Hacker News Reader

Comment by leereeves | Hacker News Reader

My second post addressed your claim that these issues are "well-designed compromises" by disproving it with counterexamples.

MagSafe was at once an example of a port changed (MagSafe 1 to 2) and a feature removed (replaced with USB) that didn't fit your explanation "removing a common failure point". Even Apple didn't try to claim that slowing down old phones was a well-designed compromise; instead, they apologized. And there are many examples of Apple removing apps for reasons other than "app quality/safety", for one such example, see my response to sibling reply.

These are not "other different issues", these are counterexamples. They may not be the issues you thought of when you read my first post but they were some of the issues I was thinking of.

View on HN

"About a year ago in iOS 10.2.1, we delivered a software update that improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE. With the update, iOS dynamically manages the maximum performance of some system components when needed to prevent a shutdown. While these changes may go unnoticed, in some cases users may experience longer launch times for apps and other reductions in performance." https://www.apple.com/iphone-battery-and-performance/

Unexpected shutdowns vs. longer app launch times and other reductions in performance. a compromise.

Quote the whole phrase: a "well-designed compromise". What's well-designed about secret behavior that angers users?

But it's hard to trust that statement anyway. I'd be more likely to trust them if they'd reported that on their own, instead of hiding it for a year then issuing a PR statement when users proved it was happening.

And if that statement wasn't contradicted by their behavior in shutting down phones after the screen was replaced.

"First and foremost, we have never — and would never — do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades."

...

They forgot to mention the "unless the user tries to repair it" exception.

That's a ... highly rose-colored ... definition of what the issue was.

And if it was such a good, but misunderstood feature, why wasn't it touted as such in the first place, but denied initially, and then only acknowledged apologetically with the removal of such?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com