It's quite common that a quick recharge function can fail if the cell is totally exhausted. Rare it happens in practice but it can

I'm not an iPhone user (or any smartohone user, for that matter) but if the news story I saw about Apple deliberately slowing down perfornance on older phones is true, the mere fact that they CAN do that is bad enough, let alone that they did.

It is typical of the mindset of these tech giants that they think they're entitled, just because they made it. No Apple, you arrogant <expletives>, after you've sold it the phone belongs to the customer, not you.

This is exactly the mindset so prevalent in Win10 that lsd MS to think it's okay to auto-upgrade regardless of the consequences to users. No, MS, it's my flaming computer. Flaming well ASK FIRST.

It's also exactly the mindset which results in me so carefully guarding every zspect of my privacy that I conceivably can, because that mindset tells these <expletives> that once they've acquired data about us all, they're entitled (and I use that word carefully) to do pretty much what they want with it because it belongs to them.,

At heart, these companies are all the same. They give (or rather, sell) us fancy gadgets and think that makes them gods that own the rext of us. We have now been seeing example after example of this mindset for some years. It needs to stop, and my suspicion is that if legislation doesn't do it, sooner or later violence will.

Awaits front page of “The Stun” which has Saracen on it for fruity violence against tech giant

3dcandy
Awaits front page of “The Stun” which has Saracen on it for fruity violence against tech giant

LOL.

But nah, I'm not likely to be violent, or even advocating it. I'm just predicting it. I expect, sooner or more likely later, the kind of reaction from the people to the Czarist excesses in Russia the aristocrats in France, the Iranians to the Shah, and so on. These arrogant tech-Gods are, IMHO, showing exactly the same sort of selfish contempt for the masses that led previous generations of self-selected overlords to end up getting “shortened”.

And while I don't advocate extra-judicial violence, I sure as hell wouldn't lift a finger to stop it, even if I could.

Lol I agree with your first post Saracen if not your second. The level of tech that we see in day to day life is nothing compared to that of the US black projects etc. It's like a joke. Sure these tech companies are arrogant misguided and plainly stupid but things like big aweful pharma and the prison industrial complex are much bigger problems.

As for apple's response, I wasn't going to post this but I begrudgingly congratulate apple on this. I think this is the first thing I've been positive about with apple, ever, with the possible exception of pushing good display tech to market early. They do that too.

I'm still not buying anything from them though.

Well, I'd put pharma, tech, etc all as part of the same issue. It's not just tech …. though they're more visible than most.

As for Apple, I'd agreeexcept that I just see this as a clever PR response to a “ shot self in foot” with the slow-down thing. So it really suggests someone in their PR team has a decent IQ. Had they offered this in response to the initial ptoblem, I'd credit them for it. But it's to deflect from the screw-up. IMHO, of course.

Saracen
I'm not an iPhone user (or any smartohone user, for that matter)

What basic phone are you using, if you don't mind my asking?

utopic
What basic phone are you using, if you don't mind my asking?

Some very basic thing that cost me about £5, 10-ish years ago. And even that isn't used much. It's not unknown for it to not get turned on from one end of a month to the other. It's very small, very light and does calls. A battery charge lasts ages though, even when turned on. Oh, and it has a dozen or two memories. It even does texts …. I think. I don't do texts, though.

Really, it's for little more than emergencies these days.

Saracen
I'm not an iPhone user (or any smartohone user, for that matter) but if the news story I saw about Apple deliberately slowing down perfornance on older phones is true, the mere fact that they CAN do that is bad enough, let alone that they did.

It is typical of the mindset of these tech giants that they think they're entitled, just because they made it. No Apple, you arrogant <expletives>, after you've sold it the phone belongs to the customer, not you.

This is exactly the mindset so prevalent in Win10 that lsd MS to think it's okay to auto-upgrade regardless of the consequences to users. No, MS, it's my flaming computer. Flaming well ASK FIRST.

It's also exactly the mindset which results in me so carefully guarding every zspect of my privacy that I conceivably can, because that mindset tells these <expletives> that once they've acquired data about us all, they're entitled (and I use that word carefully) to do pretty much what they want with it because it belongs to them.,

At heart, these companies are all the same. They give (or rather, sell) us fancy gadgets and think that makes them gods that own the rext of us. We have now been seeing example after example of this mindset for some years. It needs to stop, and my suspicion is that if legislation doesn't do it, sooner or later violence will.

my view is it's apple's or MS's software, and they can do what they want with it as long as it's legal, and you as the customer buy the software under the T&C's that allow them to do that. if you get sky or VM telly for example, you pay for a service that they can change within the T&C's. technology is very different to what it was a couple of decades ago, with features changing via updates today that you wouldn't have got in the 80s when something would be the same from day one to the end, unless it broke. in regards to the asking first part, isn't it already in the T&C's that you agree to when you buy the software, even though hardly anyone actually bothers to read them?

