He who is rickman said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:57:04 -0500:

This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen a number of ham groups destroyed by
this sort of behavior.

Hi rickman,

I too have been on Usenet since the early days, so we've seen groups
utterly devastated by this cancer, such as what happened he
http://tinyurl.com/alt-free-newsservers

And yet, not to the (somewhat) related newsgroup:
http://tinyurl.com/news-software-readers

In many cases over the decades where we both have seen a newsgroup fall
into the cesspool, it's only a *handful* of viciously angry posters who
ruin the newsgroup for everyone else who is just trying to learn from the
immense tribal knowledge of all the members of the group, as a whole.

I don't know, offhand, whether you come from the android side or from the
electronics side (where I love Jeff Liebermann, who lives near me, but
we've yet to meet fact to face), so I apologize for the behavior of the
folks whom I call Apple Apologists (after having dealt with them for years
and trying to figure out why they act the strange way that they do).

Of the Apple Apologists you're dealing with, here's a characterization:
1. nospam - by far - the most clever and most knowledgeable of them all
2. Jolly Roger - nonsensically consumed by his own vitriol and rage
3. BKonRamp - if you find him ever adding value - I'll send you money!
4. Savageduck - he is knowledgeable (hence useful) on digital photography
but he hates iOS facts as much as the others - so he's unreasonable but
still very useful because he's expert at digital photography
REFERENCE: http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital

Overall, they're useful, where, in my killfile, even after two decades on
Usenet, is only Snit (whom you haven't experienced yet, I think), who is a
*perfect* example of an Apple Apologists - in that he even created a public
video attempting to "refute" my facts (which are always correct since
they're all validated by references), which he trolled incessantly over 400
times, where even I had to plonk him.

You really need to listen to the first minute of this video before I tell
you the key facts about these Apple Apologists (who are not normal people):
Title: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
URL: https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Once you listen to the first minute of that video, you then need to know
that the Apple Apologists here (nospam, Jolly Roger, BK, etc.) all *agreed*
with him, numerous times.
It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0%5B26-50%5D

For example, here's a direct quote from "nospam" on the facts I presented:
"Harry can't back anything he says, mostly because it's false.
what's even worse, he continues with his bogus claims after being
proven wrong with actual facts (not the ones in his delusional head)."

Notice how the Apple Apologists (who are not normal adults), claim to have
facts, and they claim to have been providing proof all along, and they do
it in such as self-serving way that you have to wonder if they actually
*believe* a single word they utter (they're that different from normal
people!)...

But get this - none of them, even after all that vitriol, know the
difference between a megabit and a decibel!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/BK4Vtbg9BwAJ

Yup. They whole time they've been just blatantly *fabricating* non-existent
iOS functionality. Why? They hate the bearer of facts!

Here's how I tried to respond to the Apple Apologists (with facsts):
"One look at the graph it outputs proves that it's just a speedtest app.
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg
The Apple Apologists insist it's a wifi signal strength app.
Why when it's a fact iOS apps can't graph wifi signal strength over time?
Meanwhile, the Android Fritz app clearly show Y-axis decibels (not Mbps).
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritzapp.jpg
As does the Android WiFi Analyzer app wifi signal strength timeline:
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzer.jpg

The problem here, which I've noticed over the decades happens in spades in
the Apple-related newsgroups, is that there is a clan of people who
viciously hate the bearers of facts that they just don't like.
What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0

So they react by *fabricating* functionality and then arguing for a billion
posts that what they claim exists, actually exists (when, in fact, it does
not). Just look at this thread, initiated by Jolly Roger himself:
Apple Is Being Slandered For What Chemistry Cannot Fix
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zM-uvnUrSCk

Any thread that deals with facts on the iOS newsgroups that the
iOS apologists don't like, follows this same formula.

1. Someone states a valid fact about Apple that they don't like.
2. They deny the fact - almost always with childishly idiotic "logic"
3. More facts are provided in response to the fake denials
4. That incenses them so much they resort to vicious insults (JR)
5. Or they resort to extremely clever semantic contortions (nospam)
6. Or, they simply say that every fact is wrong (Savageduck)
7. And they pile on and high-five and support each other (JKonRamp)

Any casual reader of the thread gives up reading because of the cancer
above (which is exactly their goal).

It happens every time.
Just watch.
Why do the Apple Apologists deny facts & habitually fabricate imaginary content?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/eRTC23FyVDY

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

Years ago, I termed them "Apple Apologists"; but you can term them whatever
you think is appropriate.

