XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2023-09-12 15:17, badgolferman wrote:   
   > 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 alternative‹just 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.   
   >   
      
   Ummmmm... ...no court disagreed with Apple's case either.   
      
   A settlement is NOT a finding of guilt.   
      
   Of course, you're free to show I'm wrong...   
      
   ...if you can.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)