in regards to the slowdown that's supposed to help the battery, has anyone actually read how much it actually slows down in percentages or have most people just read the headline and jumped to the conclusion it's bad, even though the slowdown may only be a tiny bit and may result in the phone lasting longer for the owner?

personally i've used the iphone from the first model as it was streets ahead of anything else available at the time. i was one of those people who would regularly advise against buying apple products as you could get cheaper or better bang for the buck elsewhere, but i actually found i could get the phone contract free for pretty cheap by hacktivating it. a few years later i found i could sell the old model for nearly as much as i paid for it and upgrade to the new one by paying not much more. i looked at the alternatives, just as i do each time i want to upgrade, and moving to android or the alternatives has never offered any real reason to change and have to restart getting new apps, as comparing like for like, the similar specced android phones are in the same ballpark as iphones, yet iphones have better resale value, so once factoring that in the cost is pretty similar. in saying that, i use a £110 amazon 10.1“ fire tablet as a replacement for my old ipad, as i played around with a cheap 7” model earlier in the year and found for reading pdf's and a bit of browsing and spotify, it was fine, and having the sd card was pretty handy. so who knows if i'll stick with apple in the future, but my current phone is more than fine right now, especially as they gave me a brand new one last year as part of the battery replacement scheme as they couldn't fix the phone i handed in. so i'll likely take up the offer of a new battery near the end of the offer before i go to sell it, advertised with new battery

Saracen
It is typical of the mindset of these tech giants that they think they're entitled, just because they made it. No Apple, you arrogant <expletives>, after you've sold it the phone belongs to the customer, not you.

Unfortunately i suspect that mindset is a minority, a minority i belong to BTW, but still a minority.

When personal computers went from something mainly used by geeks to being widely adoption by “normal” people the personal aspect, the idea that the end user should be the final arbiter, that idea became a minority opinion as the majority of their customers aren't interested, or simply don't have the time, to learn how it works so tech companies have increasingly had to make things simpler, take control, and protect users from themselves.

And i can't see that changing anytime soon, in fact i suspect it's only going to get worse, or better depending on your view point, over time. It's similar to how the humble automobile went from something anyone handy with a spanner could fix and maintain to machines that require a degree, specialist tools, and thousands of pounds of diagnostics equipment.

Unique
in regards to the slowdown that's supposed to help the battery, has anyone actually read how much it actually slows down in percentages or have most people just read the headline and jumped to the conclusion it's bad, even though the slowdown may only be a tiny bit and may result in the phone lasting longer for the owner?

The amount of slowdown is irrelevant, the fact they're slowing it down at all is what's bad, whether it's five of fifty percent the fact is people bought a device that had a certain level of performance and were never informed that level of performance would degrade over time.

No one is saying, at least I'm not going to try saying, that we expect a battery not to degrade over its lifetime, however what to do about that degradation should ultimately be something decided by the end user, if as in this case the battery can no longer supply the currency demanded of it from the device then the end user should be notified so they can choose whether to replace the battery or keep using a devices with degraded performance.

This gesture does nothing to remove battery replacement anxiety for new apple devices. NOTHING.

Corky34
The amount of slowdown is irrelevant, the fact they're slowing it down at all is what's bad, whether it's five of fifty percent the fact is people bought a device that had a certain level of performance and were never informed that level of performance would degrade over time.

No one is saying, at least I'm not going to try saying, that we expect a battery not to degrade over its lifetime, however what to do about that degradation should ultimately be something decided by the end user, if as in this case the battery can no longer supply the currency demanded of it from the device then the end user should be notified so they can choose whether to replace the battery or keep using a devices with degraded performance.

You have slightly contradicted yourself in saying that you exect performance to be constant, yet acknowledging that battery performance degrades and therefore will not be constant. Personally, Id rather have marginally slower speed to improve battery life and reduce the possibility of a call (which is a relatively high current operation as the power output may be higher) failure mid all.

Where Apple was wrong was in not publishing it, or giving users the option of tailoring the software to optimise battery life or optimise processor speed. It looks as if this feature (or at least more information about battery performance) will be introduced in a software release n early 2018.

But I suspect this may be a problem with any phone as processor speeds increase while the physical space for batteries decreases.

ed^chigliak;3902651
This gesture does nothing to remove battery replacement anxiety for new apple devices. NOTHING.

I disagree. Im not sure if “battery replacement anxiety” is really an issue, but as it applies to all iphones from the 6 onwards (which are affected) and offers the option for a warranted Apple battery replacement at a reasonable price, rather than choosing some back street replacement service using a battery of unknown provenance that may either have a poor performance, or worse, be a hazard to the user. If anything that is the real issue about “battery replacement anxiety” and Apple's offer certainly reduces that. As for what happens after 2018 - without a reputable crystal ball, it is difficult to predict.

peterb
You have slightly contradicted yourself in saying that you exect performance to be constant, yet acknowledging that battery performance degrades and therefore will not be constant. Personally, Id rather have marginally slower speed to improve battery life and reduce the possibility of a call (which is a relatively high current operation as the power output may be higher) failure mid all.

