nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> as batteries age, they can't provide high current under load as they
> could when new. this is not a new concept and has nothing to do with
> apple or li-ion batteries either.

You still haven't explained how that battery chemistry you say you know so
well caused Apple to secretly throttle and then backdate release notes.

And then publicly lie about it.

How exactly does battery chemistry do all that?

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
> "the battery isn't able to maintain a high enough voltage for the PMIC
> to reliably be able to use as a source."

That was a good description of how the battery only _masked_ the inherently
unfixable flaws in Apple's poor IC design.

> The root cause of throttling was not the battery, it was the design of
> the PMIC circuitry.

The real problem wasn't the throttling - but the _secret_ way Apple tried to
mask their inherent design flaws. And then all the public lies.

> There have been almost no reports of throttling on iPhones beginning
> with the iPhone 8. Yes, the code is still in there, but it doesn't kick
> in like it did for the older models.

You have to wonder aloud _why_ Apple continues to put this horrible
throttling software in the iPhones as even the newer iPhones get it.

On 03.09.2021 04:29, Alan Baker wrote:
>> Then why did Apple admit guilt for purposefully _shortening_ iPhone life?
>
> They didn't; admit it or do it.

How does Apple accept a criminal fine without accepting the criminal guilt?

If they did that, they're the first in the world to have figured out how.

On 2021-09-03 9:09 p.m., wolfgang kern wrote:
> On 03.09.2021 04:29, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> Then why did Apple admit guilt for purposefully _shortening_ iPhone
>>> life?
>>
>> They didn't; admit it or do it.
>
> How does Apple accept a criminal fine without accepting the criminal guilt?

There was no trial.

There was no admission of committing any crime.

Those are actual facts.

>
> If they did that, they're the first in the world to have figured out how.

On 04.09.2021 06:10, Alan Baker wrote:
>> How does Apple accept a criminal fine without accepting the criminal guilt?
>
> There was no trial.
>
> There was no admission of committing any crime.

The criminal evidence against Apple was apparently overwhelming.
Apple accepted their criminal guilt and paid the criminal fine.
Apple lawyers must have felt there was no need for a long trial.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> which affects all batteries in all devices.

Since you know battery chemistry so well, why haven't you explained how that
battery chemistry (which all product have, right?) makes _only_ Apple
backdate the release notes about the throttling - and then lie about it?

*How does battery chemistry make Apple do those _illegal_ things?*

On 2021-09-03 9:20 p.m., wolfgang kern wrote:
> On 04.09.2021 06:10, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> How does Apple accept a criminal fine without accepting the criminal
>>> guilt?
>>
>> There was no trial.
>>
>> There was no admission of committing any crime.
>
> The criminal evidence against Apple was apparently overwhelming.

So let's see it.

> Apple accepted their criminal guilt and paid the criminal fine.

So let's see the transcript where they admitted guild.

> Apple lawyers must have felt there was no need for a long trial.

Oh, I agree about that.

But settling out of court isn't an admission of guilt.

RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
> I was focusing on performance, not security.

Performance?
Apple performance?
An Apple designed iPhone chip has performance?

Surely you jest.

Name a single iPhone communications chip Apple (or Intel on behalf of Apple)
designed that has performance better than what they had to buy from Qualcomm
for billions of dollars in abject surrender (and admission of failure).
https://www.google.com/search?q=qualcomm+surrender+apple

The performance of Apple/Intel modems was so horrible Apple had to quietly
drastically throttle the Qualcomm modems. Can you believe that?
https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+intel+qualcomm+modem+throttled

Yes, quietly. Apple _always_ throttles in secret. It's what Apple does.

*Apple gagged Qualcomm at the time to keep modem throttling secret.*
https://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-7-throttling-qualcomm-says-apple-gag-stopped-it-revealing-speed-squeeze/

Apple _reduced_ the performance (drastically under some circumstances) of
the Qualcomm-modem'd iPhones so that the Intel-modem'd iPhones wouldn't look
bad.
https://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-is-throttling-the-Qualcomm-modem-in-Verizon-and-Sprint-iPhone-7-for-parity-with-slower-Intel-modem-model_id87984
--
Apple has _never_ designed any best in class SOC (and no, a CPU that has to
be throttled isn't even close nor is a CPU with unfixable bootrom flaws).

