nospam wrote:

> contrast that to what lg did with their phones,

Why is it, nospam, that every time Apple gets caught treating its
(admittedly) loyal customers like garbage, that you immediately proclaim
that Apple is just as bad or worse as every other company out there?

You do that EVERY time Apple treats its (loyal) customers like garbage.

It's one of your seven excuses for why Apple does what Apple does.
Why do you always do that?

On 2023-01-10, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> contrast that to what lg did with their phones,
>
> Why is it, nospam

Because unlike LG, Apple sought to improve the overall user experience
for its customers.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2023-01-10, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> contrast that to what lg did with their phones,
>>
>> Why is it, nospam
>
> Because unlike LG, Apple sought to improve the overall user experience
> for its customers.
>

So much for the consumer privacy aspect they claim to uphold. What they did
was similar to what an unscrupulous car manufacturer would do. They
withhold information about a defect in their vehicle. Then they tell
mechanics to secretly install a patch which covers it up whenever the
customer brings their vehicle in for maintenance. Then they deny there’s
anything wrong when people start noticing it. And finally when they’re
caught, they offer to fix it for a small price.

They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly covering up
the problem. If they truly cared about the consumer they would have issued
a bulletin warning them of this problem and offered a discounted battery
replacement program right at the start.

On 1/10/2023 3:09 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly covering up
> the problem. If they truly cared about the consumer they would have issued
> a bulletin warning them of this problem and offered a discounted battery
> replacement program right at the start.

It's pretty incredible that they'd think that they could get away with
the coverup indefinitely, considering the scrutiny that they get.

They did eventually state that they made hardware changes that would
largely eliminate throttling, but it took a company that does tear-downs
to disclose the hardware change: "Power Management ICs: "Compared to the
iPhone 7, there is one more PMIC component from Dialog in the iPhone 8
Plus." The batteries in the iPhone 6, 6s, 7, were never defective. A
battery replacement mitigated the root cause but it was not a permanent fix.

In article <tpjh1g$10la$1@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly covering up
> the problem.

they didn't cover up anything. the change was disclosed in the release
notes. to be fair, few people read the release notes, but it was there.

not only that, but nobody noticed any difference until nearly a year
later, when someone ran a benchmark, which by definition runs the phone
at peak demands, where the issue occurs.

again, only peak demands are clipped, not throttling across all tasks.

In article <tpk1j1$ise0$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> It's pretty incredible that they'd think that they could get away with
> the coverup indefinitely, considering the scrutiny that they get.

there was no cover up. it was disclosed. it also wasn't noticed for
nearly a year.

> They did eventually state that they made hardware changes that would
> largely eliminate throttling, but it took a company that does tear-downs
> to disclose the hardware change: "Power Management ICs: "Compared to the
> iPhone 7, there is one more PMIC component from Dialog in the iPhone 8
> Plus."

the pmic has nothing to do with this issue, no matter how much you try
to spin it otherwise. further, the iphone 8 design began before the
iphone 6 was even released.

> The batteries in the iPhone 6, 6s, 7, were never defective.

nobody said the batteries were defective.

here in the real world, *all* batteries age, regardless of device or
battery type, and as it ages, it can't supply the same current as it
did when new.

> A
> battery replacement mitigated the root cause but it was not a permanent fix.

false. it was a permanent fix, just like replacing a car battery fixes
difficulty starting the engine, a peak demand.

nospam wrote:

>In article <tpjh1g$10la$1@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
><REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly
>>covering up the problem.
>
>they didn't cover up anything. the change was disclosed in the release
>notes. to be fair, few people read the release notes, but it was
>there.
>
>not only that, but nobody noticed any difference until nearly a year
>later, when someone ran a benchmark, which by definition runs the
>phone at peak demands, where the issue occurs.
>
>again, only peak demands are clipped, not throttling across all tasks.

If someone's car is acting funny they will take it to the mechanic and
get it diagnosed then decide whether to fix it. Apple never gave that
chance to the customer, instead choosing to modify the performance of
the phone so it wouldn't be noticed. Would it be okay with you if your
car was "modified" without your knowledge by the mechanic? This is why
Apple's actions were considered "criminal".