Degradation in battery performance doesn't mean lower device performance though, unless I'm mistaken normally it results in less runtime per full charge.

peterb
Where Apple was wrong was in not publishing it, or giving users the option of tailoring the software to optimise battery life or optimise processor speed. It looks as if this feature (or at least more information about battery performance) will be introduced in a software release n early 2018.

But I suspect this may be a problem with any phone as processor speeds increase while the physical space for batteries decreases.

I would say where Apple went most wrong was that they pushed the performance of the devices beyond what they knew the battery could provide and when the battery degraded, like all Li-ion batteries do when cycled, and could no longer provide the current (ampage) needed to run the device it caused the devices to shutdown. It became a problem for Apple because they exceeded the ability of the battery to supply the required milliamps per hour (or rather per millisecond).

Corky34
Degradation in battery performance doesn't mean lower device performance though, unless I'm mistaken normally it results in less runtime per full charge.

Reduction in battery life is a reduction in performance - the runtime per charge reduces.

Corky34
I would say where Apple went most wrong was that they pushed the performance of the devices beyond what they knew the battery could provide and when the battery degraded, like all Li-ion batteries do when cycled, and could no longer provide the current (ampage) needed to run the device it caused the devices to shutdown. It became a problem for Apple because they exceeded the ability of the battery to supply the required milliamps per hour (or rather per millisecond).

Its true that the internal impedance of most battery chemistries increases as they age, in addition to a reduction in overall capacity. It appears from the limited information was that it was the peak current caused a fall in the terminal voltage which under some circumstances caused the phone to re-boot.

It is a moot point whether this is a design fault in the battery, or a batch of batteries, or a system design error.

I guess it was a fault that only showed up as the batteries aged in normal use, and the software was a quick fix. It was actually documented (although not in great detail) in the changelog.

iOS 10.2.1
iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your iPhone or iPad.
It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.
For information on the security content of Apple software updates, please visit this website: https://support.apple.com/HT201222

(https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_GB)

I wouldn't say a reduction in battery “life” results in a reduction in “performance” mainly because i suspect how you and i are defining “life” and “performance” differs, to me when you use the term “life” you're meaning the time from new when a battery can no longer power the device, something that (IMO) should never happen as the device manufacturer shouldn't exceed the batteries ability to supply the required voltage, but as you've said you see “life” to mean a reduction in runtime however that's only really correct because normally manufactures don't exceed a batteries capability like Apple have done hear.

In other words Apple could have done what most manufactures do and limited the devices peak current draw by undervolting and/or underclocking the device so it remained within the capability of the battery to deliver, personally I'd say calling it a system design error is being generous as I'd be shocked if Apple didn't do extensive testing before releasing a new product.

Corky34
In other words Apple could have done what most manufactures do and limited the devices peak current draw by undervolting and/or underclocking the device so it remained within the capability of the battery to deliver, personally I'd say calling it a system design error is being generous as I'd be shocked if Apple didn't do extensive testing before releasing a new product.

Which is effectively what they have done. When the battery performance has degraded t the extent that it is unable to support the device at its normal speed, the software underclocks it.

Performance is a loosely use term though (much like the incorrect use of security for privacy) but should refer to all aspects of a devices specification.

Apple doing shady things to force its customers in to incredibly expensive repairs or upgrades? They build in obsolescence to their hardware, so why is it a surprise when they do it to their software?

Why is this newsworthy?

They've been doing it, and it's been known that they do stuff like this, including building everything they make with subpar or ‘at the limit’ components, for well more than a decade now.

Corky34
I wouldn't say a reduction in battery “life” results in a reduction in “performance” mainly because i suspect how you and i are defining “life” and “performance” differs, to me when you use the term “life” you're meaning the time from new when a battery can no longer power the device, something that (IMO) should never happen as the device manufacturer shouldn't exceed the batteries ability to supply the required voltage, but as you've said you see “life” to mean a reduction in runtime however that's only really correct because normally manufactures don't exceed a batteries capability like Apple have done hear.

In other words Apple could have done what most manufactures do and limited the devices peak current draw by undervolting and/or underclocking the device so it remained within the capability of the battery to deliver, personally I'd say calling it a system design error is being generous as I'd be shocked if Apple didn't do extensive testing before releasing a new product.

It seems to me that what Apple have is pushed done the “performance” of the devices beyond the ability of the battery to support that performance for any reasonable definition of the life of a phone.


Two solutions occur to me :-

1) Design the device with user-replaceable batteries, which are available at reasonable, not rip-off, prices. How hard can it be?

2) Limit the “performance” of the phone to that that will be available at the tail-end of a reasonable device lifetime, so throttling back is no longer necessary.

