XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com
nospam wrote:
> In article ,
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>>>> So secretly reducing the capability of the phone without warning
>>>> customers is the sensible thing to do? Maybe Arlen is right about
>>>> you after all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As opposed to the alternativejust shutting down without warning?
>>
>> That is not the only alternative.
>
> what other alternatives do you think there are?
>
> when an aging battery can't source sufficient current for high demand
> loads, the voltage drops below what's needed to operate the device,
> resulting in a sudden and unexpected shutdown. this is not unique to
> iphones. it's something that affects all batteries.
>
> the only alternative is to limit high demand loads so that the battery
> is not pushed beyond its limits where shutdowns can happen.
>
> as has been said many times before, only the peaks are limited. normal
> everyday actions (messaging, browsing, email, etc.) are unaffected.
>
>> Warning users that their batteries
>> are dying and will cause problems is a better choice.
>
> warning users doesn't change the fact that their phone is at risk for
> unexpectedly shutting down under load unless peak demands are limited,
> and they do get a warning after the first shutdown, at which point peak
> limiting is active.
>
>> Give the
>> consumer the choice of what to do with their purchased device rather
>> than trick them into buying new ones.
>
> nobody is being tricked into buying new phones.
>
> in fact, it's the very *opposite* of that.
>
> limiting peak demands *extends* the useful life of people's existing
> phone so that they *don't* need to buy a new one.
>
Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple’s. What Apple did was
sneaky and limited the consumer’s control over their own device.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