On 2023-01-10 09:00, badgolferman wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <tpjh1g$10la$1@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly
>>> covering up the problem.
>>
>> they didn't cover up anything. the change was disclosed in the release
>> notes. to be fair, few people read the release notes, but it was
>> there.
>>
>> not only that, but nobody noticed any difference until nearly a year
>> later, when someone ran a benchmark, which by definition runs the
>> phone at peak demands, where the issue occurs.
>>
>> again, only peak demands are clipped, not throttling across all tasks.
>
>
> If someone's car is acting funny they will take it to the mechanic and
> get it diagnosed then decide whether to fix it. Apple never gave that
> chance to the customer, instead choosing to modify the performance of
> the phone so it wouldn't be noticed. Would it be okay with you if your
> car was "modified" without your knowledge by the mechanic? This is why
> Apple's actions were considered "criminal".

I know that this will come as a shock to you...

....but a CAR...

....is not a SMARTPHONE.

On 2023-01-10, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-01-10, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> contrast that to what lg did with their phones,
>>>
>>> Why is it, nospam
>>
>> Because unlike LG, Apple sought to improve the overall user
>> experience for its customers.
>>
>
> So much for the consumer privacy aspect they claim to uphold. What
> they did was similar to what an unscrupulous car manufacturer would
> do. They withhold information about a defect in their vehicle.

Wrong. Batteries aging and not delivering enough power to keep the
device running isn't a defect, and the resulting spontaneous shutdowns
affected Apple's competitor as well.

> Then they tell mechanics to secretly install a patch which covers it
> up whenever the customer brings their vehicle in for maintenance.

Wrong. Applying a low pass filter to resource usage in the OS to prevent
overloading a dying battery to prevent spontaneous shutdowns and extend
runtime isn't covering anything up.

> Then they deny there’s anything wrong when people start noticing it.

Apple didn't do that either. In fact, Apple stated that the feature was
added in the iOS 10.2.1 release notes. You're on a failure roll,
trollboi.

> And finally when they’re caught, they offer to fix it for a small
> price.

What Apple actually did was placate gullible people who were easily
fooled by disinformation to believe there was something wrong with
batteries aging normally by offering a discounted battery replacement
fee. And a bunch of people took Apple's offer.

> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly
> covering up the problem.

Nope.

> If they truly cared about the consumer they would have issued a
> bulletin warning them of this problem and offered a discounted battery
> replacement program right at the start.

Batteries aging and not delivering enough power to keep the device
running isn't a defect, trollboi.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-01-10, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/10/2023 3:09 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly
>> covering up the problem. If they truly cared about the consumer they
>> would have issued a bulletin warning them of this problem and offered
>> a discounted battery replacement program right at the start.
>
> It's pretty incredible that they'd think that they could get away with
> the coverup

The only cover up is the one your little troll gang is desperately
trying to manufacture and maintain.

> They did eventually state that they made hardware changes

False. You think by repeating this lie, it will magically become true,
because you assume the rest of u are just as gullible as you are. Not
happening.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-01-10, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>>In article <tpjh1g$10la$1@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
>><REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly
>>> covering up the problem.
>>
>>they didn't cover up anything. the change was disclosed in the release
>>notes. to be fair, few people read the release notes, but it was
>>there.
>>
>>not only that, but nobody noticed any difference until nearly a year
>>later, when someone ran a benchmark, which by definition runs the
>>phone at peak demands, where the issue occurs.
>>
>>again, only peak demands are clipped, not throttling across all tasks.
>
> If someone's car is acting funny they will take it to the mechanic and
> get it diagnosed then decide whether to fix it.

If a battery is three years old and doesn't perform as well as when it
was new, a reasonable person doesn't claim it's "defective".

> Apple never gave that chance to the customer, instead choosing to
> modify the performance of the phone so it wouldn't be noticed.

"Apple extended the runtime of my iPhone's old battery without me
noticing! ThE hOrRoR!1!!! HOW DARE YOU??? DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?!"

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Alan wrote:
>
>I know that this will come as a shock to you...
>
>...but a CAR...
>
>...is not a SMARTPHONE.

I guess it comes down to whether you believe the phone belongs to you
or whether it belongs to Apple. I happen to belong in the former. And
as the owner of the device such modifications done on the sly don't sit
well with me. I'm guessing all the government institutions which hand
out iPhones to their employees for classified business don't appreciate
software changes without explicit notice beforehand. I know my
employer takes months to vet OS changes to our computers and phones
before forced upgrades.

The same goes for my car...

