In article <sh0bva$11e3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> Ooooooh. Silly us.

yes.

In article <sh0cbt$173f$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart
<kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:

>
> You first said that it's the "battery chemistry" in the iPhone except that
> you then also said "it's not the battery chemistry" in the iPad.

you did not understand anything i said, or anything anyone else said
for that matter, arlen, who is now forging regulars.

On 9/4/2021 6:3 PM, Lewis wrote:
> You have no idea what you are talking about.

"Apple 'forgot' the important step of making it extremely clear to tens of
millions of iPhone owners that an invisible boot would slam on the brakes.

And Apple apparently hadn't told anyone that the solution to an old battery
might just be a new one."

https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-stop-apple-throttling-iphones/

> No CPUs run at 100% all the time,

Half speed.

"iOS 11 Throttles iPhone 6 And 7 To Half Speed Most Of The Time"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2017/12/20/ios-11-throttles-iphone-6-and-7-to-half-speed-most-of-the-time/?sh=7675ebad6c5e

> and even your desktop CPU or GPU will slow down when the temperature
> gets too high and in many Windows systems, a high temp on the CPU will
> cause the machine to shut off.

It's a "hardware issue" that didn't happen with the iPads.
Nor with the newer iPhones, all with the same battery chemistry.

"When iPhones with old batteries were not performing up to par (*a natural
phenomenon for consumables), Apple attempted to secretly slap a software
patch on what is essentially a hardware issue.

It failed and backfired"

https://www.ifixit.com/News/11208/batterygate-timeline
--
Ken Hart
kwhart1@frontier.com

On 2021-09-04 12:15 p.m., Gronk wrote:
> RabidHussar wrote:
>> I can concur here. I speak and read French naturally and can remember
>> very distinctly that the company said they reduced the performance of
>> the iPhone specifically to ensure that long-time users of the hardware
>> would get the same kind of battery life three years in as they would
>> when they first purchased the unit. It was the reduced _performance_
>> people were upset about, not the battery life.
>
> You are trolling.
> If you're not trolling, you lied about knowing French.

Tu peux douter de mon niveau de français autant que tu veux et j'accepte
que tu vis dans un monde fantaisiste mais je ne suis pas obligé
d'accepter ton insulte. Après ce message, je te mets dans mon filtre et
je ne lirai plus ce que tu écris.

< snip >

--
@RabidHussar

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> yes.

Apple's motivation in *_secretly_ halving CPU speeds* was for us, not them!
Apple's motivation for *_backdating_ release notes* was for our own good.
And, of course, *Apple _lied_ about it* for our own good too!

What a /nice/ company Apple always proves to be.

On 9/4/2021 10:45 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
>> Whether criminal or civil, these kinds of things rarely go to trial.
>
> The more guilty they are, the more likely they tend to want to settle.
> Which is what Apple did with the USA attorneys general to avoid court.
Going to trial, and losing, would be disastrous. You'd have copycat
lawsuits like crazy.

On 2021-09-04, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 12:6 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> 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.
>
> All your "peak demand" and "spikes in resource usage" is bullshit.

Nope, it's reality. Sorry that you dislike it.

> Your bullshit only applies to a battery that is still in ok shape.

Nope. In fact, the feature doesn't activate until after the device first
experiences a spontaneous shutdown

> The chemical aging is permanent.

A battery that is chemically aged will provide power output that
fluctuates and is often insufficient to power the device under peak
load. That's just physics. And no battery or device can escape it. Such
is life.

> Therefore the dynamic iPhone throttling is permanent.

Not when replacing the battery disabled it, nope.

> (Unless you turn off the dynamic throttling - but then it gets worse.)

Turning off the feature results in a device reverting to the previous
behavior of spontaneously shutting down when the battery cannot provide
power needed under peak load. That's a pretty stupid thing to do.

--
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 2021-09-04, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
> In message <sh08rb$1klo$1@gioia.aioe.org> Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:
>> On 9/4/2021 12:6 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> All your "peak demand" and "spikes in resource usage" is bullshit.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>> The chemical aging is permanent. Therefore the dynamic iPhone
>> throttling is permanent.
>
> No, that is nonsense because the demands on the battery vary widely
> depending on what the pone is doing.

Yep. And the power output of an aged battery will also fluctuate
unpredictably to some extent.

Trolls aren't interested in reality, though. They prefer bullshit.

