I call bullshit. Reading the cached version, this is poorly disguised marketing lies for a third battery replacement service.
The test scenario was not described, this is only one sample which could have been selected and the source is not credible.
After 12 months of heavy daily usage on my 6s, I'm seeing 87% battery capacity left as an example after over 312 cycles. I am also seeing the same benchmark as the day I got it.
Yeah, I'm sort of getting the same whiff of bullshit. My dev iPhone shows 611 cycles and 86% capacity, with the same GeekBench scores around 1500/2600.
I know that's just one data point, but I'm super-sceptical given all of the misinformation that's been floating around about this topic.
My 6s plus is almost 2 years old and the battery life app is showing 76%.
Have not benchmarked it but it was only slow for a week or two after upgrading to iOS 11 and seems fine now. Did not notice slowdowns when using iOS 10 (which was when throttling was introduced)
My almost 3 year old iPhone 6 Plus shows the same scores as the the brand new one in that article, it even is a bit faster.
All i did recently was to reset the OS because it felt very sluggish on iOS 11 and after the reset it got a lot better.
I know that this article states a well-known fact at this point, but I can't overlook that it is on the homepage of a company that sells battery replacement services for iPhones.
EDIT: Also note that Apple as of today is offering battery replacement services themselves at $29. [1]
I took mine iPhone 6 in last night, was told about the $29 program, and asked if I wanted to wait. I said to go ahead and when I picked it up today I was only charged the $29.
So, just replace my battery every few months? That's OK? NO.
I'm losing respect for Apples mobile hardware line. So what if their SoC is amazing, if it is downclocked every month. Review benchmarks are dishonest if not taking this into account.
Everyone defending Apple's behavior is missing the point completely. Yes, it's a reasonable way to manage degrading battery life and related electronic issues.
What's NOT reasonable is Apple CONCEALING this behavior. This led people to believe that they needed a new $1000 phone, instead of a $79 battery replacement.
My phone gives me a warning notification if performance might be getting degraded because the storage is getting full, and provides suggested actions to delete stuff stored locally.
Something about replacing the battery would have been perfectly reasonable for Apple to have suggested similarly, since we know the hardware can detect poor battery performance. Of course, we know why they didn't do this; it would cut into sales of new models.
With the phone under warranty the new battery would be Apple's problem. This is about a defective product and fraud to cover it up, for reasons of cost.
More importantly, why have they designed their phones to exhaust their batteries so quickly? Either their processors are overspeced or their batteries are underspeced. This puts an asterisk next to all the benchmark numbers Apple loves to tout so much.
And it's also very important to consider the context: Apple is a company which earns the bulk of their revenue through new hardware sales. As opposed to their other issues (e.g. AntennaGate), concealing the performance degradation directly drove new sales and profits. It's significantly harder to give them the benefit of doubt when taking into consideration their hardware-sales focused business and the fact that they're actively fighting against right to repair legislation.
+1000. None of the Apple fanboys are willing to think in this direction. They are cozy and comfortable in their bubble. Apple did something here that is not trustworthy.
I bought a new iPhone every 2 or 3 years because of the slowdowns. I would have paid 29 euros for a new battery had I known that it would restore performance. Shit like this makes me hate the iPhone X I’m typing this on. I was thinking of getting an Apple watch but I will not buy it because I don’t trust them anymore. They better restore trust or it will cost them a lot of sales in the long run. Making phones with replacable batteries would be a good start.
It looks like the CPU-slowdown-for-old-battery thing was only introduced about a year ago. So you can probably blame your X purchase on this (especially if you came from a 6 or maybe 6S -- a 7 should not have been significantly affected unless there is a bigger battery issue with it), but before then your older phone were probably "naturally" slow.
To be clear, unless I have completely misunderstood this issue, this throttling feature was only introduced in iOS 10.2.1 – which was released less than a year ago.
If you have been experiencing slowdowns prior to that, then it seems like it would be a different issue?
