They don’t talk about low level details like that. Their whole pitch is abstracting away stuff you don’t need to worry about. “We’re lowering the peak clock 5% if your battery can’t deliver for it” not seeing any explicit attention when it doesn’t actually have any real world impact is really just not a big deal. The “power management” they included it as is exactly what it was .
The “your battery is basically dead” message they ended up adding does have value, but nobody else did that at the time either. They just crashed instead of marginally downclocking, and Apple’s lawsuit here is the product of being the first to make efforts to actually solve the problem for their customers.
The message was added after they were called out right?
A company can increase performance of the original device and not mention it that’s up to them as you’re getting more than you paid for now. Lowering the original performance without mentioning it I think should be mentioned as now you’re getting less than you originally paid for regardless if it’s perceptible to the user or not just a bit of transparency.
I definitely agree that the device just shutting off at 30% battery is a super shitty experience and I’m glad they did attempt to resolve that don’t get me wrong. I just personally think they could have said hey we’re doing this to improve your experience that’s it.
They didn’t lower the performance of the device. They improved the performance for the devices affected. Without lowering the peak clocks the system thought it could handle, the device didn’t do better. It hard crashed and shut the system off, presumably losing portions of whatever it was doing in the process.
I personally would prefer Apple (and everyone else) make slightly more detailed update descriptions available on a separate channel, but the main update notes should be just broad strokes IMO. Regardless, yes, the notification they eventually added was a good idea that added value. I just don’t think portraying it as anything other than “something that didn’t occur to them, because literally no one else did anything like it either” is responsible at all.
People still reference this nonsense and the suits that should have the attorneys involved disciplined for frivolous time wasting as “Apple is trying to force you to buy new phones” when their old devices consistently maintain their resale value far better than the rest of the field and the very obvious intent of this specific action was strictly beneficial to their customers. It would have been slightly more beneficial to do the “your battery doesn’t work” message sooner, but you’d have ended up with just as much manufactured outrage if they were slightly too inclusive in who got that message.
Yeah, however them not being transparent and telling users that’s why they were doing it is also pretty shitty.
They don’t talk about low level details like that. Their whole pitch is abstracting away stuff you don’t need to worry about. “We’re lowering the peak clock 5% if your battery can’t deliver for it” not seeing any explicit attention when it doesn’t actually have any real world impact is really just not a big deal. The “power management” they included it as is exactly what it was .
The “your battery is basically dead” message they ended up adding does have value, but nobody else did that at the time either. They just crashed instead of marginally downclocking, and Apple’s lawsuit here is the product of being the first to make efforts to actually solve the problem for their customers.
The message was added after they were called out right?
A company can increase performance of the original device and not mention it that’s up to them as you’re getting more than you paid for now. Lowering the original performance without mentioning it I think should be mentioned as now you’re getting less than you originally paid for regardless if it’s perceptible to the user or not just a bit of transparency.
I definitely agree that the device just shutting off at 30% battery is a super shitty experience and I’m glad they did attempt to resolve that don’t get me wrong. I just personally think they could have said hey we’re doing this to improve your experience that’s it.
The message was added later.
They didn’t lower the performance of the device. They improved the performance for the devices affected. Without lowering the peak clocks the system thought it could handle, the device didn’t do better. It hard crashed and shut the system off, presumably losing portions of whatever it was doing in the process.
I personally would prefer Apple (and everyone else) make slightly more detailed update descriptions available on a separate channel, but the main update notes should be just broad strokes IMO. Regardless, yes, the notification they eventually added was a good idea that added value. I just don’t think portraying it as anything other than “something that didn’t occur to them, because literally no one else did anything like it either” is responsible at all.
People still reference this nonsense and the suits that should have the attorneys involved disciplined for frivolous time wasting as “Apple is trying to force you to buy new phones” when their old devices consistently maintain their resale value far better than the rest of the field and the very obvious intent of this specific action was strictly beneficial to their customers. It would have been slightly more beneficial to do the “your battery doesn’t work” message sooner, but you’d have ended up with just as much manufactured outrage if they were slightly too inclusive in who got that message.
I’ve been saying this ever since I made that post on Reddit. The fix is not the problem, the lack of communication is.
Still salty that the news interviews cut that part of my statement out, tbh, but I was young and naive enough to be surprised at the time