Notice that Apple admits it did this, for the date that makes sense for what the user is claiming.
The only debate point is whether they actually did it for the reason of trying to save failing batteries, or whether that was a smokescreen for incentivizing users to buy a new device.
Given the evidence, I think it's wrong to call for receipts here.
It did for me. I had a phone that would suddenly die whenever I used it for anything too intensive, especially whenever the battery was under 40%.
The update fixed it.
It was annoying coming and going to the Apple Store. But hey - replacing my 3yr old phone with a new refurb for $30? That was a great deal.
But why do it before you need to? I'd vastly prefer my OS to be able to continue supporting a degraded battery before I get a chance to replace it, rather than just shut down without warning.
I then went ahead and disabled that thing and, sure enough, it started randomly crashing when the battery wasn't full. I then went in and changed the battery for the same price as my previous Samsung's battery would have cost (plus the annoying fact of having to schedule the visit). It did get somewhat faster (not sure whether placebo or not) for another 2-3 years until the battery started swelling and I replaced the phone (I need it to be relatively waterproof, since I use it often as a GPS on my motorbike).
I do concede that I did find it weird and user hostile that, once you'd disable the "protection" mode, you wouldn't be able to turn it back on. Just like I find it odd that that specific model couldn't do the "trickle charge overnight" thing. And that my current iphone14 pro can't be told to stop charging at 80%, whereas newer models can.
It was a pretty lame thing to do, but the phone still worked.
When I put it up, it was fine.
Compare this to an EeePC, where it happily runs a web browser in Gentoo, snappy. The EeePC is two or three years older, and cost half as much as the nexus.
If i said "i put it up in a cabinet because trying to watch youtube on it was becoming a hassle" would that change anything? I put it up for a reason, but i can't remember why. It wasn't because i bought another tablet, because i never have.
Did it break? Yes. I'm counting super slowdown as breaking.
Was it unrelated to updates? I can't be 100% sure but your description of what happened sounds like it was unrelated to updates.
Is that what you're asking? I'm confused.
sure is a coincidence that this mirrors other people's experiences.
i still have the nexus. I can mail it to you and you can then diagnose it and be 100% certain that it wasn't updates. Then you can be correct on the internet.
or, here, i am wrong. It wasn't updates. It was crap "google" hardware and planned obsolescence. Or stray gamma rays.
You're right!
At least I think you are? You're being so hostile out of nowhere that it makes your comments hard to follow.
and like i said, you're welcome to my tablet, i'll mail it to you, then you can be certain you are correct.
And this idea that I'm super insisting on being right about your tablet... you pulled that out of nowhere. Do you do this any time someone disagrees with you?
I'm sure these two things are unrelated.
I've had several Android devices from several manufacturers experience the same issues whether or not they got updates.
was the flash quality poor on purpose? that's planned obsolescence, too.
A "user-serviceable battery," by requirements, is going to be a hard shell plastic sort of thing - which means a decent fraction of the "total battery space" is a protective layer, not active cell components - so some significantly reduced capacity compared to having a "non-replaceable" battery ("slightly more difficult to replace"). You also end up having to devote space to whatever mechanisms keep the rear shell in place, and may have a harder time waterproofing it as a result (which seems to be standard anymore - the number of people I see at the gym using their phones in the hot tub or sauna is boggling).
Batteries, under light use of phones not kept in pockets, last a very long time - 3-5 years isn't unreasonable, and many will last longer. Batteries, under heavy use of a phone kept in a pocket and run hard, will still typically last 1.5-2 years. So in exchange for "slightly more inconvenience less than annually," you get a good bit more capacity and runtime.
Apple, in general, hasn't made their batteries nonsensically hard to replace. They've used the "pull tab sticky" sort of thing for some while, which is far nicer than "glue the whole thing down," and their newer devices are using some sort of electrically released magic (apply 9V to the adhesive, battery pops out).
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
It's so weird that we just come to expect to be screwed on these phones, when if it was anything else, especially the sort of devices that are more commercially focused than consumer, you'd demand better.
Manufacturers put water-sensitive indicators in electronics to flag this during warranty claims. Before water resistant phones, people would desperately google for how to save their phones.
