Apple told Forbes that it will not be lowering the performance of the
A17 Pro chip as part of its bug fix related to iPhone 15 Pro
overheating.
The vague description of the problem will lead to a vague description
of the solution.
All that matters to people who aren't trolls is that they have located
the problem and are working on a fix.
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I haven¢t noticed
any problems
Many others echo this. The bug does not effect most people.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Apple told Forbes that it will not be lowering the performance of the
A17 Pro chip as part of its bug fix related to iPhone 15 Pro
overheating.
This is good news Jolly Roger, because that was the prior result of Apple's long sordid history of never having sufficiently tested any product. Ever.
The facts remain...
The vague description of the problem will lead to a vague description of
the solution.
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I haven¢t noticed any problems, but then I only use Outlook to view email.
iOS 16.7 has been installed on my personal iPhone 14 and I will hold out
for the vague solution to be released.
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
The vague description of the problem will lead to a vague description of
the solution.
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I havenÄ…t noticed any
problems, but then I only use Outlook to view email.
iOS 16.7 has been installed on my personal iPhone 14 and I will hold out
for the vague solution to be released.
Hi badgolferman,
If we use our adult cognitive skills and our well-remembered history of
what Apple does to cleverly hide their (repeated) lack of testing...
*A pattern emerges*
Do you see the pattern?
I do.
What's patently obvious to any adult is Apple forgot to test this latest device in the real world (which includes Instagram & iOS 17 for example).
Right?
That's a fact as had they tested it, this never would have happened.
So we have to agree - as adults - Apple didn't sufficiently test it.
That pattern has already been well established with Apple products.
Need I elaborate?
I hope not.
Now to the blame game that Apple _always_ plays.
*You're holding it wrong* and "The batteries that made me do it*.
It's a pattern with Apple to blame everyone but Apple, right?
Well lookey' here.
Apple just blamed a dozen (or so) entities for the problem, right?
Now, here's the adult question to ask of you (or anyone else)...
*How many of those entities that Apple blamed - did not exist prior?*
The answer is zero, right?
Right?
Every single entity that Apple blamed existed _prior_ to the release!
That's just a fact.
This means the real problem is as simple as what I've proven for years.
*Apple forgot to sufficiently test their design before releasing it*
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
The vague description of the problem will lead to a vague description of >>> the solution.
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I havenÄ…t noticed any >>> problems, but then I only use Outlook to view email.
iOS 16.7 has been installed on my personal iPhone 14 and I will hold out >>> for the vague solution to be released.
Hi badgolferman,
If we use our adult cognitive skills and our well-remembered history of
what Apple does to cleverly hide their (repeated) lack of testing...
*A pattern emerges*
Do you see the pattern?
I do.
What's patently obvious to any adult is Apple forgot to test this latest
device in the real world (which includes Instagram & iOS 17 for example).
Right?
That's a fact as had they tested it, this never would have happened.
So we have to agree - as adults - Apple didn't sufficiently test it.
That pattern has already been well established with Apple products.
Need I elaborate?
I hope not.
Now to the blame game that Apple _always_ plays.
*You're holding it wrong* and "The batteries that made me do it*.
It's a pattern with Apple to blame everyone but Apple, right?
Well lookey' here.
Apple just blamed a dozen (or so) entities for the problem, right?
Now, here's the adult question to ask of you (or anyone else)...
*How many of those entities that Apple blamed - did not exist prior?*
The answer is zero, right?
Right?
Every single entity that Apple blamed existed _prior_ to the release!
That's just a fact.
This means the real problem is as simple as what I've proven for years.
*Apple forgot to sufficiently test their design before releasing it*
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s not like anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only way most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them…
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s not like anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only way most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them…
On 9/30/23 14:49, Wally J wrote:
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Agreed, this does happen a lot.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
The vague description of the problem will lead to a vague description
of the solution.
All that matters to people who aren't trolls is that they have located
the problem and are working on a fix.
You, yourself - said that Apple blamed something like a dozen things.
Right?
They blamed Instagram, for example, right?
Allow me to ask you a simple _adult_ question of your own words, JR...
*Did Instagram exist before the iPhone 15 released?* Jolly Roger?
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I haven¢t noticed
any problems
Many others echo this. The bug does not effect most people.
First off, you're calling it "the bug"
On 9/30/23 15:07, badgolferman wrote:
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when
there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s not like
anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only
way
most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them…
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
On 2023-09-30 13:07, badgolferman wrote:
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
The vague description of the problem will lead to a vague description of >>>> the solution.
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I havenÄ…t noticed any >>>> problems, but then I only use Outlook to view email.
iOS 16.7 has been installed on my personal iPhone 14 and I will hold out >>>> for the vague solution to be released.
Hi badgolferman,
If we use our adult cognitive skills and our well-remembered history of
what Apple does to cleverly hide their (repeated) lack of testing...
*A pattern emerges*
Do you see the pattern?
I do.
What's patently obvious to any adult is Apple forgot to test this latest >>> device in the real world (which includes Instagram & iOS 17 for example). >>>
Right?
That's a fact as had they tested it, this never would have happened.
So we have to agree - as adults - Apple didn't sufficiently test it.
That pattern has already been well established with Apple products.
Need I elaborate?
I hope not.
Now to the blame game that Apple _always_ plays.
*You're holding it wrong* and "The batteries that made me do it*.
