Apple throttled your iPhone by cutting its speed almost in H

[Jolly Roger]

harry newton <harry@at.invalid> wrote:

HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
the performance of their smartphones."

False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
warning:

<https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130>

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

You will learn two things about little Jimmy Newton very quickly:

1. It changes its name more often than a few here change their socks (those that wear socks).

2. It is looking for validation, not discussion.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[M.L.]

HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
the performance of their smartphones."

False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
warning:

https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130

<from the same stackoverflow thread RE: Samsung Galaxy S3 (9300)>
"It turns out to be a thermal problem. As the app is running the
android battery temperature is rising. At 48 degrees android os has
throttled down the cpu from 1.4 Ghz to 0.8 Ghz."

The difference is that the throttling isn't permanent. Unclear if the
same behavior exists for all Androids.

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-02, M.L <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
the performance of their smartphones."

False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
warning:

https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130

The difference is that the throttling isn't permanenti

Nope; the Apple feature only activates when the OS detects the battery
is unable to provide needed voltage, which fluctuates and is not
permanent or even constant. You've been fed a lie.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[nospam]

In article <i1in4ddkhgq8f5d3ndr0a6kht3v21fmtqs@4ax.com>, M.L.
<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung are
among the major brands quick to stress they see no reason to throttle
the performance of their smartphones."

False. Android phones absolutely do throttle the CPU secretly with no
warning:

https://stackoverflow.com/q/11883404/6540130

from the same stackoverflow thread RE: Samsung Galaxy S3 (9300)
"It turns out to be a thermal problem. As the app is running the
android battery temperature is rising. At 48 degrees android os has
throttled down the cpu from 1.4 Ghz to 0.8 Ghz."

The difference is that the throttling isn't permanent.

it's not permanent on iphones either.

only *peak* loads are limited, where the battery can't source the
necessary current. had that not been done, the phone would likely
suddenly shut down.

the rest of the time, when the battery is not being pushed hard,
there's no throttling because the battery is capable of providing the
needed power.

Unclear if the
same behavior exists for all Androids.

all mobile devices vary cpu speed and other subsystems based on load.

to not do so is stupid.

 

[harry newton]

He who is nospam said on Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:38:29 -0500:

> it's not permanent on iphones either.

Apple Apologists seem to believe in the battery fairy.

 

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-02 01:38, harry newton wrote:

I think that's wishful thinking (sans facts) for two big reasons:
1. What you hope goes diametrically against what Apple actually said.
2. Apple didn't change their power-hungry single-threaded architecture.

Apple made big changes starting with the 7 with low power and high power
CPU cores, and with the 8/X, The CPU has more dynamic management of
which core is used.

So with the 8/X, there is a possibility that the "power management" will
just limit processes to the low power cores instead of throttling the
CPUs.

Apple knows how many amps are needed to run the phone, and how many amps
older batteries of certain size can supply. If the needed amps with low
power cores is less than what battery can supply, then no need for
further throttling.

That article clearly says Apple "won't stop" throttling of *all* newer
iPhones after about one year to about half their original CPU speeds.

Articles are speculation. And limiting access to high power cores is a
form of throttling anyways (except it doesn't actually slow down the CPU).

 

[Jolly Roger]

harry newton <harry@at.invalid> wrote:

He who is nospam said on Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:38:29 -0500:

it's not permanent on iphones either.

Apple Apologists

So few facts, so much time. Life's hard for an old troll!

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2018-01-02, harry newton <harry@at.invalid> wrote:

He who is nospam said on Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:38:29 -0500:

it's not permanent on iphones either.

Apple Apologists blah blah blah blah blah.

The old man-child troll is a broken record.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[harry newton]

He who is Jolly Roger said on 2 Jan 2018 22:00:24 GMT:

> So few facts, so much time. Life's hard for an old troll!

Since you're an Apple Apologists, facts are invisible to you.
You do believe in the battery fairy.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can see the fact that are *invisible* to Apple
Apologists.