> don't care about phone thinness either
There are rumors the next iPhone with have a thin model. You should also look into the original Motorola Razr. It was the original sexy phone precisely because of how thin it was.
The number of people using their phones in the hot tub, or in the sauna, astounds me on a regular basis. I can't imagine doing that. But, with modern devices being genuinely "drop them in the pool" grade waterproof, neither does it seem likely to be a problem.
I'll agree on thinness, though. The number of phones in massive, chunky cases says "A lot of people don't care about thin."
and the number of people who desperately look for a way to replace their batteries or upgrade to a new model just because their phone battery degraded is quite saddening.
They care about thin, but they also care about the fragility of metal and glass backs.
However it’s worth noting that in the era you described where phones had replaceable batteries, water damage was also a lot less permanent.
Back then, you would whip the battery out, leave the phone in rice for a day, then it would power up the following day as if nothing had happened.
These days I couldn’t see that working even if you could remove the battery. And when you also factor in how much more essential phones are to our every day lives (they’re our wallet, plane boarding pass, health monitors, location tracking for nervous parents, etc. we don’t even remember important phone numbers like we used to). Regardless of whether you agree with all these use cases, it does result in a scenario where water resistance is a lot more important than it used to be.
It’s certainly true from my experience but perhaps others have had different experiences?
Plenty of phones had replaceable batteries, water resistance, and headphone sockets.
Of course, that was before Apple issued the edict that it was impossible.
Oh, and it also had a headphone jack.
Removable batteries were useful in two situations: before a phone could last all day, swapping batteries was handy for people who spent a lot of time away from chargers … but most people don’t need that very often, if at all. The other situation is a few years in, when the battery life is starting to be noticeably worse. For that to be a big deal, it has to happen before you want to buy a new phone for other reasons. This is a valid complaint but you only experience it every few years and can fix it by spending the equivalent of a month of phone service and waiting roughly the amount of time it takes you to get lunch.
Now, what did we gain? Using a sealed battery made phones far more durable – people used to joke about dropping their phone and having the battery fly out! – and especially made it easier to make them dust and waterproof. It also made them cheaper, smaller, lighter, and sturdier.
So basically the average buyer gave up benefits they rarely used in exchange for things they noticed literally every time they picked up the phone. The day the iPhone came out, the entire market re-evaluated what they wanted in a phone and almost everyone decided that they didn’t make 18 hour flights with no charging often enough to give up that solid, luxury feel. Just as Google’s software developers made a crash project to copy the iOS UI, the hardware designers saw the lines around the block at Apple Stores and correctly concluded that nobody minded the drawbacks of a sealed battery.
I don't spend $90-100 on service. So make that three months. With 1/5 or less of the price going to the actual battery.
> people used to joke about dropping their phone and having the battery fly out!
You can solve that with a screw.
> The day the iPhone came out, the entire market re-evaluated what they wanted in a phone and almost everyone decided that they didn’t make 18 hour flights with no charging often enough to give up that solid, luxury feel.
Things have changed a lot since then. Batteries are huge, chips are efficient, and phones are thinner. These days the loss of half a millimeter of battery, or making the phone half a millimeter thicker, would be just fine in a ton of cases.
> cheaper, smaller, lighter, and sturdier
The sliver of thickness is real, but you can keep the same sturdiness, and what kind of price difference do you have in mind? If the phone costs a dollar more but you save more than fifty dollars on battery replacement that's a pretty good deal.
> the hardware designers saw the lines around the block at Apple Stores and correctly concluded that nobody minded the drawbacks of a sealed battery.
Ugh. People liking a product is not an endorsement of every single aspect of that product!
The cost of the battery is more than that unless you’re buying no-name fire hazards off of Amazon – and even 20 years ago the batteries cost a similar amount, it’s not like competition was keeping the price down – so you’re looking at something like $50-60 dollars in labor. Not cheap, but clearly not something the average person is changing buying decisions over.
> You can solve that with a screw
We can look at the many, many past devices and learn that it’s not that simple. Those fell out over time due to thermal expansion and contraction, complicated waterproofing, cost more, and added weight and volume – especially when done in a way which was durable and felt solid.