However, no doubt new phone reviews would suffer, if the performance was throttled to a point it could susttain for the life of the device.

Which means, IMHO, that this entire mess comes about because of a mismatch between effective life of phone and effective life of battery. And this comes from a marketing decision of Apple about user-replaceable phones, and battery pricing.

In any event, it's an Apple mess, and the cheap battery “offer” is an attempt at PR damage limitation.

This could of been dealt with another way originally by warning people that the battery is worn out and giving the choice of limiting performance in order to help the situation. the choice should also be given to keep performance as it is if the user chooses to.One of the problems is people seem to accept and forgive apple in situations like this but would go mental if other companies did.

more and more devices are having internal batteries even ones that do not really need it such as standard laptops which used to have user replacement batteries. it isn't so bad in most laptops are it just requires you to undo some screws from the base. Lots of phones are water resistant and for that reason have an adhesive seal which I feel is a ploy to get rid of user replaceable batteries. people complained for awhile about the newer phones not having removable batteries but then people got used to it and didn't seem to care anymore.

I recently replaced the outer camera lens glass on my LG G4 which was rather easy due to user replaceable back and around 12 screws holding it all together. we are living in a culture where it is easier to replace than repair a device. for example if you damage a Microsoft surface tablet Microsoft will not repair it they will simply replace it for a fixed fee. I would be happier to have a slightly thicker phone with a bigger user replaceable battery.
If you want water resistance you can get a case which is a good idea anyway since the warranties do not cover water damage even if they are water resistant anyway.

Corky34
The amount of slowdown is irrelevant, the fact they're slowing it down at all is what's bad, whether it's five of fifty percent the fact is people bought a device that had a certain level of performance and were never informed that level of performance would degrade over time.

No one is saying, at least I'm not going to try saying, that we expect a battery not to degrade over its lifetime, however what to do about that degradation should ultimately be something decided by the end user, if as in this case the battery can no longer supply the currency demanded of it from the device then the end user should be notified so they can choose whether to replace the battery or keep using a devices with degraded performance.

that's just what i was referring to in my earlier post. people getting bothered about something without knowing how little real world affect it may have. now if those people don't even have one of the devices affected, they are just moaning pointlessly

apple don't advertise the phones to have any measured performance speeds. over time as the IOS will change with upgrades and bug fixes, performance in turn may change regardless of the battery, as i'm sure will be the case with other devices, especially older devices running newer OS's. it's a smartphone, even with the changes it can still perform all it's advertised functions. it just makes me think of louis ck talking about kids slagging off certain models of phones for being crap when he points out the technology is actually amazing to have so much ability in such a small device. some people want so much instantaneous split second satisfaction that they get frustrated if something has a delay of a second

apple have always been tight on offering things to be chosen by the end user, and likewise with upgrades. perhaps the popularity is because things tend to work more out the box, you turn on and it works, you don't have to make decisions on what settings or upgrades you want. if it's faulty you send back to apple and they fix it properly, instead of some dude who's just opened up a shop selling vaping gear and phone covers having a go after watching some youtube tutorials. they could do what other companies do, but as well as redesigning products, there's the additional potential warranty issues that would arise if allowing customers or third parties to do repairs. think about it this way, apple is one of the biggest and most successful companies in the entire world, and the iphone range is one of the most successful mobile phones in history. obviously there are many people running a business and important decisions aren't left to be made by just one person, but if you were high up in running such a successful business, would you want to risk things by making such changes? personally, i don't think the amount of people who would want to change an iphone battery to be a large percentage of customers, and likewise i would doubt they would gain much more business by allowing batteries to be easily changed. sure on technology websites and forums it may seem like everyone would want to change batteries themselves, but in any specialised area of websites you may find certain trends that don't stretch to the wider public

i'm not up on the latest android phones, but i do note the samsung galaxy s8 doesn't have an easily removable battery either, and they are one of the biggest competitors to apple for phones. there's been a number of devices i've bought over the last few years with internal batteries that don't seem to be easily replaced. in practice i tend to find my interest in using the item has declined long before the battery has stopped being useful, and a much more advanced replacement item has been available at an affordable price, so i'm upgrading because it's much faster or bigger capacity etc rather than battery reasons. i see many people using phones with broken screens so that's perhaps another reason for upgrading

we can only wait and see if apple will give end users some battery options to choose from high performance, short battery length, or longer battery whilst taking a performance hit. the apple watch has a low power option, but it's unusual for apple to offer such choices. on the other hand with android you can usually customise so many options but i think that just confuses a large percentage of users who will just end up using the stock options and probably never use half the options on the phone because they don't understand them

Unique
my view is it's apple's or MS's software, and they can do what they want with it as long as it's legal, and you as the customer buy the software under the T&C's that allow them to do that. if you get sky or VM telly for example, you pay for a service that they can change within the T&C's. technology is very different to what it was a couple of decades ago, with features changing via updates today that you wouldn't have got in the 80s when something would be the same from day one to the end, unless it broke. in regards to the asking first part, isn't it already in the T&C's that you agree to when you buy the software, even though hardly anyone actually bothers to read them?

in regards to the slowdown that's supposed to help the battery, has anyone actually read how much it actually slows down in percentages or have most people just read the headline and jumped to the conclusion it's bad, even though the slowdown may only be a tiny bit and may result in the phone lasting longer for the owner?