On 04.09.2021 04:32, Alan Baker wrote:
> But settling out of court isn't an admission of guilt.

You are an idiot if you think Apple's acceptance of criminal guilt
doesn't mean Apple accepted their criminal guilt.

Are you trying to claim Apple lied even when they accepted criminal guilt?

I'm done with you as you are an idiot if you claim Apple also lied to the
French people when Apple publicly accepted their criminal guilt online.

In article <sgup1s$a0f$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> You still haven't explained how that battery chemistry you say you know so
> well caused Apple to secretly throttle and then backdate release notes.

nobody backdated anything.

> And then I publicly lied about it.

ftfy

On 2021-09-03 9:57 p.m., wolfgang kern wrote:
> On 04.09.2021 04:32, Alan Baker wrote:
>> But settling out of court isn't an admission of guilt.
>
> You are an idiot if you think Apple's acceptance of criminal guilt
> doesn't mean Apple accepted their criminal guilt.

Quote this "acceptance"

> Are you trying to claim Apple lied even when they accepted criminal guilt?

I'm trying to get you to admit that you've never seen any such acceptance.

>
> I'm done with you as you are an idiot if you claim Apple also lied to the
> French people when Apple publicly accepted their criminal guilt online.

Quote this "acceptance".

On 9/3/2021 8:11 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> no system is ideal in every situation.
>
> In what situation is a huge battery & fast charger _not_ ideal?

Ask Chevrolet and LG.

On 9/3/2021 8:25 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

<snip>

> *The iPad didn't have the problem of secret throttling & backdating lies.*
>
> And it used the _same_ battery chemistry.

Correct.

It also should be noted that Apple itself explicitly explained about the
power management system and how it contributed to shutdowns: "The power
management system determines the capability of the battery to supply
this power, and manages the loads in order to maintain operations. When
the operations can no longer be supported with the full capabilities of
the power management system, the system will perform a shutdown to
preserve these electronic components."

Well the last part of that paragraph is nonsense, those components don't
need "preserving," what actually is happening is that the power
management system can no longer supply sufficient current to the SOC,
the radios, the screen, etc. under conditions of high demand so the
phone shuts down.

The decision to address this issue with throttling, until hardware
changes could be included in the next model, would not have been such a
huge issue if they had simply displayed a message on the screen,
"Replace battery to restore peak performance," instead of not disclosing
what was occurring, which led to many consumers buying new phones. The
latter is what led to Apple paying hundreds of millions of dollars in
fines. One of the reasons for not just telling a user to get a new
battery was that while someone with a three year old phone might
actually be pleased that they were being told how to make their phone
perform like new for under $100, someone with a phone less than two
years old might not be so happy about needing a new battery so soon, and
if they had AppleCare+ then Apple would be on the hook to absorb that cost.

As a battery ages, the internal impedance goes up and the terminal
voltage goes down; again, the power management system needs to to be
able to cope with the lower voltage and higher current, but shutdowns
and throttling should not normally be necessary, the only thing that the
end user should notice is progressively shorter times between recharges,
eventually declining to the point where the user opts for a battery
replacement.

If you've ever owned an aging laptop, you see first hand the result of
batteries that are losing capacity; run time decreases from hours to
minutes, and you can see the available capacity fall rapidly when the
laptop is unplugged, but performance is not degraded unless the user
explicitly chooses to trade lower performance for longer operating time.
On an electric car, the range decreases over time until the owner
decides to either buy a new car or buy a new battery.

What Apple did with the iPhone 8 was to upgrade the power management
system, which they noted as "hardware updates," and what teardowns
showed to be an additional PMIC (power management IC). The iPhone 8
actually has a lower capacity Li-Ion battery than the iPhone 7, despite
being a tad larger (they needed to make it a little thicker because of
the glass back and the Qi charging coil for wireless charging).

On 9/3/2021 9:09 PM, wolfgang kern wrote:
> On 03.09.2021 04:29, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> Then why did Apple admit guilt for purposefully _shortening_ iPhone
>>> life?
>>
>> They didn't; admit it or do it.
>
> How does Apple accept a criminal fine without accepting the criminal guilt?
>
> If they did that, they're the first in the world to have figured out how.

