Active Obscelecense

[Tin Pot]

...just degraded

Aren’t we all?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

He's got a flat battery.

Not flat, just degraded

Which means it will take him 10 days to type a reply at current Apple iPhone CPU speeds.

 

[theclaud]

You do know that the article says the exact opposite of your assertion, right?

Any chance of a summary, Smeglington, for those of us that are interested in the obsolescence issue but too bored by iPhones to take in the detail?

 

[John the Monkey]

You do know that the article says the exact opposite of your assertion, right?

Yeah, well, you can prove anything with facts though.

 

[Dave 123]

I'm still using an iPhone 5S (now the oldest model that is still supported) and generally find the performance to be fine - I can't say I've noticed it becoming especially slower over time.

However, it has developed one annoying quirk, which is that it will sometimes shut down and demand to be recharged even though moments before it was showing >20% battery. I'm guessing that's to do with what it says in the Guardian piece about the degraded battery not being able to supply enough current for apps that require more processor power. Interesting.

Anyway, I'm sticking with my 5S for now - it's still fine for my needs. I decided last time my contract expired that I will never sign up to a long term phone contract ever again, so I will only buy a new phone when I can afford to buy it outright.

I had the same problem. Today I took my 5s in and the lad said that the battery had expanded due to chemical something or other. He gave me a new phone for free.

 

[Cycleops]

They have now admitted it:
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/apple-admits-to-slowing-older-iphones-480227

 

[smutchin]

That piece confirms what I guessed at - that the reason for slowing the performance is to prevent the phone shutting down when the processor load gets too high. Obviously they haven't implemented this feature on older models than the 6, though, so I will continue to have this problem on my 5S.

Sounds like a benefit to users, rather than the cynical marketing ploy that some are claiming.

 

[smutchin]

I don't think anyone has any problem with the idea of people paying a premium price for a premium product - it's their money.

I do - not in itself, perhaps, but because it's symptomatic of wider and extremely serious problems (environmental concerns, inequality/poverty, exploitation, rampant consumerism etc) but that's straying into "politics" so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Cycleops]

Apple are past masters at this sort of thing. If I use a non apple charging lead it will slow the charging down.
Similar issue if you replace the screen.

 

[smutchin]

Unsolicited advice and rude dismissal of other people's life choices is always soooo welcome.

 

[Tim Hall]

[QUOTE 5087387, member: 45"]Moto G5. £170.

Anyone who thinks they need to spend more on a phone is a nobber.[/QUOTE]
You paid a hundred and seventy bar for a G5? Nobber Mine was a fair bit less than that.

 

[Tin Pot]

Performance costs power, so reducing performance slightly could counter the declining battery life...for example.

Boom. Called it.

 

[Drago]

Except, as many pundits are now pointing out to Apple, that's not really very useful. By running slower the processor runs for longer, so by the time its completed a given task any saving is negligible.

 

[Andy_R]

And...by slowing down the processor, the manufacturer has possibly illegally altered the performance ability of a device not owned by them. The device was bought by the consumer for it's ability to do x,y,z at n speed. The manufacturer has reduced it's ability to do x,y,z at n speed. Without the permission of the owner who bought it based on the speed it could do x,y,z. Then they released a product that was able to do vw,x,y,z at n speed (notice how I sneaked in a vw reference there regarding performance hiking - sometimes I'm so clever, I could be conned and buy an iPhone)