They are not like normal adults in that viciously and repeatedly attack the
bearer of truthful facts they don't like.

He who is Fox's Mercantile said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:39:11 -0600:

It won't until you killfile harry newton.

You have to realize whom you're dealing with when you deal with these Apple
Apologists who claim everyone else is a troll but they themselves.

This single screenshot explains it all graphically in a way words can't:
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg

One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:
itle: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
URL: https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo]

In that video, the Apple Apologist Snit claims that iOS does have the
functionality that I proved long before it does not.

Worse - the Apple Apologists you're dealing with *congratulated* Snit for
"proving Harry wrong" when, in fact, absolutely none of the Apple
Apologists knew the difference between a decibel and a megabit!
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritzapp.jpg
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzer.jpg

And yet, there must have been at least *400 additional posts* where nospam
claims to have proven it to us numerous times, and where Jolly Roger claims
that we're all "old fools" for not believing their completely baseless
claims.
It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0%5B26-50%5D

So that's something like 800 posts, almost all of which are the Apple
Apologists denying what is, to normal adults, obvious fact.

Why do the Apple Apologists act this way?
I do not know the answer.

Every single time they post, I have to ask myself:
a. Are they really clueless (they don't know a megabit from a decibel?)
b. Or, do they do this on purpose (since they post it 800 times!)

I still don't know the answer to that question.
Do you?

wrote on 1/4/2018 5:32 PM:
On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 5:17:15 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/3/2018 8:38 AM:

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

Rick C

Dayum, but you know next-to-nothing about battery chemistry and/or the aging process. Knowing now that you are likely unencumbered by the thought process (insult) and likely on the Spectrum (not an insult, but a reach for an explanation for your apparent-deliberate ignorance), batteries age. They age in two ways:
a) Not able to deliver the necessary amperage at a given voltage for as long as before.
b) Not able to deliver sufficient voltage as before. Subset: voltage is OK, but the amperage is not.

This is true of every kind of chemical battery from a liquid lead-acid battery used for backing up POTS systems to a Tesla battery.

I keep radio-control submarines. On them, I have a device that reads the state of the battery, and if it goes critical, immediately surfaces the boat, and will not permit diving. I can determine the age of the battery by when that happens on a run.

Again, this is a chemical issue true of every kind of chemical battery over time. Cell phones make heavy demands on batteries depending on what they are asked to do. Some simply cannot meet that demand with an old battery, and so 'limit' the phone much as the "Sub-Safe" device does. That Apple explained this badly is the issue. Not what happened.

Getting back to Jimmy Neutron - he offered a Conspiracy-Based explanation for an obvious phenomenon in order to light off his personal tempest in his virtual teapot. It was neither thoughtful, nor offered as a basis for actual discussion.

Wow! You think you understand the issues, but nothing you said was
relevant. This is not really a technical issue, this is a business issue.
Yes, batteries wear out with time and use. So do a lot of things. A
properly designed product will take into account all the issues of using
batteries. The bottom line is the phone was not designed properly to even
have a 1 year working life without performance problems.

Your submarines have nothing to do with it.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM:
In article , rickman
wrote:

but remember
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.

it doesn't. it's not based on how old it is.

it depends on the battery health and the specific power demands at the
time.

A well designed product would be sized to continue to operate as the
battery ages.

exactly what it does.

I've had laptop batteries that worked nearly as well as new
for two or three years.

'nearly as well' means there's a noticeable effect.

laptop batteries also have a *much* higher capacity than what's in a
phone and capable of much higher peaks.

they are also powering a different processor with different power
demands in a product with a different thermal profile along with
numerous other differences.

in other words, not a good comparison.

Do you not understand the issue?

far more than you do.

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).

both false.

Ok, you seem to think it is acceptable for a product to no longer meet
specifications before it is out of warranty. I don't. We'll have to agree
to disagree.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.

actually, it's extremely unusual.

trolls post for a reaction, not for content.

And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.

No, they were filled with lies, like:

"Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
half"

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
with batteries that are on the way out.

yep.

put simply, the peaks are clipped.

for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or
web surfing, there is no slowdown.

And:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out. But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability. That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

In article , rickman
wrote:

Ok, you seem to think it is acceptable for a product to no longer meet
specifications before it is out of warranty.

i said nothing remotely close to that, and nobody, not even apple, said
it no longer meets specs within or without warranty.

I don't. We'll have to agree
to disagree.

only because you don't understand what's *actually* going on.

In article , rickman
wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM:
In article , rickman
wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On 2018-01-05, harry newton wrote:
He who is Fox's Mercantile said on Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:39:11 -0600:

It won't until you killfile harry newton.

Blah blah blah blah Apple Apologists blah blah blah

You're a broken record, old fool.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , rickman
wrote:


That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?

no, and the only article you should read is from apple itself, not
random journalists, some of whom have an agenda. there's a lot of
misinformation out there.

the slowdown only occurs with peak demands, not baseline performance,
and only with a battery that has degraded over time (which they all do)
to where it can't supply enough current for those peak demands.

the reason it's done is to avoid sudden shutdowns when the battery
voltage drops too low when pushed too hard, which is *far* more
annoying and also risks data loss and possible hardware damage.

when apple made the change last year, customers noticed a significant
*reduction* in sudden shutdowns. that's a good thing.

if the battery is healthy or the phone isn't being pushed hard (e.g.,
email, web surfing, text messaging, etc.), it's *highly* unlikely that
anyone will notice a difference. most of those tasks are *not*
cpu-bound, with the device waiting on the user to tap something or
other.

keep in mind that all devices, including android, are susceptible to
battery limitations, something the various articles neglect to mention.

one of *many* posts on the topic:
https://forums.androidcentral.com/sa...9-galaxy-s4-sh
uts-down-randomly.html
Okay, I've had my phone for a few months now, and over the past week,
it has been shutting itself down, even though there is plenty of
battery left.
It seems like when I'm "stressing" the phone alittle bit, I can
reproduce the problem. For instance, it usually happens when I browse
around and multitask - jumping from one app to another... Also, if i
just load the game GTA III, which is somewhat heavy to run, it shuts
off within 10 minutes, usually less.
Also, I'm unable to reproduce the problem if I plug the phone to a
power charger.

batteries have limitations. the way to avoid shutdowns is to limit peak
demands so that the voltage doesn't drop to where the phone shuts off.
there's no getting around the laws of physics and battery chemistry.

and there have been lawsuits too:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/05...filed-ongoing-
nexus-6p-early-shutdown-bootloop-lawsuit/
The Nexus 6P lawsuit we previously reported on twice in April has
been recently amended, and the venue of the suit seems to have
changed to northern California. The latest filings have expanded the
total number of actions in the suit from 10 to 23, with claimants
hailing from 11 different states.
....
...some Nexus 6P's have been experiencing bootloops, a situation in
which the phone doesn't correctly start, but sits unresponsively on
the startup animation. The other*battery-related defect manifests
itself as the phone suddenly shutting down long before the battery
indicator would predict.

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC), harry newton wrote:

One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:
itle: iOS showing Wi-Fi over time
URL: https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo]

In that video, the Apple Apologist Snit claims that iOS does have the
functionality that I proved long before it does not.

*How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd behavior?*

Even today, just now, moments ago, nospam, probably the most informed of
all the Apple Apologists, just posted this, which is patently false, and,
in light of the entire thread of proof - one has to wonder:
a. Is nospam really that stupid (and the answer is clearly no - he's smart)
b. Then why does he claim fabricated iOS functionality as if it exists?

I don't know WHY the Apple Apologists aren't normal adults.
But the fact is they lie as openly and as easily as if it's natural.

Here's what nospam just posted:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/YYB2LmdTAAAJ

Verbatim quote from me:
"It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time"
Verbatim response from nospam:
"yes they can and you've been told how.
why do you keep lying?"

*How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd behavior?*

On 2018-01-05, Harry Newton wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 01:26:24 +0000 (UTC), harry newton wrote:

One Apple Apologist trolled this video *over 400* times alone:

*How is an adult supposed to deal with the Apple Apologist's odd
behavior?*

And now he's talking to himself with two different nyms...

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.

actually, it's extremely unusual.

trolls post for a reaction, not for content.

And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.

No, they were filled with lies, like:

"Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
half"

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
with batteries that are on the way out.

yep.

put simply, the peaks are clipped.

for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or
web surfing, there is no slowdown.

And:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

Batteries are not covered under warranty unless shown to be truly defective
- not just swear and tear.

rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM:
In article , rickman
wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?


Not as I read it.

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.

Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:06 AM:
rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM:
In article , rickman
wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?


Not as I read it.

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.

It's not just an issue of transparency, if the user experience is being
impacted to mitigate the problems of a battery that is degrading prematurely
in order to avoid warranty replacements, that's a problem in itself.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:03 AM:
rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.

actually, it's extremely unusual.

trolls post for a reaction, not for content.

And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.

No, they were filled with lies, like:

"Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
half"

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
with batteries that are on the way out.

yep.

put simply, the peaks are clipped.

for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or
web surfing, there is no slowdown.

And:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

Batteries are not covered under warranty unless shown to be truly defective
- not just swear and tear.

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

On 2018-01-07, rickman wrote:
Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:06 AM:

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.

It's not just an issue of transparency, if the user experience is being
impacted to mitigate the problems of a battery that is degrading prematurely
in order to avoid warranty replacements, that's a problem in itself.

Again, that's not what is actually happening. There's no evidence that
Apple devices have widespread premature battery degradation.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:12:25 -0500, rickman wrote:

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

Rick,
You are logical and stating what any reasonable adult would state.
But you're not dealing with normal thinking adults.

You have to remember whom you're dealing with, where the Apple Apologists
(nospam and Jolly Roger and BK @ OnRamp.net being major Apple Apologists)
will argue *any* semantic avenue they can.

They will state that nobody noticed.
They will state that you should only read Apple MARKETING explanations.
They will state that it was for the good of the consumer.
etc.

You can *predict* everything the Apple Apologists will say because they act
like a cornered rat would act, if that cornered rat were Apple MARKETING
herself.

They'll never admit the truth.
They'll twist out of the logical trap with clever semantic distortions.
And, when all else fails, they'll outright tell boldfaced lies.

In addition, Jolly Roger (more so than the rest) will simply call any fact
he doesn't like, a troll.

If you haven't already noticed this, then just continue what you think is
an adult conversation with them ... and it *always* devolves to what I
stated above (and worse).

On 2018-01-07, Harry Newton wrote:

Blah blah blah blah blah Apple Apologists blah blah blah

Boring troll is boring. ZZZzzz...

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , rickman
wrote:

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

if *you* were the product manager, what would *you* do, given that
batteries age and there's no getting around that?

In article , rickman
wrote:

It's not just an issue of transparency, if the user experience is being
impacted to mitigate the problems of a battery that is degrading prematurely
in order to avoid warranty replacements, that's a problem in itself.

except that the batteries are not degrading prematurely, nor is apple
trying to avoid warranty replacements. that's just ludicrous.

in fact, apple is well known for replacing/repairing devices *out* of
warranty for no charge. it's not a given, but it happens more often
than one might expect.

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 12:10:58 -0500, rickman
wrote:

Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:06 AM:
rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM:
In article , rickman
wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?


Not as I read it.

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.

It's not just an issue of transparency, if the user experience is being
impacted to mitigate the problems of a battery that is degrading prematurely
in order to avoid warranty replacements, that's a problem in itself.

It had nothing to do with avoiding the warranty. Period.

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:06:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Not as I read it.

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.

You are an adult.
Notice that the Apple Apologists will always claim the opposite of what a
normal adult claims.

Why?
I don't know why.

I just know that's what they do.
* Jolly Roger (who claims all truths are lies)
* nospam (who tells you only to read what Apple Marketing writes!)
* Savageduck (who can only high-five what the others claim)
* BK onRamp (who hasn't ever added one iota of technical value yet)
etc.

Bear in mind, these Apple Apologists are not normal adults so when you try
to reason with them, they try to drive you nuts will their clever
contortions.

You're seeing them work you in action as we speak.

On 7 Jan 2018 18:14:52 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Again, that's not what is actually happening. There's no evidence that
Apple devices have widespread premature battery degradation.

Notice the absurd claims of the Apple Apologists.

They can't even believe their own claims.

And yet they make them.

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:42:43 -0500, nospam wrote:

except that the batteries are not degrading prematurely, nor is apple
trying to avoid warranty replacements. that's just ludicrous.

Notice that these Apple Apologists make claims that even they can't
possibly believe if they're normal adults.

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:01:10 -0600, wrote:

It had nothing to do with avoiding the warranty. Period.

Notice that it was *secret*, *permanent*, and *drastic*, but, of course, to
the Apple Apologists, it had nothing to do with the warranty.

One has to wonder if the Apple Apologists can possibly believe their own
words.

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 13:42:40 -0500, nospam wrote:

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".

if *you* were the product manager, what would *you* do, given that
batteries age and there's no getting around that?

What I would do is figure out the problem, and then figure out a remedy.