In article <xn0nwolqssmxquh001@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
>
> >In article <tpjh1g$10la$1@gioia.aioe.org>, badgolferman
> ><REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly
> >>covering up the problem.
> >
> >they didn't cover up anything. the change was disclosed in the release
> >notes. to be fair, few people read the release notes, but it was
> >there.
> >
> >not only that, but nobody noticed any difference until nearly a year
> >later, when someone ran a benchmark, which by definition runs the
> >phone at peak demands, where the issue occurs.
> >
> >again, only peak demands are clipped, not throttling across all tasks.
>
>
> If someone's car is acting funny they will take it to the mechanic and
> get it diagnosed then decide whether to fix it.

they would have to notice a problem first.

as i said, nobody noticed anything unusual for nearly a year, until a
benchmark was done, which by definition runs the phone at 'full
throttle', to use your car analogy.

> Apple never gave that
> chance to the customer, instead choosing to modify the performance of
> the phone so it wouldn't be noticed. Would it be okay with you if your
> car was "modified" without your knowledge by the mechanic? This is why
> Apple's actions were considered "criminal".

nope. what they did was solve a problem of the phone suddenly and
unexpectedly shutting down.

again, to use your car analogy, if your car kept stalling at full
throttle, and the car maker pushed a firmware update for the ecu so
that it didn't stall under those conditions anymore, would you consider
it a 'criminal action' ? or would you consider it a fix to a problem
that some people had been experiencing?

On 1/10/2023 9:00 AM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> If someone's car is acting funny they will take it to the mechanic and
> get it diagnosed then decide whether to fix it. Apple never gave that
> chance to the customer, instead choosing to modify the performance of
> the phone so it wouldn't be noticed. Would it be okay with you if your
> car was "modified" without your knowledge by the mechanic? This is why
> Apple's actions were considered "criminal".

At the dealer, you'll often hear various explanations, especially when
the vehicle is under warranty:

"That's normal."
"All vehicles do that."

Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will classify certain things as
"acceptable," when they clearly are not. I.e. excessive oil burning. The
manufacturer will insist that "one quart every thousand miles is normal."

Topping off the oil allows the vehicle to operate properly but it
doesn't address the root cause. It's the same with "Batterygate."
Replacing the battery allows the phone to operate properly but it
doesn't address the root cause.

Often, addressing the root cause is not practical due to the cost.
Sometimes the manufacturer is required to address the root cause.

On 2023-01-10 09:35, badgolferman wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>>
>> I know that this will come as a shock to you...
>>
>> ...but a CAR...
>>
>> ...is not a SMARTPHONE.
>
> I guess it comes down to whether you believe the phone belongs to you
> or whether it belongs to Apple. I happen to belong in the former. And
> as the owner of the device such modifications done on the sly don't sit
> well with me. I'm guessing all the government institutions which hand
> out iPhones to their employees for classified business don't appreciate
> software changes without explicit notice beforehand. I know my
> employer takes months to vet OS changes to our computers and phones
> before forced upgrades.
>
> The same goes for my car...

No... ...it's not the same.

Cars don't have operating systems; not in the way that computers and
smartphones have operating systems.

While there are people who want to vet every OS update, that's not the
way it is for most people.

In article <tpk9ou$jkv7$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Replacing the battery allows the phone to operate properly but it
> doesn't address the root cause.

yes it does.

> Often, addressing the root cause is not practical due to the cost.

the root cause was addressed, both in firmware and also by a battery
replacement for those who did not fully understand what the problem
actually was.

> Sometimes the manufacturer is required to address the root cause.

which they did.

On 2023-01-10 17:35:29 +0000, badgolferman said:
> Alan wrote:
>>
>> I know that this will come as a shock to you...
>>
>> ...but a CAR...
>>
>> ...is not a SMARTPHONE.
>
> I guess it comes down to whether you believe the phone belongs to you
> or whether it belongs to Apple. I happen to belong in the former. And
> as the owner of the device such modifications done on the sly don't sit
> well with me. I'm guessing all the government institutions which hand
> out iPhones to their employees for classified business don't appreciate
> software changes without explicit notice beforehand. I know my
> employer takes months to vet OS changes to our computers and phones
> before forced upgrades.
>
> The same goes for my car...

I haven't checked about the phone itself, but you certainly do NOT own
the OS running on it (like almost every other piece of software you've
ever used). You agree to a license to use the OS when you first turn on
the phone. Since it is only a license, the product is owned by Apple,
so technically they can do whatever they want with it, including
revoking your license to use it.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:14:44 AM, nospam wrote:

>> It's pretty incredible that they'd think that they could get away with
>> the coverup indefinitely, considering the scrutiny that they get.
>
> there was no cover up.

