XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.mobile.ipad, comp.sys.mac.apps   
   XPost: uk.telecom.mobile   
   From: usenet@gallopinginsanity.com   
      
   Arlen Holder  wrote:   
   > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:00:50 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:   
   >   
   >> A lot of your rant is IMO malicious interpretation.   
   >   
   > Facts are the weakness of all you apologists (proven below with facts).   
   >   
   > I _love_ facts so if you can provide facts backing up your claims, that   
   > would be the adult thing to do, and which would be very much appreciated.   
   >   
   > You'll note that adults provide cites and in those cites are facts.   
   >   
   > You've shown facts are your weakness, as they are for all apologists.   
   > o You gravitate to MARKETING messages because you don't comprehend facts.   
   >   
   > Proof below.   
   >   
   >> Show me that they   
   >> were throttliing CPUs on iPhones with perfectly healthy batteries - I   
   >> doubt you can.   
   >   
   > Please do not fabricate a strawman just so that you can shoot it down.   
   > o If you can't address facts, then simply do not post imagined objections.   
   >   
   > I don't think ANYONE said Apple was throttling brand new phones whose   
   > batteries were working fine (certainly not me).   
   >   
   > Remember, I'm the guy who first broke this news to this newsgroup (on   
   > 12/20/2017); they _found_ the throttling because benchmarks plummeted the   
   > instant people installed the iOS release that implemented the _secret_   
   > throttling.   
   > o Report says Apple 'Powerd' code secretly slows your iOS device down to   
   > trick you into buying a new device   
   >    
   >   
   > Not only did benchmarks plummet drastically, but that CPU drop was   
   > permanent (i.e., batteries never get better).   
   >   
   > Not only was that benchmark plummet permanent, but when people did put new   
   > batteries in, the benchmarks _doubled_ instantly.   
   >   
   >> (Nobody supports old hardware forever; they manage 4-5   
   >> years usually, which is tolerable.   
   >   
   > Again, please do not fabricate a strawman just so you can shoot it down.   
   >   
   > These iPhones were secretly throttled after about a year.   
   >   
   > If the only way you can deal with facts is to fabricate imaginary windmills   
   > for you to then swing at, then all you're really doing is telling us you   
   > have no adult response to the facts (which means you agree with them).   
   >   
   >> But that doesn't make special   
   >> handling of older hardware a conspiracy to get rid of it.)   
   >   
   > Apple was convicted of the crime of intentionally shortening the life of   
   > the affected iPhones.   
   >   
   > Apple likely has some of the best lawyers on the planet, and _they_ had to   
   > write up the public note which is on Apple's web page today saying they   
   > admit to committing the crime.   
   >   
   > For you to call a crime "special handling" is, indeed, paradoxical.   
   > o Apple committed the crime of deceptive commercial practice   
   >    
   >   
   >> Given a   
   >> choice between full speed and greater risk of crashing that might   
   >> exist with a worn battery, I think not crashing is a better choice.   
   >   
   > This statement shows that you're just fine with the choice of:   
   > a. Unacceptable performance, or,   
   > b. Unacceptable stability.   
   > (You MUST pick one!)   
   >   
   > And remember, it was _secret_, so your only choice was:   
   > a. Unacceptable performance, or,   
   > B. Buy a new phone.   
   > (Even the Apple Genius bar was telling customers to do this.)   
   >   
   > We already proved no other smartphone OEM does what Apple does!   
   > o Does any Android phone manufacturer pull the hostile battery & display   
   > lockout stunts that Apple secretly added to the iPhones recently?   
   >    
   >   
   > HINT: It's not the batteries; it's clearly crappy overall power design.   
   >   
   >> All that throwing a hissy got was disclosure and a switch so you can   
   >> choose yourself - the latter always good, but hardly obligatory, IMO.   
   >   
   > You actually think it's good that your only iPhone choices are now:   
   > a. Unacceptable performance, or   
   > b. Unacceptable stability, or,   
   > c. Unacceptable repeated expensive battery replacements.   
   > (You MUST choose one, and repeatedly, for the life of the iPhone!)   
   >   
   >> Everyone (Apple, Google, Amazon) with voice activated AIs listens some   
   >> to improve both speech-to-text and understanding of questions.   
   >   
   > This is a classic response of blaming everyone but Apple for Apple flaws.   
   >   
   > Even Apple does it!   
   > o Apple constantly & consistently blames everyone else but Apple for   
   > Apple bugs & Apple design flaws!   
   >    
   >   
   > It's always you apologists who blame everyone for Apple's flaws.   
   >   
   > What you apologists forget is that old adage of having your cake and eating   
   > it also.   
   >   
   > The _adult_ response should be, IMHO, along the lines of Apple shouldn't   
   > throw stones at Google when Apple's privacy is as bad, or worse.   
   >   
   > You apologists _never_ seem to own the adult comprehensive skills that can   
   > comprehend that Apple is the one advertising privacy.   
   >   
   > And, you apologists never seem to comprehend that Apple is the one   
   > violating your privacy (and their own privacy policies).   
   >   
   > Don't blame Apple's actions on Google or Amazon please.   
   > o Children don't take responsibility for their actions.   
   >   
   > Apple is responsible for violating your privacy, and for violating their   
   > own policies on privacy.   
   >   
   > Deal with that fact like an adult instead of playing the classic apologist   
   > child-like game of blaming everyone else but Apple for Apple's flaws.   
   > o Why do both Apple & the apologists habitually blame everyone but Apple   
   > for Apple's poor design choices?   
   >    
   >   
   >> If you are crazy about privacy, you have to live in an off-grid shack   
   >> like the Unabomber did; otherwise, be careful but don't expect wonders   
   >> from anyone.   
   >   
   > This is the first sensible statement showing that you are capable of adult   
   > cognitive skills.   
   >   
   > There is no privacy on any consumer phone, where privacy is a long chaing   
   > of links, and Apple only touts the very few very strong ones.   
   > o What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities   
   > between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?   
   >    
   >   
   >> Apple will CYA and sometimes release on marketing   
   >> schedule rather than on ready like anyone else; but the basic premise   
   >> remains: your data is not what they sell (unlike Google) nor used for   
   >> marketing what they do sell both directly and for 3rd parties (unlike   
   >> Amazon).   
   >   
   > That's only _one_ of the hundreds of links of privacy.   
   > o You skipped very many links that Apple is _less_ private!   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)