….

And perhaps therein lies the issue.

Sky or Virgin sell you a subscription to a service. Apple are selling you a physical product. With MS, they used to sell an OS that was effectively feature-fixed, until they issued a new version. The “updates” were bug fixes and security patches, issued because users buying a product are entitled, in law, for it to be free from such issues. And, by the way, I could choose if and when to apply such fixes.

And that was fine with me.

If companies are going to claim, even via the legally dubious route of T&C's, that they can do what they want with “their” product long after sale, then they can redefine it's functions to remove the features that were critical to my buying decision in the first place.

This is a major part of why I refused, even for “free”, to upgrade to Win10 - because the “new way to monetise Windows” that MS adopted meant we're buying a pig in a poke. We're flying blind. And I know a Trojan horse when I see one.

peterb
Which is effectively what they have done. When the battery performance has degraded t the extent that it is unable to support the device at its normal speed, the software underclocks it.

Totally, however they weren't exactly up front about it, not that I expect Apple or any company to be upfront about these sorts of things.

I'm not a fan of Apple products so don't pay much attention to how they market their devices, if they tout certain performance levels, if they make claims that a new device is X% faster, better, or whatever, or if it's third-parties who are measuring performance and as such setting a certain level of expectation among customers.

I suspect it's the latter and for me that's part of the problem of this recent trend among some tech companies who want to control an ever increasing amount of the user experience, they can in effect change the product quiet drastically over the lifetime of the device or software and that means the product you paid money for on day one may not be the same product further down the line.

Saracen
And perhaps therein lies the issue.

Sky or Virgin sell you a subscription to a service. Apple are selling you a physical product. With MS, they used to sell an OS that was effectively feature-fixed, until they issued a new version. The “updates” were bug fixes and security patches, issued because users buying a product are entitled, in law, for it to be free from such issues. And, by the way, I could choose if and when to apply such fixes.

And that was fine with me.

If companies are going to claim, even via the legally dubious route of T&C's, that they can do what they want with “their” product long after sale, then they can redefine it's functions to remove the features that were critical to my buying decision in the first place.

This is a major part of why I refused, even for “free”, to upgrade to Win10 - because the “new way to monetise Windows” that MS adopted meant we're buying a pig in a poke. We're flying blind. And I know a Trojan horse when I see one.

i don't see what difference it makes as to whether the service is subscription or otherwise. you see with sky or virgin you get both a physical item plus software and content. the physical items don't usually change, but the firmware/software will change from time to time and similarly may give some customers things they want and at times things they don't want. with the iphone you get a physical item plus the firmware/software/operating system which can similarly change, regardless of whether you buy the phone outright as sim free or pay a monthly fee. with the phone you could choose not to update as apple don't force updates for IOS or any of the apps, but virgin and sky both push updates. so as a customer you have the choice to update or not, and typically the phone doesn't stop working if you don't update, and you again agree to the terms if you choose to update the IOS

of course they could change functions, but as i said before, probably only a small percentage of customers would care about an issue like this, and they've been rather successful so far with the choices they have made. i imagine the percentage of customers to whom such an issue would be important to them in making a decision to purchase the item would be very small. whilst it may be important to you, you've made it clear you don't have a smartphone and don't seem to have a requirement for one in the short term, so they aren't missing a sale from you, and i doubt if they added that option that you referred to that you would buy one even if you got a reasonable discount on the retail price. apple must spend millions on customer research to know what options to use on phones to gain the most sales, and they probably have people who look on tech sites and forums to see feedback and discussions like this and know that overall few people care about such things that may be potential customers. i imagine most people who are complaining about what apple have done, don't even have the product in question. usually when i read things like this, i see someone slating them for doing it and adding “that's the reason i have xyz phone instead of an iphone”. for some reason, people who don't have iphones seem to spend a lot of time posting about them

i use windows 10 on a few pc's and it seems fine to me. my main computers using windows that i don't upgrade are on win7 due to lack of drivers for legacy hardware, otherwise i would have upgraded. i could easily revert back to win7 or win8 on any of them, or stick on linux if i wanted too if win10 was going to become a permanent problem, and of course that's not a realistic option for most standard pc users, which is why i think MS will refrain from doing anything that will cause any serious issues or concerns because they want to maintain the market share as most popular OS. similarly i think apple will be the same with their systems. with many minor issues or niggles brought on by software updates, there's often a work around, such as adding the start menu back, or registry changes to tweak things, so i'm not hugely concerned about such things as i can usually tweak myself, or rely on companies to make the right decisions to suit both the shareholders and customers, and i think most people can similarly rely on those businesses. for those people who aren't customers, there's no need for them to worry about products they don't own/use unless it's a matter or safety such as exploding phones which could cause my property to burn down or even blow up in a gas explosion because someone nearby had a phone that created a fire. i think it's better apple do something to avoid battery issues than end up in a situation like samsung did not too far ago

Unique
…which is why i think MS will refrain from doing anything that will cause any serious issues or concerns because they want to maintain the market share as most popular OS….

