XPost: comp.mobile.ipad, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.apps   
   XPost: uk.telecom.mobile   
   From: nunya@ness.biz   
      
   On 2020-02-14 7:22 a.m., 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).   
      
   That is certainly the impression you have very deliberately tried to   
   give for weeks, Liar.   
      
   >   
   > 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   
   >    
      
   You're also the one who said that one must therefore cut all of the   
   iPhone's benchmark scores in half...   
      
   ...which only makes sense if you're implying that they are always   
   throttled in normal use.   
      
   >   
   > Not only did benchmarks plummet drastically, but that CPU drop was   
   > permanent (i.e., batteries never get better).   
      
   Unless you have a battery replaced...   
      
   >   
   > Not only was that benchmark plummet permanent, but when people did put new   
   > batteries in, the benchmarks _doubled_ instantly.   
      
   Nope. The benchmarks were only slower at times when the battery charge   
   was low even with the old batteries.   
      
   >   
   >> (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.   
      
   They were throttled only when the batteries were low on charge.   
      
   You always neglect to mention that, Liar.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   That is a flat out lie.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   That is a lie as well.   
      
   >   
   > For you to call a crime "special handling" is, indeed, paradoxical.   
   > o Apple committed the crime of deceptive commercial practice   
   >    
      
   Another lie.   
      
   >   
   >> 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!)   
      
   Unacceptable by what standard, Liar?   
      
   >   
   > 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.)   
      
   Another assertion masquerading as a "fact"...   
      
   >   
   > 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?   
   >    
      
      
   Post proper cites.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)