--
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 2021-09-04, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sh09p0$1tb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart
><kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:
>> On 9/4/2021 1:7 PM, nospam wrote:
>> >> Well, ok. But random shutdowns are even worse than half speed iPhones.
>> >
>> > no they aren't and it's not half-speed either.
>>
>> Why do you deny the obvious?
>>
>> https://www.ajc.com/news/national/apple-admits-throttling-iphone-cpu-speed-bat
>> tery-ages/vo0RJZGTpXrUQncENeLX2N/
>
> you mean this part, which confirms what i have been saying:
>
> Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current
> demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they
> age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting
> down to protect its electronic components.
> "Last year we released a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone
> SE to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent
> the device from unexpectedly shutting down during these conditions.
> We've now extended that feature to iPhone 7 with iOS 11.2, and plan
> to add support for other products in the future."
>
>> The graphic shows the throttling was from 1400Mhz to 600Mhz. That's
>> _more_ than half.
>
> that's a benchmark app and entirely irrelevant to real world use.

More to the point, it's a program that purposely pegs the CPU at 100%
for sustained periods of time, which results in peak power demand from
the battery. Since the device in question already experienced a
spontaneous shutdown due to its chemically aged battery, the system
throttles back performance accordingly to prevent another spontaneous
shutdown.

--
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 2021-09-04, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 1:16 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> So why did Apple admit that the throttling made people buy new iPhones then?
>>
>> they didn't.
>
> Why do you deny the obvious?
> https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/beware-ios-14-5-1-is-throttling.2294990/

Apple didn't admit that "throttling made people buy new iPhones" in that
or any other link, Arlen. You lose - again.

--
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 2021-09-04, Ken Hart <kwhart1@frontier.com> wrote:
> 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?

"English is hard, y'all." ~ Arlen

--
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 2021-09-04, Gronk <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>> Apple pleaded guilty to the criminal offense & paid the criminal fine.
>
> Apple has been fined 25 million Euros

He's responding to himself with alternating nyms out of pure
desperation. You love to see it. : D

--
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 <sh0j6e$8hl$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Going to trial, and losing, would be disastrous. You'd have copycat
> lawsuits like crazy.

you're assuming they would lose.

sometimes it's preferable to settle out of court and avoid an actual
trial, even if a victory is almost certain.

lawyers ain't cheap and if the settlement amount is less than the cost
of litigation, not to mention the time involved, then settling is often
a good choice.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>> Therefore the dynamic iPhone throttling is permanent.
>
> Not when replacing the battery disabled it, nope.

Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns
in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries,
however, Apple concealed the issues from consumers.

Apple's concealment ultimately led to a software update in December 2016
that reduced iPhone performance... Apple's concealment of the battery
issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers' iPhones
*led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers*
whose phone performance Apple had slowed.

Not knowing it was the batteries, Apple customers were left with only
one option which was the most expensive one as even the Genus Bar
employees were recommending people buy new phones by the thousands.

reference
https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2020/11/25/pr20-53.html

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> More to the point, it's a program that purposely pegs the CPU at 100%
> for sustained periods of time, which results in peak power demand from
> the battery.

Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns
in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries,
however, Apple concealed the issues from consumers.

Apple's concealment ultimately led to a software update in December 2016
that reduced iPhone performance... Apple's concealment of the battery
issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers' iPhones
*led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers*
whose phone performance Apple had slowed.

Not knowing it was the batteries, Apple customers were left with only
one option which was the most expensive one as even the Genus Bar
employees were recommending people buy new phones by the thousands.

Reference
https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2020/11/25/pr20-53.html

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> Apple didn't admit that "throttling made people buy new iPhones"

Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns
in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries,
however, Apple concealed the issues from consumers.

Apple's concealment ultimately led to a software update in December 2016
that reduced iPhone performance... Apple's concealment of the battery
issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers' iPhones
*led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers*
whose phone performance Apple had slowed.

Not knowing it was the batteries, Apple customers were left with only
one option which was the most expensive one as even the Genus Bar
employees were recommending people buy new phones by the thousands.

Reference
https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2020/11/25/pr20-53.html

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> you're assuming they would lose.

Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns
in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries,
however, Apple concealed the issues from consumers.

Apple's concealment ultimately led to a software update in December 2016
that reduced iPhone performance... Apple's concealment of the battery
issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers' iPhones
*led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers*
whose phone performance Apple had slowed.