Apple kept silent everytime the slowdowns were discussed. They could have come forward many years ago, but it’s only after they took it a step too far with the iPhone 6 and people had definate proof that they came forward. I gave my iPhone 6 away out of frustration with it’s performance, while it was easily worth a hundred or more dollars, even taking the battery costs into account. I’m really, really pissed right now.
Replaceable batteries are going to be the revolutionary new feature on the iPhone 8. It's going to be insanely great and you're going to wonder why everyone doesn't do this with their phones.
With the technological advances of recent years they might even be able to do it on MacBooks too.
I always wonder if slowing down the phone is a good solution. By slowing down the CPU the CPU needs less energy. But at the same time the user has to wait much longer in order to finish what he was trying to do. Thus the screen is on for a longer period of time. Isn't the screen one of the main energy consumers in an iPhone?
Launching apps on my iPhone 6 (which needs a new battery) takes for ages (even when compared to my older but less used iPhone 5S). I can't imagine that the extended "screen lit"-time does not have a big impact as well.
Also: I am one of the few users who would be totally fine with the iPhone shutting down at 20% or so (if I have the full performance as I used to) because my iPhone is rarely going near 20%. At work I can charge. At home I can charge. When I am on the go I usually am not using the phone that much... However playing hearthstone when I am in bed, loading the phone, everything takes much longer as well which makes playing games less fun...
The issue is not specifically about battery life, but about the ability of the battery to provide a stable voltage under load. The voltage of the cells sags more under high current draw as the battery ages; reducing the current draw by throttling the maximum SoC frequency seems to be intended to avoid the problem where the voltage dips to a level that causes the SoC to shut down suddenly.
Edit: I see others have addressed this in the very long time it took me to express myself!
As I understand it, as batteries degrade it's not only the total capacity that drops, but also the voltage the battery can deliver and the CPU requires a certain voltage to run at a higher frequency.
So, a fully charged, yet degraded battery, may have the overall energy needed to run a CPU at normal Mhz, but may not be able to deliver that energy fast enough.
As I understand it, the main issue is that the power output of the batter decreases as it degrades, not just its total capacity. Apple claims that the throttling is needed in order to prevent the processor from automatically shutting off because it can't draw as much power as it requires -- not just to prevent the battery from draining faster.
How did they generate this data? The screenshots say that all of the benchmarks were made within an hour of each other, and out in order of the charge cycles. Are they swapping out batteries?
- Apple makes phones that have batteries normal owners can't replace.
- When the battery degrades the phone's performance degrades.
- Users either pay for a new phone or were paying $80 for new batteries.
- Apple admits the ruse, lowers the replacement cost to $30, basically admitting that $50 was profit.
- Turns out another company already did replacements for $30 and was probably making money on it. So Apple's still likely making money on it.
- Users get upset but line up around the block to buy whatever Apple puts out anyways --
sight unseen.
We get the behavior we incentivize. In this case we get planned obsolescence and shakedowns for repair. Until consumers vote with their wallets, all this kvetching doesn't mean shit.
But this whole controversy reminds me of a few years ago. When people were very happy with their iPhones (including some of my friends), because they manifested and maintained "battery life" that their friends' Android phones did not.
Maybe Apple shouldn't have hidden what they're doing. Maybe it's arguably a legitimate trade secret (I'd hardly be in favor of "patenting" the functionality).
Anyway, now Apple's "shit" for how they manage battery degradation. A couple of years ago, or whenever, before all this upset: They were "the shit" with respect to battery durability -- as perceived by users in their charge lifetimes. At least, among some of my friends. And some press, IIRC. And whatever.
Apple's not magic. Their batteries degrade, too. On the other hand, the vertical integration and efficiencies they are engineering into their newer chipsets? Pretty amazing.
P.S. I'm no Apple Fanboy. Just recalling how perspectives change.