To wit...
Apple Won't Stop Throttling iPhone Performance

<https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/261243-apple-cuts-battery-replacement-costs-wont-stop-throttling-iphone-performance>

That article clearly says Apple "won't stop" throttling of *all* newer
iPhones after about one year to about half their original CPU speeds.

"The effective cost of buying an Apple device is significantly higher
than it used to be, at least for people who keep their hardware more
than a year"

"Apple acknowledges that it failed to properly inform users about the
changes made in iOS 10.2.1 and the introduction of this throttling."

Another fact that the Apple Apologists will hate is that this is
an Apple-only problem.

"Apple tries to dodge responsibility for its own smartphone designs"
"This is an Apple-only issue."

Everyone (but the Apple Apologists) already knew that this problem is an
Apple-created Apple-design problem, where *all* the major Android
manufacturers have gone on record publicy asserting

"Android phones do not perform this kind of throttling".

Remember, this is an Apple-caused Apple-designed Apple-only problem,
despite nospam's clever hands-caught-in-the-cookie jar Apple Apologists'
attempt at saying Android manufacturers also *secretly*, *permanently*, and
*drastically* throttle CPU speeds of their phones after only one year of
ownership.

Everything I state is a fact; but facts are invisible to Apple Apologists.

 

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:44:02 -0500:

I think that's wishful thinking (sans facts) for two big reasons:
1. What you hope goes diametrically against what Apple actually said.
2. Apple didn't change their power-hungry single-threaded architecture.

Apple made big changes starting with the 7 with low power and high power
CPU cores, and with the 8/X, The CPU has more dynamic management of
which core is used.

JF Mezei,
You're one of the rare people on this newsgroup who can converse like an
adult, so I appreciate that you bring up this great point.

There's *something* different about the iPhone 6's and 7's that Apple felt
the need to secretly permanently reduce the CPU speeds to less than half
the original in just a year - so - we would *hope* that Apple figured out
what it is that only the Apple CPUs exhibit that kills the batteries in a
year.

Let's *hope* they made those changes - but - if they did make those
changes, then why do they definitely throttle the iPhone 7?

And why did they *say* they would throttle *all* their phones in the
future?

Both those are facts.

So if Apple did "improve" the power - why are they still throttling and
planning to throttle the exact phones you say have power improvements?

Those two facts don't mix well.

So with the 8/X, there is a possibility that the "power management" will
just limit processes to the low power cores instead of throttling the
CPUs.

This would be *great* if it is true.
I *hope* it is true.

But then we have to wonder why Apple clearly said they would throttle *all*
their phones going forward.

Maybe ... and this is just conjecture ... Apple wants to settle the court
cases out of court so they don't want to give the court cases ammo by
admitting wrongdoing ... so maybe that's why Apple *said* they would
throttle moving forward (as if that's "normal" for phones).

Dunno. All I can say is that if they did "fix" the power management, then
they wouldn't need to throttle the newer phones - but they clearly said
they would throttle them. So the facts don't line up.

Apple knows how many amps are needed to run the phone, and how many amps
older batteries of certain size can supply. If the needed amps with low
power cores is less than what battery can supply, then no need for
further throttling.

I think Apple learned a lesson here which is they should test their phones
in the real world - and where the real world happens to include weather
colder than it gets in Cupertino and where the real world happens to be
"aged" batteries of at least the warranty period of 1 or 2 years.

I'm with you that Apple will likely *fix* this problem because they know
that people have to be thinking that they pay $1000 for an iPhone X and in
just one year, it's an iPhone 1/2X in terms of CPU speeds. That's horrid.

Nobody wants half an iPhone X in just one year!

So Apple *has* to fix this problem. Remember, despite the FUD that the
Apple Apologists (e.g., nospam & Jolly Roger) try to spew, this is an
Apple-only problem.

So Apple needs to understand what they did wrong, and how to fix it.

To me, the Occam's Razor answer is they need more realistic battery sizing
or actual "dynamic" (and not just "legally semantically dynamic that is
actually permanent" speed optimization), but, we have to let Apple figure
that one out for themselves.