Not knowing it was the batteries, Apple customers were left with only
one option which was the most expensive one as even the Genus Bar
employees were recommending people buy new phones by the thousands.

Reference
https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2020/11/25/pr20-53.html

On 2021-09-04 9:15 a.m., Gronk wrote:
> RabidHussar wrote:
>> I can concur here. I speak and read French naturally and can remember
>> very distinctly that the company said they reduced the performance of
>> the iPhone specifically to ensure that long-time users of the hardware
>> would get the same kind of battery life three years in as they would
>> when they first purchased the unit. It was the reduced _performance_
>> people were upset about, not the battery life.
>
> You are trolling.
> If you're not trolling, you lied about knowing French.
>
> Either way, you deserve no respect because you are wrong and you knew it.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724
>
> Apple has been fined 25 million Euros for deliberately slowing down
> older iPhone models without making it clear to consumers.
>
> As part of the agreement, Apple must display a notice on its
> French-language website for a month.
> *It says _Apple committed the crime_ of deceptive commercial practice*
> by omission and that Apple had agreed to pay the fine.

No, Arlen.

It did not say that Apple committed a crime.

On 2021-09-04 8:59 a.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> 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.

So produce the record of Apple's plea.

Hint: pleas are not given on websites.

>
>> 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.

Produce the actual document with Apple's plea.

On 2021-09-04 9:07 a.m., Gronk wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>> Quote this "acceptance".
>
> Apple has been fined 25 million Euros for deliberately slowing down
> older iPhone models without making it clear to consumers.
>
> As part of the agreement, Apple must display a notice on its
> French-language website for a month.
> It says *Apple committed the crime* of deceptive commercial practice by
> omission and that Apple had agreed to pay the fine.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724

Sorry, but that is the BBC quoting the French regulatory agency and the
quote comes from a document that was created PRIOR to the settlement.

i.e. It's an accusation, not a plea.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
> sometimes it's preferable to settle out of court and avoid an actual
> trial, even if a victory is almost certain.

*Apple lost because Apple lied.*

Apple hires lawyers at the rate of $25 million dollars a year for one lawyer
alone, and with the stakes this high, it's clear one thing which nospam
_hates_ about all these successful criminal & civil actions against Apple.

*Guilty to the criminal offense was the _best_ deal Apple could get*.

Even with the finest lawyers in the world, it's _still_ the best deal.
a. Criminal conviction
b. Plenty of civil settlements

That one big set of lies cost Apple over a billion dollars last year alone.
And yes, that's a mere drop in the bucket for Apple.

*Apple lost because Apple lied.*
> lawyers ain't cheap and if the settlement amount is less than the cost
> of litigation, not to mention the time involved, then settling is often
> a good choice.

*Apple lost because Apple lied.*

Either you believe that Apple is worried about the cost of a lawsuit or
you're an idiot nospam.

Pick one.

The price of a lawyer is absolutely _nothing_ to Apple.
Nothing.

Even with the _best_ lawyers on this planet, Apple paid for just the
Qualcomm surrender more than it costs to design and build a US fast fleet
carrier (complete with _all_ the high tech aviation & electronics).

*Apple lost because Apple lied.*

On 9/2/2021 8:33 PM, AJL wrote:
> I haven't needed a dedicated scanner in quite awhile.

Hi Arlen!

On 2021-09-05 6:24 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> sometimes it's preferable to settle out of court and avoid an actual
>> trial, even if a victory is almost certain.
>
> *Apple lost because Apple lied.*

Apple settled what was essentially a nuisance to them.

>
> Apple hires lawyers at the rate of $25 million dollars a year for one lawyer
> alone, and with the stakes this high, it's clear one thing which nospam
> _hates_ about all these successful criminal & civil actions against Apple.
>
> *Guilty to the criminal offense was the _best_ deal Apple could get*.

There was no guilty plea.

You're lying.

On 2021-09-04 11:49 a.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> yes.
>
> Apple's motivation in *_secretly_ halving CPU speeds* was for us, not them!

They didn't have CPU speeds...

....and it they didn't even slow them down all the time.

You're a liar.

knuttle wrote:
> On 9/2/2021 8:33 PM, AJL wrote:
>> I haven't needed a dedicated scanner in quite awhile.
>
> Hi Arlen!

No, Robin Goodfellow is playing the part of Arlen.

Go back to the very top of this thread, and see
who started the thread. With the classical troll
crosspost pattern. See ?

Paul