Geekbench CPU scores from the release iPhone 7 running iOS 10 show scores of around 3400/5500. My 14 month old iPhone 7 running 11.2 reports around 3500/5900.
So no slow down on this model. Battery capacity it as 87%.
It's funny that most everyone I know with 6 or 6s has problems (slow, bad battery) and everyone I know (including mysel) with 7 has no problems what-so-ever. Maybe 6 was just a bad product?
I don't think this is true beyond benchmarks. They stress test the CPU and that's when the throttling hits the hardest. It's throttling peaks in CPU usage, and a benchmark is all peak.
So this sounds like a worst case scenario. Actual use can be completely different.
Not defending Apple though. This complete lack of communication over an obviously controversial choice is amateurish. So much of this could have been easily avoided by clearly mentioning it in a Beta release, along with of course implmenting an on/off switch!
Do bear in mind the issue in question is voltage spikes (which cause unexpected shutdown), that's what Apple is trying to prevent. Most of the time there'll be no performance impact, it would just lower how far the phone can boost clock speed when it needs it, I'm guessing? So it would affect the peak (and therefore mean) performance, but not the mode or median, I think?
This is making an interesting case for using an external battery case to keep the phone at 100% more often and reduce charge cycles.
I wonder if the comparable battery performance gaps perceived by for many Android users will be seen as closer than we thought - of Android devices secretly dialed down its devices would they have much better battery life.
Interesting for me is that my iPhone 4 is much faster than my iPhone 5S. And the battery lasts much longer on my 4.
I think what Apple changed these days is that the latest version of iOS works both on 5+, while I remember my iPhone 4 was stuck with old version and I was never able to upgrade it.
I have an android phone - the nexus 5 and it's a total shitbag right now. It seems like it's slowed down massively. I can't imagine this is only apple.
[+] [-] cjsuk|8 years ago|reply
The test scenario was not described, this is only one sample which could have been selected and the source is not credible.
After 12 months of heavy daily usage on my 6s, I'm seeing 87% battery capacity left as an example after over 312 cycles. I am also seeing the same benchmark as the day I got it.
[+] [-] matthewmacleod|8 years ago|reply
I know that's just one data point, but I'm super-sceptical given all of the misinformation that's been floating around about this topic.
[+] [-] turtlebits|8 years ago|reply
Have not benchmarked it but it was only slow for a week or two after upgrading to iOS 11 and seems fine now. Did not notice slowdowns when using iOS 10 (which was when throttling was introduced)
[+] [-] kayoone|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] styfle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frik|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kipari|8 years ago|reply
EDIT: Also note that Apple as of today is offering battery replacement services themselves at $29. [1]
[1]: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/12/30/29-battery-repl...
[+] [-] nnutter|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thezilch|8 years ago|reply
I'm losing respect for Apples mobile hardware line. So what if their SoC is amazing, if it is downclocked every month. Review benchmarks are dishonest if not taking this into account.
[+] [-] Nullabillity|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwaway12351|8 years ago|reply
What's NOT reasonable is Apple CONCEALING this behavior. This led people to believe that they needed a new $1000 phone, instead of a $79 battery replacement.
[+] [-] CydeWeys|8 years ago|reply
Something about replacing the battery would have been perfectly reasonable for Apple to have suggested similarly, since we know the hardware can detect poor battery performance. Of course, we know why they didn't do this; it would cut into sales of new models.
[+] [-] maoistinquisitr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m52go|8 years ago|reply
Why they wouldn't also do this on their phones is mighty suspicious.
[+] [-] cageface|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izacus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perseusprime11|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kipari|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|8 years ago|reply
Companies don’t typically tell you the bad news.
We should push companies for the right to repair:
https://ifixit.org/right
[+] [-] spiderfarmer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmull|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthewmacleod|8 years ago|reply
If you have been experiencing slowdowns prior to that, then it seems like it would be a different issue?