That article clearly says Apple "won't stop" throttling of *all* newer
iPhones after about one year to about half their original CPU speeds.

Articles are speculation. And limiting access to high power cores is a
form of throttling anyways (except it doesn't actually slow down the CPU).

Actually, that's *not* speculation. Apple said it themselves. So it's just
the article saying a fact which is what Apple said it would do.

I suspect that Apple is playing a clever game (as always), which is that
they will vehemently deny wrongdoing all the while trying to combine the
court cases into a single case that they can settle out of court.

I posit that once they settle out of court, they're free to actually
finally admit the truth and fix the problem - but until then - they can't
be open (because anything they admit will be used in court against them).

In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
to solve that it's not funny. But this is a long post so we can leave the
solution to later.

 

[harry newton]

He who is harry newton said on Wed, 3 Jan 2018 05:15:18 +0000 (UTC):

In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
to solve that it's not funny. But this is a long post so we can leave the
solution to later.

Here's what I posit is the easy solution to this Apple-only problem.

1. They will never come clean until they settle the court cases - it's just
not realistic to expect them to tell the truth - so we can expect all sorts
of cleverly crafted statements like that so-called apology until and unless
the combine the court cases and settle them out of court.

2. Once Apple clears that legal hurdle (which will cost them something like
five or ten million dollars and some nearly worthless incentive to
consumers, like free batteries or reduced-price batteries in the future or
discounts on new phones or whatever) ... then Apple can work on a truthful
"fix".

3. The most truthful fix is to eliminate the mandatory throttling - which
is to allow the user to decide if they want half an iPhone X in one year or
not. But of course, that will kill the batteries if the consumer doesn't
opt for half an iPhone X.

4. Hence, the next-most truthful fix is to fix the batteries or to fix the
Apple-only Apple-created problem with power management of those batteries.

Notice if Apple opts for the power management fix, then it's likely going
to be implemented in the next revision *after* the iPhone X because it
might involve changing how they streamline the CPU loads.

If Apple opts to fix the batteries, that has its own problems such as the
back of the phone might need to be enlarged to fit the bigger batteries. If
they can squeeze a better battery out of the current size, then that's fine
- but it's likely not gonna happen - so they have to increase the size of
the phone which will invite all sorts of lawsuits in and of itself.

In the end, Apple *knows* all this - which is why they secretly,
drastically, and permanently chopped CPU speeds in half after just one year
of use in those phones. It was the easy way out of the Apple-created
Apple-only design problem.

The good news is that Apple can make a trade-in of the old phone with the
newer (perhaps slightly bigger) phone as part of their settlement of the
lawsuits. Apple has plenty of money so that is the option that is probably
the best for all concerned.

But if Apple continues to attempt to weasle their way out of this
Apple-only Apple-design problem with lies, subterfuge, and secrecy, then
they will lose a *lot* of customer goodwill (which should be important to
them).

Most of the above is conjecture - so please consider it part of an adult
perspective on the facts in your adult response.

 

[Jolly Roger]

harry newton <harry@at.invalid> wrote:

He who is Jolly Roger said on 2 Jan 2018 22:00:24 GMT:

So few facts, so much time. Life's hard for an old troll!

Blah blah blah Apple Apologists, blah blah blah blah

Get some new material, old foolish troll.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-03 00:15, harry newton wrote:

And why did they *say* they would throttle *all* their phones in the
future?

Disabling the high power/speed cores when battery is bad would be a form
of throttling (visible when doing a speed test which would be the type
of application that would noprmally go on the high power core).

We'll just have to see what apple does for iPhone 2018 models. (Whether
it grows battery capacity such that after 2 years, the battery is still
good enough to power the phone in cold weather) or whether this is still
done through software throttling.

I think Apple learned a lesson here which is they should test their phones
in the real world - and where the real world happens to include weather
colder than it gets in Cupertino

The specs mention low operating temperature of 0°, so from a legal point
of view, they may be in the clear. (although for the first battery,
within a year, I saw it shutdown at +12° once).