Again, my point isn’t that the sealed case is perfect with no drawbacks of any sort but rather that there was an extended period where people had options on the market, and consistently, overwhelmingly picked the sealed phones. That strongly suggests that people value those everyday benefits more than the cost of replacing a battery. Things like waterproofing are a good example: not having to worry about replacing your phone because of rain or a spill has a peace of mind which most people appreciate because they fear an unexpected $500 loss more than possibly saving $50 on batteries every 2-4 years.
The batteries I looked at through ifixit are $20. No-name goes below $10.
$80 is a significant fraction of a new phone. It definitely affects my purchasing decisions.
> Those fell out over time
I have never heard of this. Do you have a good source?
> and consistently, overwhelmingly picked the sealed phones.
I don't remember high end phones offering much choice in the issue.
> Things like waterproofing are a good example
You can be pretty water-resistant while also having a cover normal people can remove.
Some of the phones rated 9-10 on ifixit have water protection 4 (splashing from any direction for 10 minutes) or 5 (low pressure jets of water).
The cheapest for my phone is $35, and Apple will do it for $90 or third parties for a bit less. If you’re seeing different numbers for your phone, I’m sure that’s true but don’t think it’s fundamentally changing the cost into a number which changes the average phone buyer’s decision. Again, I’m not saying it’s trivial but that people pay hundreds of dollars upfront and usually thousands over the life of the device. There just don’t seem to be that many people who intend to own the same phone for many years and factor the cost of installing a replacement battery into their decision.
> You can be pretty water-resistant while also having a cover normal people can remove.
Yes, nobody has said otherwise. It’s just more expensive and makes a physically larger device if you are making an equivalently durable device because you need to add screws, seals, etc. and make a mechanically more complex case.
Again, my point is simply that the entire phone market had removable batteries but shifted away over roughly a decade and it’s usually a mistake to look at a durable consumer preference and dismiss it as marketing or some kind of conspiracy. Apple is a single vendor so maybe they’re a lost cause but there have been many Android phone makers and their buyers also followed the same trend despite a vocal minority urging otherwise.
It's not a conspiracy that manufacturers will all make a choice that saves 50 cents if 99.9% of people that care will suck it up for other reasons. But if two phones were offered with everything else equal except battery replacement, half a millimeter, and $1 on price, I'm confident that a very significant fraction of people would pick the replaceable battery option.
It's crazy that this has been allowed up until now.
it's not a debate. The option should be given to the user to select - if they want batteries to not fail (as claimed), they can opt in.
The first is that Apple forbids you from downgrading the iPhone to a lower firmware. They're not the only device maker that does this, but this is mostly unique in the realm of "personal computing devices" - I can downgrade most Android phones to a prior Android version through fastboot if I wanted to and usually the only thing blocking you from installing older Windows versions is a lack of driver support for them (same deal with Linux distros). Even macOS at least in the past used to make sure that if you booted from the Recovery partition, it'd contain the installer for the version of macOS you got with the computer. Apple claims it's in name of security, which is probably true (although I do believe that a company like Apple should just maintain at least the last two major versions of it's software at a bare minimum and let users freely move between every version they've ever released - voided warranty is acceptable for this), but it leads into the next point.
Which is that I suspect Apple deliberately "overspecs" the burden of running basic iOS with newer devices. Basically, the iPhone 4 (yes I'm going back this far) last supported iOS 7.1.2, but if you read reports at the time, the actual most performant version of the phone at the time was iOS 6, not iOS 7, which was mostly characterized as being a slow mess on iPhone 4's that Apple only barely patched up to not be device crippling. I've from personal experience seen this pattern repeated over and over until I just switched to Android (with the main reason for doing so being the fact that Apple killed a bunch of older phone games I was playing by killing 32bit support in iOS).
By doing this, they can essentially force people to move to new devices, simply by making the last supported version borderline unusable for regular use. "Batterygate" was essentially the main consequence of this practice, but it was a symptom coming from Apple's support practices, not the cause. It's just something they boiled the frog with (because after the iphone 4, it stopped being reported, although I can personally attest to all their devices that hit EOL in the years afterwards having the exact same issue.)