No they're not. This happens all the time that a company agrees to pay a
fine without admitting any guilt. It's all part of the negotiations.

Avoiding a trial, with all the expense, and the possibility of losing
and having to pay even more, is more the rule than the exception.

What Apple first denied, and then admitted, was throttling. While they
probably were well aware that the end-result of the throttling would be
for many consumers to replace their phones, that was postulated by
attorneys suing them: "Many consumers decided that the only way to get
improved performance was to purchase a newer-model iPhone from Apple,"
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich wrote in a complaint made public
on Wednesday. "Apple, of course, fully understood such effects on sales."

In article <sgvgia$2nu$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> As a battery ages, the internal impedance goes up and the terminal
> voltage goes down;

at least you finally admit it's the battery.

> again, the power management system needs to to be
> able to cope with the lower voltage and higher current,

no, it needs to manage peak demands so that the battery is *not* pushed
beyond its limits, which is less than it was when new, as you note
above.

> but shutdowns
> and throttling should not normally be necessary,

they're not.

*if* the battery has aged to where it cannot meet peak demands anymore,
then peak demands are clipped so that the battery is not pushed beyond
its limits, which can potentially result in an unwanted sudden
shutdown.

it's a very simple concept, and not unique to apple either.

> the only thing that the
> end user should notice is progressively shorter times between recharges,
> eventually declining to the point where the user opts for a battery
> replacement.

that's a separate issue.

In article <sgvi4b$c25$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> What Apple first denied, and then admitted, was throttling.

apple never denied it, and it's clipping peaks, not throttling, a very
important distinction.

On 2021-09-04 12:45 a.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
>> I was focusing on performance, not security.
>
> Performance?
> Apple performance?
> An Apple designed iPhone chip has performance?
>
> Surely you jest.

We were _clearly_ referring to the M1 which was mentioned by name. Try
to follow and reply with pertinent information rather than automatically
repeat your thoughts like Shit would.

> Name a single iPhone communications chip Apple (or Intel on behalf of Apple)
> designed that has performance better than what they had to buy from Qualcomm
> for billions of dollars in abject surrender (and admission of failure).
> https://www.google.com/search?q=qualcomm+surrender+apple

Irrelevant.

< snip >

--
@RabidHussar

RabidHussar <rabid@huss.ar> asked
> We were _clearly_ referring to the M1 which was mentioned by name. Try
> to follow and reply with pertinent information rather than automatically
> repeat your thoughts like Shit would.

OK. So you _can_ follow a train of thought. I wonder which sock you are?
Alan Baker, for example, can't. Neither can nospam. Nor Lewis. Nor Snit.

Kudos to you for basic adult comprehensive skills.
>> Name a single iPhone communications chip Apple (or Intel on behalf of Apple)
>> designed that has performance better than what they had to buy from Qualcomm
>> for billions of dollars in abject surrender (and admission of failure).
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=qualcomm+surrender+apple
>
> Irrelevant.

I'm wary of "changes" Apple makes because most are a "FU" to Apple's rather
loyal customer base (even when they're marketed as "courageous").

They're never for the customer's benefit - but only for Apple's profits.
The M1 is a means for Apple to free themselves from Intel. OK. Sure.
But what good does the M1 do for the loyal Apple customer base?

Given nobody bullshits like Apple bullshits, we won't find the answer in
anything that Apple says. In fact, if Apple says it, it's probably a lie.

What good do _you_ think the M1 does for the Apple customer base?

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> You still haven't explained how that battery chemistry you say you know so
>> well caused Apple to secretly throttle and then backdate release notes.
>
> nobody backdated anything.
>
>> And then I publicly lied about it.
>
> ftfy

Notice these dozen Apple apologists own no _adult_ defense to facts.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
>> And it used the _same_ battery chemistry.
>
> Correct.

You understand this far better than most people, that's for sure.

It's revealing that all adults comprehend it can't be the battery chemistry.
And yet, all the apologists are adamant that it is.

Even they can't possibly believe the bullshit Apple spews by way of excuse.
Can they?