> So Apple needs to understand what they did wrong, and how to fix it.

I am pretty sure Apple has known for quite some time. They will just
have to break the news to Jony Ive who won't be able to make his baby
thinner in 2018.


On the plus side, bigger batteries will give more autonomy as well as
proviode enough amps when cold.

In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
to solve that it's not funny.

It's not that easy. If only they could shrink that huge taptic engine to
what it used to be like before (a small vibrator). Marketing might not
like that.

Apple could grow the smaller phones a bit to allow bigger battery. I
have to wonder at what stage the iPhone 9 is at right now and wether it
is too late or not to make such a change.

 

[harry newton]

He who is JF Mezei said on Wed, 3 Jan 2018 01:59:01 -0500:

We'll just have to see what apple does for iPhone 2018 models. (Whether
it grows battery capacity such that after 2 years, the battery is still
good enough to power the phone in cold weather) or whether this is still
done through software throttling.

Yup. Apple has to do *something* because nobody wants their $1000 iPhone X
to turn into an iPhone 1/2X in just one year.

Apple *knows* what the problem is, and they *knew* the problem when they
decided to secretly slip in the CPU halving in the first place.

That they resorted to a drastic move that nobody else has ever done for a
smartphone is a very strong indicator that a "real" solution is a new
design.

So I agree with you on your logic that Apple must do something so that this
Apple-only design problem doesn't happen with the 2018 iPhone models.

I think Apple learned a lesson here which is they should test their phones
in the real world - and where the real world happens to include weather
colder than it gets in Cupertino

The specs mention low operating temperature of 0+ALA-, so from a legal point
of view, they may be in the clear. (although for the first battery,
within a year, I saw it shutdown at +-12+ALA- once).

It's been proven already that Apple wasn't aware of the low-temperature
issues so it's just yet another piece of the puzzle that clearly indicates
Apple doesn't test their devices thoroughly enough.

What Samsung implemented for batteries is sort of what Apple needs to
implement for their phones - which is a rigorous testing system that
simulates what would happen in a year.

Remember, Apple said they were totally blindsided by the iPhone 6 problems,
which simply means they didn't test it because they were common.

So Apple needs to understand what they did wrong, and how to fix it.

I am pretty sure Apple has known for quite some time. They will just
have to break the news to Jony Ive who won't be able to make his baby
thinner in 2018.

That's a pretty accurate assessment that I agree with. If anything, they
need thicker phones, where their "legal remedy" from lawsuits might be a
trade-in program for a phone that works for more than a year but that has
to have a thicker case.

I agree with you that Apple *knows* all the possible solutions which is why
they came up with the genius idea that they implemented, got caught, and
apologized for (although their so-called apology was a soothing farce).

On the plus side, bigger batteries will give more autonomy as well as
proviode enough amps when cold.

Yup. My battery is 7,000 mAh. It lasts as long as I need it to last.
And when it's dead, I just pop in another.

I agree with you that better batteries is what they need, and they know
this, which is why they decided not to and to just do their secret trick.

They can't do the secret trick anymore, so, they'll have to fix the design
problem moving forward. Let's hope they fix it for 2018 models and that
they offer a new-design trade-in program for the previous iPhones.

I suspect that's what their out-of-court settlement will end up being:
a. A penalty
b. A trade-in for the customers to a design that actually works

In the end, I think Apple has an *easy* problem to solve which is so easy
to solve that it's not funny.

It's not that easy. If only they could shrink that huge taptic engine to
what it used to be like before (a small vibrator). Marketing might not
like that.

Well, it's not that easy if they want to keep the phones thin, but remember
this is an Apple-only problem so they can do whatever it is that the
Android manufacturers do and they won't have this problem.

So they can fix the design if they want to.