How you can say that is the same as when Jolly Roger just said repeatedly
that there was never a related criminal case that Apple pleaded guilty to.

He said I was a "liar" and a "dumb fuck" because I knew what Apple did.
Message-ID: <k24ethF9b97U2@mid.individual.net>

The only sensible conclusion about you is what I told Jolly Roger.

You know nothing about Apple.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:13:32 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> They did eventually state that they made hardware changes
>
> False. You think by repeating this lie, it will magically become true,
> because you assume the rest of u are just as gullible as you are. Not
> happening.

You are the one who called me a "dumb fuck" and a "liar" because I gave you
references in the news that everyone already knew about Apple pleading
guilty to the criminal case involving the coverup when throttling iPhones.

Message-ID: <k24ethF9b97U2@mid.individual.net>

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/02/07/apple-fined-25m-euros-france-slowing-down-iphones/
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apple-fined-41-million-for-secretly-slowing-old-iphones-20200210-p53z9n.html
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/11/france-fines-apple-41-million-for-slowing-down-old-iphones/

Why call everyone a liar only because you don't know anything about Apple?

Why don't you apologize & just admit you know nothing about what Apple did?

On 2023-01-10 14:06, Thomas wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:14:44 AM, nospam wrote:
>
>>> It's pretty incredible that they'd think that they could get away with
>>> the coverup indefinitely, considering the scrutiny that they get.
>>
>> there was no cover up.
>
> How you can say that is the same as when Jolly Roger just said repeatedly
> that there was never a related criminal case that Apple pleaded guilty to.

1. Apple did not plead guilty. I dare you to find a single authoritative
reference that says they did.

2. Even if they did plead guilty (they didn't), it doesn't mean that
their actions prior to that constitute a cover-up.

Happy to help you with matters of elementary logic that are clearly
above your pay grade.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 11:14:42 AM, nospam wrote:

>> They were only trying to protect their own privacy by secretly covering up
>> the problem.
>
> they didn't cover up anything. the change was disclosed in the release
> notes. to be fair, few people read the release notes, but it was there.

Are you not aware that Apple was caught saying what you said when the truth
was that Apple subtlety CHANGED the release notes long AFTER the release?

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM, badgolferman wrote:

> I guess it comes down to whether you believe the phone belongs to you
> or whether it belongs to Apple. I happen to belong in the former.

Are you aware Apple CHANGED the release notes long AFTER the release?
https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/02/06/apple-on-ios-10-2-1-throttling-disclosure/

What do you think about that?
What do you think Jolly Roger & nospam think about that?

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 9:11:52 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:

> In fact, Apple stated that the feature was
> added in the iOS 10.2.1 release notes.

Are you capable of admitting you are wrong?

Maybe everyone else reads what maybe you don't know about what Apple did?
https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/02/06/apple-on-ios-10-2-1-throttling-disclosure/

After reading that article (which formed a key basis of the AG USA
lawsuits) are you going to immediately apologize and admit you were wrong?

Are you capable of admitting you know nothing about what Apple did?

Thomas wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:35:29 PM, badgolferman wrote:
>
>> I guess it comes down to whether you believe the phone belongs to
>>you or whether it belongs to Apple. I happen to belong in the
>>former.
>
>Are you aware Apple CHANGED the release notes long AFTER the release?
>https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/02/06/apple-on-ios-10-2-1-throttling-disclosure/
>
>What do you think about that?
>What do you think Jolly Roger & nospam think about that?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe they will say it was for your own good and
that Apple knows best.

------

Apple’s lack of transparency around iPhone throttling has backfired
spectacularly as the firm finds itself in an uncomfortable position of
having to explain why the original iOS 10.2.1 changelog didn’t
immediately disclose the controversial performance management feature.

iOS 10.2.1 was the very first iOS release with CPU throttling targeting
older iPhones with worn-out batteries. The original releases notes,
displayed on customers’ devices and published on Apple’s website, made
no mention of this whatsoever.

It was only after the throttling issue went mainstream that Apple
quietly amended the iOS 10.2.1 release notes on its website to note
that the software update also “improves power management during peak
workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.”

On 2023-01-10, Thomas <canope234@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:14:44 AM, nospam wrote:
>
>>> It's pretty incredible that they'd think that they could get away
>>> with the coverup indefinitely, considering the scrutiny that they
>>> get.
>>
>> there was no cover up.
>
> How you can say that is the same as when Jolly Roger just said
> repeatedly that there was never a related criminal case that Apple
> pleaded guilty to.

That's what's called a FACT, Arlen. : )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR