https://www.dpreview.com/news/2860455378/samsung-disables-cameras-1800-galaxy-z-fold-3-smartphone-if-you-unlock-the-bootloader

In article <edd9731f-b3c8-4662-83d5-a806b9df315en@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/2860455378/samsung-disables-cameras-1800-galaxy-
> z-fold-3-smartphone-if-you-unlock-the-bootloader

apple doesn't do that.

On 27/08/2021 1:29 am, nospam wrote:
> In article <edd9731f-b3c8-4662-83d5-a806b9df315en@googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://www.dpreview.com/news/2860455378/samsung-disables-cameras-1800-galaxy-
>> z-fold-3-smartphone-if-you-unlock-the-bootloader
>
> apple doesn't do that.
>

Jeepers, Apple would never do anything restrictive to their disciples,
would they ?

geoff

In article <8ZWdnSOdsJvIwrX8nZ2dnUU7-LudnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >> https://www.dpreview.com/news/2860455378/samsung-disables-cameras-1800-gala
> >> xy-z-fold-3-smartphone-if-you-unlock-the-bootloader
> >
> > apple doesn't do that.
> >
>
> Jeepers, Apple would never do anything restrictive to their disciples,
> would they ?

apple does not disable hardware if an iphone is jailbroken.

On 27/08/2021 4:06 pm, nospam wrote:
> In article <8ZWdnSOdsJvIwrX8nZ2dnUU7-LudnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
> <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>
>>>> https://www.dpreview.com/news/2860455378/samsung-disables-cameras-1800-gala
>>>> xy-z-fold-3-smartphone-if-you-unlock-the-bootloader
>>>
>>> apple doesn't do that.
>>>
>>
>> Jeepers, Apple would never do anything restrictive to their disciples,
>> would they ?
>
> apple does not disable hardware if an iphone is jailbroken.
>

No it just fucks with the battery life to encourage users to upgrade.

geoff

In article <lf-dncG-m9qfALX8nZ2dnUU7-cOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> No it just fucks with the battery life to encourage users to upgrade.

(GRIN) The reality is just the opposite. If you actually READ what
people were getting hysterical about, the OS was doing some fairly
sophisticated battery management to make sure the customer got the best
experience as long as possible. This could involve well-used phones
being throttled back a bit to save their depleted batteries, and other
tweaks. The worst that could be said is that the process wasn't fully
transparent to the user.

In article <lf-dncG-m9qfALX8nZ2dnUU7-cOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, geoff
<geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >>>> https://www.dpreview.com/news/2860455378/samsung-disables-cameras-1800-ga
> >>>> la
> >>>> xy-z-fold-3-smartphone-if-you-unlock-the-bootloader
> >>>
> >>> apple doesn't do that.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Jeepers, Apple would never do anything restrictive to their disciples,
> >> would they ?
> >
> > apple does not disable hardware if an iphone is jailbroken.
> >
>
> No it just fucks with the battery life to encourage users to upgrade.

nonsense. apple did no such thing and such a claim is pure idiocy.

if any company intentionally gimped a product, people would switch to a
competing product, no matter what it was.

it's a ridiculously stupid claim.

*all* batteries age, no matter what device, and older batteries do not
perform as well as they do when new. there's no getting around that and
it's not unique to apple.

that's why an older car battery might be able to start the engine,
especially on a cold day. it's why older batteries in a camera flash
won't recycle the flash, but will work fine in a low demand device,
such as a radio.

what apple did was directly address the issue of aging batteries and
peak demands to *extend* the useful life of the battery and the device
itself so that users did *not* need to upgrade, the very opposite of
your claim.

android device makers ignored the problem of aging batteries entirely,
leaving users with phones that suddenly shut down, went into boot loops
or various other problems.

In article <270820210654118985%not@aol.com>, Scott Schuckert
<not@aol.com> wrote:

>
> > No it just fucks with the battery life to encourage users to upgrade.
>
> (GRIN) The reality is just the opposite. If you actually READ what
> people were getting hysterical about, the OS was doing some fairly
> sophisticated battery management to make sure the customer got the best
> experience as long as possible. This could involve well-used phones
> being throttled back a bit to save their depleted batteries, and other
> tweaks. The worst that could be said is that the process wasn't fully
> transparent to the user.

yep.

nobody actually reads any details anymore.

apple was fixing a problem so that the user *didn't* need to upgrade.

gimping a product will only encourage someone to upgrade to a competing
product. it's a stupid claim.

On 2021-08-26 03:39, RichA wrote:

<nonsense>