For the existing phones, it's pretty easy for them to just design a thicker
back and thicker battery, and that might solve their legal issues if they
offer a trade in. People might accept a bigger phone if it's the same
phone, essentially, but with the battery that works with it for more than
just one year.

I pity all those $1000 iPhone X owners who will have an iPhone 1/2 X in
just one year. Apple can't afford to alienate those customers who pay the
most. It might be why shipment forecasts are down 20 million from 50
million to 30 million. Dunno.

But if I was in the market for a $1000 iPhone X, and I knew it would be an
iPhone 1/2 X in just a year, I wouldn't plunk down $1000 for a phone with
that time-lapse halving "feature".

Apple could grow the smaller phones a bit to allow bigger battery. I
have to wonder at what stage the iPhone 9 is at right now and wether it
is too late or not to make such a change.

I'm going to agree with you and posit that the simplest solution is a
bigger battery. Of course, Apple already knew this, which is why they came
up with their simplest solution (which was to secretly halve the cpu).

Since they can't secretly halve the CPU anymore (they'll lose customers if
they continue that shady practice) - they have to do *something*, and that
something might be a bigger battery.

What I think is *easy* for Apple, given they have more money than God, is
just to make a trade-in for existing owners of a phone with a bigger
battery, and that will go a long way toward solving their self-created
legal troubles.

Once they get that backlog of legal troubles resolved, moving forward, all
they havfe rto do is implement what the Android people do, since this
problem is an Apple-only problem.

That's why the solution should be easy for them - since it's already solved
on the Android side. It's a self-created Apple-only problem that Apple can
easily solve if they want to solve it.

As you said ... we'll know in the future... so this is just conjecture.
I do appreciate that you speak as an adult would, and not as an Apple
Apologist would. That's refreshing for this newsgroup.

 

[nospam]

In article <p2i0de$anm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, harry newton
<harry@at.invalid> wrote:

but remember
this is an Apple-only problem

nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
other device that uses a battery.

there is *no* avoiding it. *every* battery ages.

<https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-Note-Phones/Note-4-shuts-off-
at-40-battery/td-p/54776>
The  note  4 shut down with 40% left I thought mine  was the only one
but I've heard others complaining about this  how fustrating is that
what's up that samsung ?
....
My phone shuts down at 50% I don't know what to do ??
....
New or old, internal battery makes no difference.   I've had
shutdowns at levels as high as 80%. Most notably during camera usage,
especially if flash is used.  I've resorted to always being connected
to a fast charge external battery. Sigh. 
....
A buddy of mine recently took note of something similar, especially
when using his camera as well. He ended up disabling Instagram and
the boomerang feature, and that did the trick for him on the random
restarts or shutting down. Not sure how that was even related, just
what he told me.

it's related because those apps were causing the battery to be pushed
beyond its limits, exactly the same as with iphones, at which point, it
shut down.


<https://forums.androidcentral.com/sprint-galaxy-s-ii-epic-4g-touch/2246
28-strange-battery-problem-need-help.html>
In each case, I was using it in some kind of high battery drain
function... either watching a movie or running GPS software.
In two of the three cases, this was started right after unplugging
the phone from the charger for the night, so I had a full charge,
but suddenly, without warning the phone just shuts off dead. No power
down animation, no nothing... just goes cold black dead.
In each case, I know I've had about 60-75% battery left just before
it died.

When I power up the phone, it beeps low battery, and say I have
between 1-3% power left and eventually powers down from low battery.
....
I had this issue as well. New battery fixed it, hadn't happened since.
....
Had this exact problem. Never had any battery issues until the JB
upgrade. Tried Factory Reset and that didnt help.
....
my S2 just shuts off without any notification and doesn't start until
i plug it to the charger and switch it on. This mostly happens after
2 minutes of playing games,listening songs or downloadin an app. What
should I do? Please help me
....
My phone is a HTC Desire S, which I upgraded to Android 4.0.4 a few
months ago (official update). The shutdowns and extreme power
drainage startet about a week ago. With a full battery my phone
reliably shuts down less than 5 minutes into a game. Then upon reboot
it reports ~6% battery life and often shuts down again.
....
My Galaxy J7 suddenly shut down, and could not restart by pushing the
power button.
....
My mobile switches off even at 70-80% of charging.and it doesn't
switch on even when I switch it on.