> It also should be noted that Apple itself explicitly explained about the
> power management system and how it contributed to shutdowns: "The power
> management system determines the capability of the battery to supply
> this power, and manages the loads in order to maintain operations.

Exactly.
It was a terrible design.
Remember, they had shutdowns for months before even realizing it.

> Well the last part of that paragraph is nonsense, those components don't
> need "preserving," what actually is happening is that the power
> management system can no longer supply sufficient current to the SOC,
> the radios, the screen, etc. under conditions of high demand so the
> phone shuts down.

Nobody bullshits like Apple bullshits.
Apple secretly introduced throttling to preserve their profit margins.

> The decision to address this issue with throttling, until hardware
> changes could be included in the next model, would not have been such a
> huge issue if they had simply displayed a message on the screen,
> "Replace battery to restore peak performance," instead of not disclosing
> what was occurring, which led to many consumers buying new phones.

Yup. That's why I kept asking nospam how battery chemistry causes Apple to
secretly throttle, and then to secretly backdate release notes, and then to
publicly lie about it.

Nobody fucks their loyal customer base like Apple fucks them.

> The
> latter is what led to Apple paying hundreds of millions of dollars in
> fines.

Yes. Agreed.

Apple paid a host of fines & settlements (and they have some of the highest
paid lawyers in the world, one earning almost thirty million dollars in one
year alone).

The total was probably well over a billion dollars alone last year - but
unfortunately - a billion dollars to Apple is a drop in the bucket given
Apple probably paid less than their total R&D budget (which, sadly, is the
_lowest_ in all of high tech, bar none).

Apple is all marketing and almost no R&D.

> One of the reasons for not just telling a user to get a new
> battery was that while someone with a three year old phone might
> actually be pleased that they were being told how to make their phone
> perform like new for under $100, someone with a phone less than two
> years old might not be so happy about needing a new battery so soon, and
> if they had AppleCare+ then Apple would be on the hook to absorb that cost.

The _last_ thing Apple wanted people to do was know what caused the
slowdown. Otherwise, everything would not have been done in secret by Apple.

They would have openly stated why they were throttling (due to poor design).
They would have openly put it in release notes (at the time they did it).
And they wouldn't have publicly lied about it (from the beginning to now).

To know Apple is to watch what they _do_ (and ignore what they say they do).

> As a battery ages, the internal impedance goes up and the terminal
> voltage goes down; again, the power management system needs to to be
> able to cope with the lower voltage and higher current, but shutdowns
> and throttling should not normally be necessary, the only thing that the
> end user should notice is progressively shorter times between recharges,
> eventually declining to the point where the user opts for a battery
> replacement.

Certainly batteries age due to battery chemistry but that had almost nothing
to do with Apple's choice to _secretly_ and permanently halve the CPU speed.

And then lie about it.

> If you've ever owned an aging laptop, you see first hand the result of
> batteries that are losing capacity; run time decreases from hours to
> minutes, and you can see the available capacity fall rapidly when the
> laptop is unplugged, but performance is not degraded unless the user
> explicitly chooses to trade lower performance for longer operating time.
> On an electric car, the range decreases over time until the owner
> decides to either buy a new car or buy a new battery.

A laptop has a _different_ problem due to the multi-cell nature of it.
I'm not sure if an electric car has the same problem with polarity reversal.

> What Apple did with the iPhone 8 was to upgrade the power management
> system, which they noted as "hardware updates," and what teardowns
> showed to be an additional PMIC (power management IC). The iPhone 8
> actually has a lower capacity Li-Ion battery than the iPhone 7, despite
> being a tad larger (they needed to make it a little thicker because of
> the glass back and the Qi charging coil for wireless charging).

While the capacity of the battery plays a role, you are correct that the
real problem (which Apple can't force themselves to admit) is the poor
design.

But even poor design isn't what caused Apple to _secretly_ throttle.
Nor did poor design cause Apple to backdate the release notes.
And then lie about it.

Apple _chose_ to secretly throttle.
Apple _chose_ to backdate the release notes.
Apple _chose_ to publicly lie about it.

Nobody lies like Apple lies.
And nobody fucks their (admittedly loyal) customer like Apple does.