I would propose to Apple Marketing two solutions and let them pick:

1. Secretly, permanently, and drastically throttle CPU speeds, hoping
nobody notices the subterfuge, or,
2. Openly admit fault & replace the defective phones with a trade in to a
re-designed phone when that redesigned phone is designed.

I'd let Apple Marketing pick the solution (since they are admittedly one of
the best marketing organizations in the world).

On 5 Jan 2018 03:53:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

And now he's talking to himself with two different nyms...

Have you *ever* posted any on-topic technical value to a thread?

On 2018-01-07, Harry Newton wrote:
On 5 Jan 2018 03:53:03 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

And now he's talking to himself with two different nyms...

Have you *ever* posted any on-topic technical value to a thread?

Yep, you just ignore those posts.

Sad, old foolish troll. You're fooling nobody.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1/7/18 4:57 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Sad, old foolish troll. You're fooling nobody.

Actually, he's doing an excellent job on Rickman.

--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

On 2018-01-08, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
On 1/7/18 4:57 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
Sad, old foolish troll. You're fooling nobody.

Actually, he's doing an excellent job on Rickman.

Touche!

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:22:09 -0600, Fox's Mercantile wrote:

Actually, he's doing an excellent job on Rickman.

Adults have a knack for intelligent conversation that you Apple Apologists
haven't progressed to yet.

rickman wrote:
Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:06 AM:
rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 9:20 PM:
In article , rickman
wrote:


"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

nope. they were extending it as long as possible.

But to do that they had to sacrifice performance of the phone
which impacted the usability.

nope.

what they did was tune it so that sudden shutdowns, a problem that had
been occurring (and affects android too) would be reduced or
eliminated.

That's why it became an issue, the phones
started slowing down for no clear reason.

nope. the reason is because the batteries are aging and no longer
capable of sourcing sufficient current for *high* demand, not baseline.

as i said above, the alternative is a sudden shutdown, which is *worse*.

I think we have found the point of disagreement. You seem to think the
slowdown of the CPU performance had no impact on the usability of the phone.
The articles I have read seem to indicate that was how the problem was
discovered by users, the performance of the phone dropped off. No?


Not as I read it.

It was discovered by the developer of a benchmarking program which collated
the results of thousands of tests and noticed distinct peaks in results
which matched different iOS releases. When he published his findings only
then did people become outraged.

Users always complain of slowdowns, but that is hugely subjective and
inverifiable.

I can see both sides of the argument. Apple were trying to extend the life
of devices' batteries with minimal impact on users, although they did it in
a slightly underhand way. They were trying to do the right thing and should
have been more transparent about it.

It's not just an issue of transparency, if the user experience is being
impacted

My point is that the user experience wasn't impacted until *after* the
discovery. Only then did people go, "Oh yeah. My phone /is/ slowing down."
Post hoc discovery is hard to trust.

to mitigate the problems of a battery that is degrading prematurely
in order to avoid warranty replacements, that's a problem in itself.

I don't think there's any evidence that batteries were degrading
prematurely on a large scale.

rickman wrote:
Chris wrote on 1/5/2018 4:03 AM:
rickman wrote:
nospam wrote on 1/4/2018 5:39 PM:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

It is not unusual for trolls to make worthwhile posts.

actually, it's extremely unusual.

trolls post for a reaction, not for content.

And yet Harry's posts have been informative for me.

No, they were filled with lies, like:

"Apple basically admitted today they permanently chopped CPU speeds in
half"

The CPU speed isn't only cut in half, but on a curve, and it's not
permanent but only when the device is doing something that specifically
requires more current than the battery can supply, and only on devices
with batteries that are on the way out.

yep.

put simply, the peaks are clipped.

for everyday tasks that don't push it hard, such as reading email or
web surfing, there is no slowdown.

And:

"they were trying to secretly mask defective batteries"

No evidence of that, and the feature in question was specifically
mentioned in the iOS release notes - hardly a secret.

they were actually trying to *extend* the life of batteries.

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

Batteries are not covered under warranty unless shown to be truly defective
- not just swear and tear.

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".


Eventually all batteries do that. How the batteries are (mis)used controls
how soon that happens.

I can't imagine you're suggesting that all worn out batteries be replaced
for free, so where would *you* draw the line?

Please stop feeding the Troll. There is no discussion (or conversation) to be had here. This horse is dead, skinned, quartered, flayed, flensed, rendered and jerked - and was so since the very first post on the subject.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

p.s.: I expect Jimmy Neutron will re-constitute itself as a new alias any moment now, as it has pretty much used this one up. So, please be aware and do not respond to the next iteration.

