On 2023-09-12 15:17, badgolferman wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <xn0o6r894423hh7000@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So secretly reducing the capability of the phone without warning
>>>>> customers is the sensible thing to do? Maybe Arlen is right about
>>>>> you after all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to the alternative‹just shutting down without warning?
>>>
>>> That is not the only alternative.
>>
>> what other alternatives do you think there are?
>>
>> when an aging battery can't source sufficient current for high demand
>> loads, the voltage drops below what's needed to operate the device,
>> resulting in a sudden and unexpected shutdown. this is not unique to
>> iphones. it's something that affects all batteries.
>>
>> the only alternative is to limit high demand loads so that the battery
>> is not pushed beyond its limits where shutdowns can happen.
>>
>> as has been said many times before, only the peaks are limited. normal
>> everyday actions (messaging, browsing, email, etc.) are unaffected.
>>
>>> Warning users that their batteries
>>> are dying and will cause problems is a better choice.
>>
>> warning users doesn't change the fact that their phone is at risk for
>> unexpectedly shutting down under load unless peak demands are limited,
>> and they do get a warning after the first shutdown, at which point peak
>> limiting is active.
>>
>>> Give the
>>> consumer the choice of what to do with their purchased device rather
>>> than trick them into buying new ones.
>>
>> nobody is being tricked into buying new phones.
>>
>> in fact, it's the very *opposite* of that.
>>
>> limiting peak demands *extends* the useful life of people's existing
>> phone so that they *don't* need to buy a new one.
>>
>
> Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple’s. What Apple did was
> sneaky and limited the consumer’s control over their own device.
>

Ummmmm... ...no court disagreed with Apple's case either.

A settlement is NOT a finding of guilt.

Of course, you're free to show I'm wrong...

....if you can.

In article <udqo0t$1oqfd$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Give the
> >> consumer the choice of what to do with their purchased device rather
> >> than trick them into buying new ones.
> >
> > nobody is being tricked into buying new phones.
> >
> > in fact, it's the very *opposite* of that.
> >
> > limiting peak demands *extends* the useful life of people's existing
> > phone so that they *don't* need to buy a new one.
> >
>
> Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple¹s.

nope, they settled. further, no court can overrule the laws of physics
(although some have tried).

> What Apple did was
> sneaky and limited the consumer¹s control over their own device.

how did it limit their control? what apple did wad intended so that the
user's device did *not* unexpectedly shut down, thereby making the
device *more* useful. further, sudden shutdowns risk data loss and
hardware damage in extreme cases.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple�s.
>
> nope, they settled.

Only an iKook with a child-like mind would think that Apple settled over a
billion dollars worth of criminal & civil cases - as a gesture of goodwill.

> further, no court can overrule the laws of physics

This statement, which completely ignores that only a small set of Apple
iPhones were affected, shows clearly how incredibly ignorant iKooks are.

>> What Apple did was
>> sneaky and limited the consumer�s control over their own device.
>
> how did it limit their control?

Only a child-like iKook would fail to comprehend that what Apple did was
legally reprehensible - which is why it cost Apple over a billion dollars.

> what apple did wad intended so that the
> user's device did *not* unexpectedly shut down, thereby making the
> device *more* useful.

Only a religious zealot iKook would fail to comprehend what any decent
company would have done is initiate a recall the moment they found out.

> further, sudden shutdowns risk data loss and hardware damage in extreme cases.

Only an iKook would possibly claim that what Apple clearly did to hide
their incompetence in design of the affected iPhones - was to protect us.

On 2023-09-12 21:53, Ankora wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> Apparently no courts agreed with your case nor Apple�s.
>>
>> nope, they settled.
>
> Only an iKook with a child-like mind would think that...

....changing posting nyms will fool anyone, Arlen?

:-)