On 2021-09-04, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The circuitry in the phone, if designed properly, can
> supply sufficient current to the SOC even as the battery ages.

No. Circuitry can't create power where none exists, dipshit.

--
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 9/4/2021 12:45 PM, nospam wrote:
> *if* the battery has aged to where it cannot meet peak demands anymore,
> then peak demands are clipped so that the battery is not pushed beyond
> its limits, which can potentially result in an unwanted sudden
> shutdown.

If the battery aged, isn't that aging permanent?
If the throttling is based on that aging, isn't throttling permanent?
(Until you replace the battery.)

Doesn't that make all this instantaneous "peak demand" stuff nonsense?
--
Ken Hart
kwhart1@frontier.com

On 9/4/2021 8:45 AM, nospam wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> it needs to manage peak demands so that the battery is *not* pushed
> beyond its limits, which is less than it was when new

Peak demands?

If the battery aged, isn't that aging permanent?
If the throttling is based on that aging, isn't that throttling permanent?
Therefore peak demand is the same end result as is permanent throttling.
It's just a sneaky way to not say that the iPhone is permanently throttled.
--
Ken Hart
kwhart1@frontier.com

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
> No they're not. This happens all the time that a company agrees to pay a
> fine without admitting any guilt. It's all part of the negotiations.

I believe you're confusing criminal law with civil law perhaps?

The French successfully prosecuted Apple under _criminal_ statutes.
It's the American attorneys general who allowed Apple to not accept guilt.

Under criminal law, even nolo contendere is a de facto acceptance of guilt.

> Avoiding a trial, with all the expense, and the possibility of losing
> and having to pay even more, is more the rule than the exception.

I don't think you understood that this is no different, in terms of
"avoiding trial" as prosecution for murder or other criminal offenses.

Pleading guilty avoids trial.
Apple pleaded guilty to the criminal offense & paid the criminal fine.

It's over.
There was no jail time so it's over with the payment of the fine.
(And Apple had to publicly apologize to their customers for a month.)

It was a normal criminal proceeding for anyone who knows they're gonna lose
big when it comes down to trial time (even the BTK killer pleaded guilty).

> What Apple first denied, and then admitted, was throttling.

Apple _secretly_ introduced throttling to preserve their profit margins.
Then Apple _secretly_ modified the release notes (post date).
Then Apple publicly lied about it.

For that, Apple paid a multitude of fines & rather large settlements (one of
which is estimated to be around half a billion dollars).

It's over except for whatever courts remain (Canada? EU? Brazil?).

Note that some of the agreements were _criminal_ while most were civil.
Different rules apply to each.

> While they probably...

In the criminal case, Apple had to admit they were _intentional_.

> While they probably were well aware that the end-result of the throttling would be
> for many consumers to replace their phones, that was postulated by
> attorneys suing them: "Many consumers decided that the only way to get
> improved performance was to purchase a newer-model iPhone from Apple,"
> Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich wrote in a complaint made public
> on Wednesday. "Apple, of course, fully understood such effects on sales."

Nobody is as smart as Apple in eking out every penny from their customers.
Apple will lie like a convicted murderer if that's what it takes for profit.

On 2021-09-04, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 12:45 PM, nospam wrote:
>>
>> *if* the battery has aged to where it cannot meet peak demands
>> anymore, then peak demands are clipped so that the battery is not
>> pushed beyond its limits, which can potentially result in an unwanted
>> sudden shutdown.
>
> If the battery aged, isn't that aging permanent?

Yes, however battery performance (output) can and does fluctuate -
especially as they chemically age.

> If the throttling is based on that aging, isn't throttling permanent?

What you call "throttling" is software that automatically applying what
can be described as a sort of low pass filter to prevent spikes in
resource usage (performance), which in turn prevents the device from
spontaneously shutting down, extending runtime. Most smartphone apps
don't cause CPU/GPU usage to spike significantly on a regular basis.
Certain apps do (like games and so on), but you're not going to see a
huge spike in resource usage from a lot of the apps people use the most.
So no - there is no "permanent throttle" in this respect.

> (Until you replace the battery.)
>
> Doesn't that make all this instantaneous "peak demand" stuff nonsense?

Nope. Sorry.

--
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