Thanks Apple PR.
I'm not a shill, BTW. I was affected by this and think Apple stinks for letting it get to this point. I found out my iPhone 6+ was running at 600Mhz most of the time when it would normally would run at 1400Mhz (going by CPU DasherX). Also, the real world user-experience seemed to be even worse than those numbers, so my guess is there are things affected even more by this than CPU clock.
But I just don't generally expect tech companies to always get it right, especially not the first time. I think this is just being realistic. So for me, the question is, how do they respond when they screw up. I think this response is excellent of Apple, except that it took too long. Knocking some points off for that, it still comes out to "good", IMO.
I think you're being far too generous to Apple. I won't repeat my previous comment on this thread, but the gist is they knew what they were doing, they knew rumors were swirling for years about slowing down older devices, and they certainly knew that slowed devices encouraged increased participation in their incremental update-oriented product roadmap.
There is no reason they couldn't have been transparent about this much earlier and, AFAIK, no technical reason this battery management software couldn't have been released earlier.
Given this context, to say they're just figuring it all out and suggest we should ignore their "mistake" and give them credit because they are now doing the right thing does seem a bit naive.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/04/04/apple...
Let's see what Google says and does instead for their source code:
"We also wanted to make sure there was no central point of failure, where one industry player could restrict or control the innovations of any other. The result is a full, production-quality operating system for consumer products with source code open for customization and porting."
Let's see in terms of Android hardware, what you can get on Amazon that will outperform a $500 iPhone 6s and has better specs.
http://a.co/b16AAfJ http://a.co/d4XxSlO
Those are just two options, both better specs and over $300 cheaper. What is Apple really selling you aside from a status symbol and the feeling that you belong to some unique elitist club?
I don't think I can respond to all of it.
I don't even necessarily disagree with your conclusion -- at the moment, I don't know enough to decide if Apple, all things weighed, is predominantly "good" or "bad", relative to what you might be able to expect from a large corporation. I probably never will.
But if I think it's a fairly extraordinary claim if you think Google is relatively "good". As I see it, for Apple, the iPhone is the product and I'm the customer. For Google, I'm the product and advertisers are the customer. That doesn't mean Apple never jerks me around. Sure they do. But Apple jerks me around when they screw up, and Google jerks me around when they are doing their job right.
> What is Apple really selling you aside from a status symbol and the feeling that you belong to some unique elitist club?
Hm. I've heard this kind of thing before but I just can't see how the iPhone can be conceived of as a status symbol or a sign of an elitist unique club. Hundreds of millions of people are walking around with these phones (and everyone knows this). I realize it can be different in different parts of the world, but in the U.S., where I live, there's no sense of exclusivity or luxury from owning an iPhone, at least not in the middle class circles I run in. In fact, it seems the iPhone does the best in richer economies -- places where it is NOT a sign of luxury or exclusivity. Think about it. I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the appeal of these devices.
https://github.com/ncw/rclone/issues/1778
I don't even want to get into AirPods that are excessively marked up pretty much like every Apple accessory and product:
If it isn't about status, then I don't really get why people would choose this path. It doesn't make sense to me. I work in the tech industry and watch people spend $3k all the time for Apple computers and equipment that I can get the same or better specs for half the price by choosing a different company. Maybe I've just never felt it was very ethical to support a business that overcharges for devices that can help educate and provide tools and training to people. I always felt it was the responsibility of companies like this to make their equipment and software as equally accessible as possible, not actively exploit people through social engineering. Not everyone will agree with this, but that is my perception.