They lost that mantle many moons ago, at a guess Linux is the most popular OS followed by IOS.

Corky34
They lost that mantle many moons ago, at a guess Linux is the most popular OS followed by IOS.

You're kidding right?

Or are you talking all OSes as a whole?

Because Windows is still the Market leader both in corporate and commercial.

I suspect he means anything that runs an OS at all. In which case with all the server, embedded and desktop Linux builds plus assuming he's counting android in the mobile market he may well be correct.

It doesn't change the argument about the desktop though as Windows is dominant with OS X a distant second and the likes of Linux & BSD a rounding error.

Indeed i did, I'm not sure if Microsoft have ever held the mantle of most popular OS TBH, Windows is most defiantly the most popular OS on the desktop and has been for many years but it seems even Microsoft have come to the realisation that desktop computers aren't the only game in town anymore.

And Both OS X and IOS are unix based.

Windows is used in some embedded systems as well though - the self service ticket machines at railway stations for example (used to be XP, which is why so many just had a blank blue screen :) )

Unique
i don't see what difference it makes as to whether the service is subscription or otherwise. you see with sky or virgin you get both a physical item plus software and content. the physical items don't usually change, but the firmware/software will change from time to time and similarly may give some customers things they want and at times things they don't want. with the iphone you get a physical item plus the firmware/software/operating system which can similarly change, regardless of whether you buy the phone outright as sim free or pay a monthly fee. with the phone you could choose not to update as apple don't force updates for IOS or any of the apps, but virgin and sky both push updates. so as a customer you have the choice to update or not, and typically the phone doesn't stop working if you don't update, and you again agree to the terms if you choose to update the IOS

of course they could change functions, but as i said before, probably only a small percentage of customers would care about an issue like this, and they've been rather successful so far with the choices they have made. i imagine the percentage of customers to whom such an issue would be important to them in making a decision to purchase the item would be very small. whilst it may be important to you, you've made it clear you don't have a smartphone and don't seem to have a requirement for one in the short term, so they aren't missing a sale from you, and i doubt if they added that option that you referred to that you would buy one even if you got a reasonable discount on the retail price. apple must spend millions on customer research to know what options to use on phones to gain the most sales, and they probably have people who look on tech sites and forums to see feedback and discussions like this and know that overall few people care about such things that may be potential customers. i imagine most people who are complaining about what apple have done, don't even have the product in question. usually when i read things like this, i see someone slating them for doing it and adding “that's the reason i have xyz phone instead of an iphone”. for some reason, people who don't have iphones seem to spend a lot of time posting about them

i use windows 10 on a few pc's and it seems fine to me. my main computers using windows that i don't upgrade are on win7 due to lack of drivers for legacy hardware, otherwise i would have upgraded. i could easily revert back to win7 or win8 on any of them, or stick on linux if i wanted too if win10 was going to become a permanent problem, and of course that's not a realistic option for most standard pc users, which is why i think MS will refrain from doing anything that will cause any serious issues or concerns because they want to maintain the market share as most popular OS. similarly i think apple will be the same with their systems. with many minor issues or niggles brought on by software updates, there's often a work around, such as adding the start menu back, or registry changes to tweak things, so i'm not hugely concerned about such things as i can usually tweak myself, or rely on companies to make the right decisions to suit both the shareholders and customers, and i think most people can similarly rely on those businesses. for those people who aren't customers, there's no need for them to worry about products they don't own/use unless it's a matter or safety such as exploding phones which could cause my property to burn down or even blow up in a gas explosion because someone nearby had a phone that created a fire. i think it's better apple do something to avoid battery issues than end up in a situation like samsung did not too far ago

My point was that buying an MS OS is NOT subscribing to a service - it's buying a product. I then install that OS on hardware I bought, note not MS bought, and I use it to run MY choice of software for MY purposes. MS do NOT have any right to subsequently mess around with it, even resulting in things that I rely on and that used to work no longer doing so.

VM and Sky are different. You are supplied hardware as part of a subscription to a service. Hardware cost is built-in to the cost which is why you have a minimum contract period.

Phones are a hybrid, but even where a phone is supplied with the service, that being the provision of the airtime service, you'll usually vind two contracts, one for the hardware, and one for airtime.

