HN Explorer

11 comments

[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 49.1 ms ] thread
meritt
> to prevent unintended shutdowns and extend battery life

The cynic in me thinks it's actually to encourage new hardware upgrades.

soneil
That's basically the gist of it.

Everyone's decided what they want the answer to be. Now it's just a case of trying to shoehorn the facts to fit.

If they didn't scale back on lower voltages, people would just claim they're trying to kill the battery quicker so you buy a new handset ..

yoodenvranx
Apple could just install batteries with 50% more capacity that can survive a full day of use even if the phone is two years old.
Angostura
They do (source: my iPhone 6, bought on launch easily survives a day of heavy use)
IceyEC
On the other hand, my 6, same purchase day, can barely survive a full day of light use, and requires additional charging throughout the day if I'm calling or texting much
hguhghuff
If this were true it would be a user option, not hidden and unchangable.
MagnumOpus
Well, the correct way to decide is to create a testable hypothesis that differs in outcomes between taking care of aging batteries and planned obsolescence, and then test it.

Hypothesis: If they wanted to take care of batteries/battery life, the phone/tablet would resume running at full clock speed when plugged in and charging.

Test outcome: This is not the case.

Verdict: Hmmmm...

covermydonkey
Well, all we need to do is check which cost center paid for the implementation. If it was Sales & Marketing, we have our answer ;)
hguhghuff
This should be taken up by consumer affairs.

It's a deliberate strategy to slow down old devices with no way to turn it off.

Sneaky and underhanded Apple.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)