<https://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-note-4/610523-note-4-s
udden-battery-drain.html>
My Sprint Note 4 (running 5.1.1) has been working without issue for
the past year, but a strange power/battery/something issue happened
yesterday and today.

Both days, around the same time (between 5:00-6:00pm) my phone has
decided that it no longer has a charge and shuts off. Yesterday, the
phone went from roughly 35% > 10%, which alerted me of low charge >
0% and shutting off within around 30 seconds.
....
That's funny. My AT&T Note 4 does the exact same thing.
....
My note 4 does similar. I get maybe 1.5 hours of use out of it, then
at 30% boom it shuts down. Plug it in and it shows zero percent.

30% after 1.5 hours of use (ignoring the shutdown problem)? hah.
iphones can easily get 1.5 *days* of use.

 

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-03 02:23, harry newton wrote:

It's been proven already that Apple wasn't aware of the low-temperature
issues so it's just yet another piece of the puzzle that clearly indicates
Apple doesn't test their devices thoroughly enough.

I know Apple became aware of battery problem for 6s by March/April 2016,
so barely 6 months after product launch. Staff were instructed to tell
customers that it was normal for thw 6a to shutdown in cold.

By October, Apple Support was instructed to get customers to run the
remote diagnostics suite (with results sent back to Apple). And by end
of November, the battery recall was launched. (2016).

That recall was premised on a bad batch of batteries, so the customers
were given expectation that new battery would permanently fix problem.
It didn't.

Note that the "bad batch" did age much faster and exhibited the problem
within 5-6 months of product launch.

What Samsung implemented for batteries is sort of what Apple needs to
implement for their phones - which is a rigorous testing system that
simulates what would happen in a year.

I am pretty sure that engineering within Apple would have been aware
that the battery was undersized for the type of power loads of the 6s
once you factopr in reduced battery amperage capacity as it ages. And it
is likely that marketing overruled this for the sake of keeping the 6s
as thin as the 6, making it sturdier (back pocket bending gate) and
adding a bigger taptic engine.

Remember, Apple said they were totally blindsided by the iPhone 6 problems,
which simply means they didn't test it because they were common.

They were not blindsighted. The bad batch simply made a problem they
would have been aware of surface well before they had predicted.

With the then expected replacement cycle of 2 years, they likely figured
that the average onwer might expect a couple of cold shutdowns during
the winter of year 1, and as phone would be replaced in fall of year 2,
wouldn't get the bad shutdowns on year 2.

Suspect they underestimated how soon the problem would surface.


BTW, one possible solution is similar to electric cars: Put a heater
in/under the battery.

 

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-01-03 08:38, nospam wrote:

nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
other device that uses a battery.

Funny how the 6s PLUS doesn't have that. Same battery chemistry. Same
CPU and components. Oh, but while same chemistry, it has BIGGER Battery
which means that it is able to supply my amps than the small battery
when cold/old.

All phone may have smame/similar battery chemistry, but how the battery
is sized relative to power consumption needs of the phone makes a huge
difference.

The bigger Android phone have mega battteries like 5000-7000mAh compared
to the ~1750 on the 6s.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

What this all comes down to is a chemistry/battery aging issue that Apple did a piss-poor job of explaining to its customers. Not some grand conspiracy, not some plot to force Apple users to purchase a new phone - I would posit that 90% of their customers did not notice one whit of inconvenience or trouble.

But, that did not stop our schizophrenic OP from attempting to start his personal tempest in a virtual teapot. And with a little "poor me" thrown in.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[nospam]

In article <fP83C.134079$4Z6.17401@fx41.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

nope. it's a battery chemistry issue which affects android and any
other device that uses a battery.

Funny how the 6s PLUS doesn't have that.

it absolutely does