In either the case of VM/Sky, or phone, outside of very limited situations you are committed to monthly payments, for that minimum term. For MS OS's, and in my case for Application software too, I pay a one-off charge, up-front, whether I use the software for 10 years, or 10 minutes. Of course, MS are clearly moving OS supply in the direction of a service, just as they already have with some application supply routes (365) and, IMHO, it's now only a matter of time before they want a monthly payment for Windows, too, just like Adobe for Photoshop, etc.

As for me not using a smartphone, this is part of why I don't. And until/unless things change, won't. It's tied in to privacy. The attitude that companies that supply this stuff have the right go treat data on how their users use the product, what they do with it, as theirs. Hell, no.

It's not that I don't want a smartphone, or wouldn't find one useful. It's that I don't want one badly enough to put up with the implications, and it's not so useful that I need it rather than finding it useful. Essentially, for me, the downside FAR outweighs the upside, because of these sorts of issues and the corporate mindset behind them.

Corky34
They lost that mantle many moons ago, at a guess Linux is the most popular OS followed by IOS.

if you have a google you will see a number of sites showing stats, and windows is by far the most popular OS, with more users of windows than all other OS's combined for desktops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

Saracen
My point was that buying an MS OS is NOT subscribing to a service - it's buying a product. I then install that OS on hardware I bought, note not MS bought, and I use it to run MY choice of software for MY purposes. MS do NOT have any right to subsequently mess around with it, even resulting in things that I rely on and that used to work no longer doing so.

VM and Sky are different. You are supplied hardware as part of a subscription to a service. Hardware cost is built-in to the cost which is why you have a minimum contract period.

Phones are a hybrid, but even where a phone is supplied with the service, that being the provision of the airtime service, you'll usually vind two contracts, one for the hardware, and one for airtime.

In either the case of VM/Sky, or phone, outside of very limited situations you are committed to monthly payments, for that minimum term. For MS OS's, and in my case for Application software too, I pay a one-off charge, up-front, whether I use the software for 10 years, or 10 minutes. Of course, MS are clearly moving OS supply in the direction of a service, just as they already have with some application supply routes (365) and, IMHO, it's now only a matter of time before they want a monthly payment for Windows, too, just like Adobe for Photoshop, etc.

As for me not using a smartphone, this is part of why I don't. And until/unless things change, won't. It's tied in to privacy. The attitude that companies that supply this stuff have the right go treat data on how their users use the product, what they do with it, as theirs. Hell, no.

It's not that I don't want a smartphone, or wouldn't find one useful. It's that I don't want one badly enough to put up with the implications, and it's not so useful that I need it rather than finding it useful. Essentially, for me, the downside FAR outweighs the upside, because of these sorts of issues and the corporate mindset behind them.

regardless of whether it's subscription or you buy it outright, get it free or steal it or whatever, the T&C's of most modern tech products that have an ability to upgrade the software/firmware will give the creators the right to amend products if you agree to install it and/or update it

back in the 80s and before then you may have bought a product and it couldn't be upgraded without buying physical parts, but now people regularly buy products than can be upgraded by connecting online, and the T&C's allow the creators to make changes. usually however the consumer can opt out of upgrading and keep the item the same as it was when they first bought it, so you could install windows from the cd/dvd and just never update it. in the current world, few people are going to want to buy a new tech product and never ever updated it. most people want the latest upgrades, whether it's good bad or indifferent to them, and unless it's a hassle or they don't know how to do it, they will usually upgrade as long as they don't need to pay more money for it

looking at the bigger picture of the market, i can't see MS surviving indefinitely in the OS market anywhere near as successfully as they do if they move to a fully subscribed market. they may offer a particular version that is, but as the majority of users will be regular home consumers rather than businesses, i can't see many people going for this, especially in poorer countries. it's certainly not something that's going to happen in the short term, and it definitely isn't the norm at the moment. they aren't going to stop any current versions of consumer windows from working unless people pay a sub

regarding phone contracts, in the uk at least you typically just get one contract and one price for both phone and airtime/service btw

Unique
regardless of whether it's subscription or you buy it outright, get it free or steal it or whatever, the T&C's of most modern tech products that have an ability to upgrade the software/firmware will give the creators the right to amend products if you agree to install it and/or update it

back in the 80s and before then you may have bought a product and it couldn't be upgraded without buying physical parts, but now people regularly buy products than can be upgraded by connecting online, and the T&C's allow the creators to make changes. usually however the consumer can opt out of upgrading and keep the item the same as it was when they first bought it, so you could install windows from the cd/dvd and just never update it. in the current world, few people are going to want to buy a new tech product and never ever updated it. most people want the latest upgrades, whether it's good bad or indifferent to them, and unless it's a hassle or they don't know how to do it, they will usually upgrade as long as they don't need to pay more money for it

looking at the bigger picture of the market, i can't see MS surviving indefinitely in the OS market anywhere near as successfully as they do if they move to a fully subscribed market. they may offer a particular version that is, but as the majority of users will be regular home consumers rather than businesses, i can't see many people going for this, especially in poorer countries. it's certainly not something that's going to happen in the short term, and it definitely isn't the norm at the moment. they aren't going to stop any current versions of consumer windows from working unless people pay a sub

regarding phone contracts, in the uk at least you typically just get one contract and one price for both phone and airtime/service btw

Just because not many people will want to reject the updates doesn't mean they should have the right to force them. As it is those who do are voting with their feet like Saracen and simply not purchasing it.