On 02/01/2018 06:14, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-01-01 22:14, harry newton wrote:

Verbatim quotes:
"We expect the iPhone X to be throttled in late 2018 with replacement
batteries for it back to full price by January 2019."


"exprect" is the keyword here. Speculation by some snews media. This is
not a statement from Apple and thus useless.

The product development of the X was done with knowl;edge of the
batterty problems for the 6s. So it is possible that it was fixed or
significantly reduced.


I understood that this was a problem with the particular batteries
originally used in the iPhone 6 (or whichever one(s) it was) and that
newer batteries were expected have a longer life before their internal
resistance increases enough to cause problems.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

On 02/01/2018 16:43, Jolly Roger wrote:
harry newton wrote:

HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
the performance of their smartphones."

False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
warning:

https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130


Well yes of course the CPU gets throttled to prevent overheating.

Apple is throttling because the batteries seem to age in a way that
makes them incapable of powering the device properly at full speed and
the device then crashes and unexpectedly reboots or locks up.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

In article , Brian
Gregory wrote:

HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
the performance of their smartphones."

False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
warning:

https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130

Well yes of course the CPU gets throttled to prevent overheating.

all types of throttling count.

Apple is throttling because the batteries seem to age in a way that
makes them incapable of powering the device properly at full speed and
the device then crashes and unexpectedly reboots or locks up.

all batteries age that way.

unless the device actively manages power to avoid it, there is a risk
of shutdown.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/12...e-developed-a-
battery-early-shutoff-problem-and-its-becoming-a-safety-issue/
A number of Nexus 6P owners have reported an alarming battery problem
with their phones as of Android 7.0 being released for the handset,
which causes the phone to power down when the battery gauge still
shows anywhere from 10 to 60% battery remaining.
....
Interestingly, it seems the problem is most common in very cold
climates. These are where we see reports of phones dying at upwards
of 60% battery remaining indicated, which is obviously completely
ridiculous.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 01:11:40 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:

HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
the performance of their smartphones."

False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
warning:

https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130


Well yes of course the CPU gets throttled to prevent overheating.

Apple is throttling because the batteries seem to age in a way that
makes them incapable of powering the device properly at full speed and
the device then crashes and unexpectedly reboots or locks up.

You have to realize that you're dealing with nospam, who delights in
presenting what is an illogical argument, as his only defense of the facts.

He's expert at this (like a defense lawyer is expert at it).

You have to remember that the Apple Apologists always try to deflect blame
whenever facts they don't like show up here (nospam, Jolly Roger, BKonRamp,
Lewis, Savageduck, Snit, etc.).

Very few of these Apple Apologists appear to have a formal education so
they're not aware that others don't buy their illogical crap - to wit -
nospam says Android phones do the same thing - but it's not at all the same
thing.

Only Apple *secretly*, *permanently*, and *drastically* cut CPU speeds (to
about half the original speeds based on the reports I posted prior) as a
"solution" to extend the life of their products.

The major Android manufacturers are on record emphatically stating they
would never do what Apple did to their customers.

That's a fact the Apple Apologists will try to dance around.
But it's still a fact.

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:35:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Yes, they were trying to extend the life of the battery until the warranty
runs out.

Batteries are not covered under warranty unless shown to be truly defective
- not just swear and tear.

I think a battery that prevents the device from running at full speed
because the unit shuts down would be considered to be "truly defective".


Eventually all batteries do that. How the batteries are (mis)used controls
how soon that happens.

I can't imagine you're suggesting that all worn out batteries be replaced
for free, so where would *you* draw the line?

Bearing in mind that it's a fact Apple doesn't test its products in the
real world (they say the real world is "not supported"), it's a fact that
Apple was blindsided by the iPhone shutdowns (they admitted this).

That means they didn't test them since it's a *lot* of phones that shut
down.

Now when they finally figured out the reason (on the second pass, by their
own admission), they had a choice to make as to how to "respond".

1. They could *secretly*, *drastically*, and *permanently* throttle CPU
perofrmance (to about half the original speeds) hoping to not get caught...
or ...
2. They could openly come clean, and recall the defective phones, and
provide a trade in of a suitable phone that wasn't defective.

It was their choice.
It was worth the risk if they didn't get caught (just like VW did).
But they got caught.

These are facts.