
drastic (cutting CPU speeds to less than half after only one year of use).

The conjecture is "WHY" they did that.

I posit, with logical thought, that they realized how BIG of a problem this
design flaw is, and they realized they didn't have ANY options to fix it in
software that were palatable to the customer.

They certainly *could* have implemented a recall, where they provided the
customer with a better design - but they took the easy way out - which was
to secretly mask the design flaw.

This is all well described already in valid factual references I've
supplied in each of my posts, so I will let you decide who is a troll on
this newsgroup, and who is providing valid referenced facts.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3245048/mobile-wireless/apple-makes-its-intent-on-the-battery-fiasco-clear-and-not-in-the-way-it-wanted.html
Title:
"Apple makes its intent on the battery fiasco clear.
And not in the way it wanted."