Admit? Like it's a secret he's trying to cover up?
Apple people simply don't care. They know Apple's "late." (Inasmuch as someone else has done a similar thing, or used a similar piece of tech "first".) Because Apple is almost always late.
Late to touch. Late to smartphones. Late to fingerprint readers. Late to face identification. Late to attention detection. Late to wireless charging. Late to big screens. Late to music streaming. Late to video services. Late to the TV. Late to the wrist. Late to the wireless headphones. etc.
I agree, but he attempts to shame other firms when they decide to copy something from Apple. He comes across as a hypocrite.
Personally I find many of Apples "innovations" abhorrent and it frustrates me that they have been universally copied. They have popularised disposable, unrepairable, slippery, ultra-fragile phones!
The whole problem is that the batteries can't deliver that performance.
They can throttle the chip to what the battery can deliver or it will crash. Maybe Apple's more conservative on the throttling, and some amount of performance could still be achieved without a crash, but there's zero chance Apple's putting a "make my phone unstable" switch in Settings.
That doesn't pass the sniff test. The available voltage from a lithium ion battery will decrease as it is discharged. When your phone turns off, that does not mean there is no more energy in the battery. It means there is no longer enough voltage to power the phone.
Over the course of many discharge cycles, the battery will lose capacity, and the point when the voltage is no longer sufficient to power the phone will come sooner.
But this is overly pedantic. People generally consider this point to be simply an "empty battery."
Android phones do not suffer these performance changes. Instead, the phones lose battery life over time, and within a year or so, you might be lucky to get 12 hours of life out of a full charge.
You can make an argument that we should optimize for duration or performance, but the difference is that casual Android users are aware that their battery is deteriorating, while casual iPhone users believe their phone is itself deteriorating, or else much slower than the newer models.
Wrong. The peak demand from the phone can exceed the available voltage even if you're at 30%, causing an immediate shutdown. That's what we saw a year ago. Now they no longer shut down unexpectedly, but the performance of the phone sucks, even with a battery that holds 87% of its original capacity.
I don't dispute that, but that does not explain the observations that a fully-charged, reduced-capacity battery performs poorly on a standard benchmark test versus a new battery.
It's not just smoothing out a peak demand. It's reducing the peak performance all of the time, and that is unique to iPhone.
You're assuming the issue is only changing capacity vs age. Internal impedance increases with age as well. A full battery that can't source its energy in a timely manner might as well be empty.
That's not entirely accurate. They observed that with a fully charged battery it performed as expected. The CPU wasn't throttled until the battery was depleted.
Android phones do suffer from spontaneous reboots. It appears not as much as iPhones, and the most likely reason is the higher performance CPUs in iPhones. Android manufacturers have chosen to let the minority of users who suffer through spontaneous reboots, to keep suffering through them, rather than moderate CPU performance for them.
Who in the world would run right out and buy a new iPhone if their last one became unusable in one year?
People switch to the iPhone because of their longer usable life compared to the competition. People pay more for old iPhones compared to the competition because of their longer usable life. Not only is it not in Apple's interest to make self-destructing phones, to even accuse them of that requires ignoring the entire history of iPhone adoption and resale value.
Further, there is no "one year" for batteries. Batteries with more charge cycles degrade faster. Batteries that push peak performance more often degrade faster. Batteries that spend time in extreme heat and cold degrade faster. Because of this, a simple anecdote of "throttling after a year" means even less than usual.
No-one has data on how much throttling is going on, but Apple. The best proxy we have is the aggregate purchasing decisions of people who had iPhones, and the prices of used iPhones. And people with iPhones overwhelmingly keep buying iPhones. And the prices of used iPhones aren't going anywhere. This "Apple makes self-destructing phones" theory needs a rest.
Let's assume some measurable number of people might do this, purely for arguments sake. Why does the resale value of old iPhones not reflect these devices being "unusable?"
You keep saying unusable - nobody said throttling makes it unusable, just slower than a year ago when you bought it. Value of iPhones is irrespective of the Apple admitted fact that they do in fact throttle older phones. Some one year later and some two but it is a known fact that it happens. What it has to do with resale values is a separate thing that would be interesting to debate if Apple had not verified the throttling part.
I don't think you can have such a number, as it hinges so heavily on unknowable future usage and environmental factors.
And frankly now that sudden shutdown isn't a thing, I don't think it matters much. Apple just has to communicate the situation better when processor throttling reaches severe states.
Good old fashioned junk mail, background check services, and consumer research?
Even if they keep their literal word and don't sell your actual history, and you use SSL so they can't see specific content, they can certainly make money by identifying traffic profiles by domains/times/frequencies/etc.
Through leaks like this one. Leaks that can be partially validated or corroborated, but which (by their nature) cannot be entirely proven true.
And those leaks were very transparently beneficial to a person/group who are also going to benefit from this one.
I don't trust the CIA at all. But I don't trust Wikileaks either. I see way too many self-described "skeptical" types who aren't approaching any of this with any shred of skepticism.
Apple people simply don't care. They know Apple's "late." (Inasmuch as someone else has done a similar thing, or used a similar piece of tech "first".) Because Apple is almost always late.
Late to touch. Late to smartphones. Late to fingerprint readers. Late to face identification. Late to attention detection. Late to wireless charging. Late to big screens. Late to music streaming. Late to video services. Late to the TV. Late to the wrist. Late to the wireless headphones. etc.