[+] [-] spiderfarmer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cptskippy|8 years ago|reply
With the technological advances of recent years they might even be able to do it on MacBooks too.
/Sarcasm
[+] [-] LinaLauneBaer|8 years ago|reply
Launching apps on my iPhone 6 (which needs a new battery) takes for ages (even when compared to my older but less used iPhone 5S). I can't imagine that the extended "screen lit"-time does not have a big impact as well.
Also: I am one of the few users who would be totally fine with the iPhone shutting down at 20% or so (if I have the full performance as I used to) because my iPhone is rarely going near 20%. At work I can charge. At home I can charge. When I am on the go I usually am not using the phone that much... However playing hearthstone when I am in bed, loading the phone, everything takes much longer as well which makes playing games less fun...
[+] [-] matthewmacleod|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmull|8 years ago|reply
As I understand it, as batteries degrade it's not only the total capacity that drops, but also the voltage the battery can deliver and the CPU requires a certain voltage to run at a higher frequency.
So, a fully charged, yet degraded battery, may have the overall energy needed to run a CPU at normal Mhz, but may not be able to deliver that energy fast enough.
[+] [-] __init|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icegreentea2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|8 years ago|reply
- Apple makes phones that have batteries normal owners can't replace.
- When the battery degrades the phone's performance degrades.
- Users either pay for a new phone or were paying $80 for new batteries.
- Apple admits the ruse, lowers the replacement cost to $30, basically admitting that $50 was profit.
- Turns out another company already did replacements for $30 and was probably making money on it. So Apple's still likely making money on it.
- Users get upset but line up around the block to buy whatever Apple puts out anyways -- sight unseen.
We get the behavior we incentivize. In this case we get planned obsolescence and shakedowns for repair. Until consumers vote with their wallets, all this kvetching doesn't mean shit.
[+] [-] mcphage|8 years ago|reply
£30, which is $40.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|8 years ago|reply
But this whole controversy reminds me of a few years ago. When people were very happy with their iPhones (including some of my friends), because they manifested and maintained "battery life" that their friends' Android phones did not.
Maybe Apple shouldn't have hidden what they're doing. Maybe it's arguably a legitimate trade secret (I'd hardly be in favor of "patenting" the functionality).
Anyway, now Apple's "shit" for how they manage battery degradation. A couple of years ago, or whenever, before all this upset: They were "the shit" with respect to battery durability -- as perceived by users in their charge lifetimes. At least, among some of my friends. And some press, IIRC. And whatever.
Apple's not magic. Their batteries degrade, too. On the other hand, the vertical integration and efficiencies they are engineering into their newer chipsets? Pretty amazing.
P.S. I'm no Apple Fanboy. Just recalling how perspectives change.
[+] [-] KKKKkkkk1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnarayanan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knolan|8 years ago|reply
So no slow down on this model. Battery capacity it as 87%.
[+] [-] nofilter|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jug|8 years ago|reply
So this sounds like a worst case scenario. Actual use can be completely different.
Not defending Apple though. This complete lack of communication over an obviously controversial choice is amateurish. So much of this could have been easily avoided by clearly mentioning it in a Beta release, along with of course implmenting an on/off switch!
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|8 years ago|reply
Correct me if I'm wrong.
[+] [-] snissn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j45|8 years ago|reply
I wonder if the comparable battery performance gaps perceived by for many Android users will be seen as closer than we thought - of Android devices secretly dialed down its devices would they have much better battery life.
[+] [-] drinchev|8 years ago|reply
I think what Apple changed these days is that the latest version of iOS works both on 5+, while I remember my iPhone 4 was stuck with old version and I was never able to upgrade it.
[+] [-] kayoone|8 years ago|reply
Single Core Score 1518, Multicore 2607
These are better than the 0 day scores in that article, which seems weird. My phone must have close to 900 charging cycles by now, if not more.
[+] [-] p0wn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluedino|8 years ago|reply