I also think you're wrong in your 3rd paragraph. The majority of MS customers are businesses, NOT individuals. Businesses tend to like subscriptions because a low predictable monthly cost is much easier on the budget line than a huge (and unpredictable,) upgrade cost every 3/4/5 years. Individuals will push back, which is why I don't think MS will go the full subscription route for home versions. I think it's more likely they'll provide a basic OS on the current basis but additional features (which may include things as basic as DirectX or 32 bit support,) will cost an extra monthly/annual fee.

Saracen
My point was that buying an MS OS is NOT subscribing to a service - it's buying a product. I then install that OS on hardware I bought, note not MS bought, and I use it to run MY choice of software for MY purposes. MS do NOT have any right to subsequently mess around with it, even resulting in things that I rely on and that used to work no longer doing so.

VM and Sky are different. You are supplied hardware as part of a subscription to a service. Hardware cost is built-in to the cost which is why you have a minimum contract period.

Phones are a hybrid, but even where a phone is supplied with the service, that being the provision of the airtime service, you'll usually vind two contracts, one for the hardware, and one for airtime.

In either the case of VM/Sky, or phone, outside of very limited situations you are committed to monthly payments, for that minimum term. For MS OS's, and in my case for Application software too, I pay a one-off charge, up-front

Technically though you aren’t buying a product, you are buying a license which gives you the right to use their product. You accept the conditions of the licence, which includes the right of the organisation to cease support after a given length of time. At present that license is open ended, but Microsoft could ( and might) grant that licence for a given period of time, with the implication that if you don’t pay a renewal fee, they will disable all or some of the OS features. In return you would (presumably get updates as long as the licence is valid.

In practical terms of course it makes no difference to your argument, and it’s not an option I would choose, but (as was pointed out earlier) it could be attractive for some business uses as it becomes an operating cost rather than a capital outlay.

Whether businesses would accept accept a moot point though. There were rumours that XP was to be a subscription model for businesses, but the idea was badly received and MS backed down. Sadly I can find no references to this - iirc, it was a comment by an industry insider to me, given the changes MS introduced with XP.

Office 365, Adobe licenses….all the same nowadays. You are paying a monthly fee and are tied into quite a lot of specific causes. Hell even Lightroom has gone to a monthly licence now

spacein_vader
Just because not many people will want to reject the updates doesn't mean they should have the right to force them. As it is those who do are voting with their feet like Saracen and simply not purchasing it.

I also think you're wrong in your 3rd paragraph. The majority of MS customers are businesses, NOT individuals. Businesses tend to like subscriptions because a low predictable monthly cost is much easier on the budget line than a huge (and unpredictable,) upgrade cost every 3/4/5 years. Individuals will push back, which is why I don't think MS will go the full subscription route for home versions. I think it's more likely they'll provide a basic OS on the current basis but additional features (which may include things as basic as DirectX or 32 bit support,) will cost an extra monthly/annual fee.

apple don't force updates through. it's up to the user to update or not, and that is the case for both IOS and the individual apps. they aren't forced at all. and as apple are one of the biggest businesses in the world, i don't think the choices they make concern them too much in regards to those who don't like such choices, as whilst you can try and keep the majority happy, you can't keep everyone happy all the time, you have to make decisions as to what you want to offer

personally i'd imagine most windows users are individuals with home computers, rather than businesses, and i'd imagine most individuals will get windows on a computer they've bought, and won't make any further payments for the OS and wouldn't be interested in doing so as long as there are alternate options. think of spotify, many people will pay for the monthly sub, but considerably more will use the free service, such as kids and people in poorer countries than the UK/US, or the millions more that watch freeview as opposed to paying for sky/VM. i think if anything, there would be a free version but additional features may need a sub or additional payment, but i think that's still a while off if it would happen

Unique
if you have a google you will see a number of sites showing stats, and windows is by far the most popular OS, with more users of windows than all other OS's combined for desktops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

If you're intention was to say it's the most popular desktop OS then perhaps you should have said so in the first place, however IIRC you said "they want to maintain the market share as most popular OS." <– Fullstop, so you'll have to forgive me for taking what you said literally and pointing out the inaccuracy of your statement.

I have 2 phones that can go back for new batteries …told my friends that if they have shut down issues they can replace theirs too…if it makes the phone speedy again then $29 is well worth it…they said they would do it