It's a pattern with Apple to blame everyone but Apple, right?
Well lookey' here.
Apple just blamed a dozen (or so) entities for the problem, right?
Now, here's the adult question to ask of you (or anyone else)...
*How many of those entities that Apple blamed - did not exist prior?*
The answer is zero, right?
Right?
Every single entity that Apple blamed existed _prior_ to the release!
That's just a fact.
This means the real problem is as simple as what I've proven for years.
*Apple forgot to sufficiently test their design before releasing it*
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when
there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s not like
anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only way >> most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them…
You have it precisely backwards.
It is because there are "millions of people" using their iPhones in
millions of different ways that there is no possible way that Apple
could test for all possible problems.
On 2023-09-30 13:07, badgolferman wrote:
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software
when there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s
not like anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a
bug. The only way most people would drop Apple is if they started
losing trust in them…
You have it precisely backwards.
It is because there are "millions of people" using their iPhones in
millions of different ways that there is no possible way that Apple
could test for all possible problems.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software
when there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s
not like anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a
bug. The only way most people would drop Apple is if they started
losing trust in them…
You have it precisely backwards.
It is because there are "millions of people" using their iPhones in
millions of different ways that there is no possible way that Apple
could test for all possible problems.
Thank you for admitting out loud Apple doesn’t test their software.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 13:07, badgolferman wrote:
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
The vague description of the problem will lead to a vague description of >>>>> the solution.
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I havenÄ…t noticed any >>>>> problems, but then I only use Outlook to view email.
iOS 16.7 has been installed on my personal iPhone 14 and I will hold out >>>>> for the vague solution to be released.
Hi badgolferman,
If we use our adult cognitive skills and our well-remembered history of >>>> what Apple does to cleverly hide their (repeated) lack of testing...
*A pattern emerges*
Do you see the pattern?
I do.
What's patently obvious to any adult is Apple forgot to test this latest >>>> device in the real world (which includes Instagram & iOS 17 for example). >>>>
Right?
That's a fact as had they tested it, this never would have happened.
So we have to agree - as adults - Apple didn't sufficiently test it.
That pattern has already been well established with Apple products.
Need I elaborate?
I hope not.
Now to the blame game that Apple _always_ plays.
*You're holding it wrong* and "The batteries that made me do it*.
It's a pattern with Apple to blame everyone but Apple, right?
Well lookey' here.
Apple just blamed a dozen (or so) entities for the problem, right?
Now, here's the adult question to ask of you (or anyone else)...
*How many of those entities that Apple blamed - did not exist prior?*
The answer is zero, right?
Right?
Every single entity that Apple blamed existed _prior_ to the release!
That's just a fact.
This means the real problem is as simple as what I've proven for years. >>>> *Apple forgot to sufficiently test their design before releasing it*
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when >>> there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s not like >>> anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only way >>> most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them…
You have it precisely backwards.
It is because there are "millions of people" using their iPhones in
millions of different ways that there is no possible way that Apple
could test for all possible problems.
Thank you for admitting out loud Apple doesn’t test their software.
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
I never said Apple blamed anyone.
You said that, though.
What actually happened is Apple investigated the issue and found that
the culprit was a bug in iOS (contrary to your troll gang's claim that
it's supposedly a hardware defect) combined with bugs in some popular third-party apps. Apple also explained that it is normal for iPhones to
get warmer after operating system updates, which is true.
They blamed Instagram, for example, right?
Wrong. They identified a bug in Instagram that caused excessive resource usage and in turn generated excessive heat.
Allow me to ask you a simple _adult_ question of your own words, JR...
*Did Instagram exist before the iPhone 15 released?* Jolly Roger?
Allow me to ask you some follow-up questions in response:
*Has Instagram been updated before and after iOS 17 was released?*
*Do you understand that bugs can be introduced during updates?*
*Do you know that Instagram has had previous bugs that caused excessive resource usage in the past?*
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I haven¢t noticed
any problems
Many others echo this. The bug does not effect most people.
First off, you're calling it "the bug"
It is a bug.
You are one of several idiot trolls here who wrongly claimed it was a hardware defect That's on record. No way to change it now. You're just
making yourself look like the sad, little, squirming man-child you are.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
I never said Apple blamed anyone.
Ah, but you did.
For example, you said that Apple blamed "Instagram" (among many others).
You said that, though.
No. You said it.
On 9/30/23 15:07, badgolferman wrote:
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when
there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s not like
anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only way >> most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them…
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
On 2023-09-30 20:28:41 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
On 9/30/23 15:07, badgolferman wrote:
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when >>> there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s not like >>> anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only way >>> most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them…
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when there are millions of people available to do it for free?
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
I never said Apple blamed anyone.
Ah, but you did.
For example, you said that Apple blamed "Instagram" (among many others).
HINT: Apple is (rather slyly) almost certainly (cleverly) trying to hide
the real cause (which badgolferman understood) behind a long smokescreen.
You said that, though.
No. You said it.
For example, you said that Apple blamed "indexing"(among many others).
What actually happened is Apple investigated the issue and found that
the culprit was a bug in iOS (contrary to your troll gang's claim that
it's supposedly a hardware defect) combined with bugs in some popular
third-party apps. Apple also explained that it is normal for iPhones to
get warmer after operating system updates, which is true.
It's no longer shocking that you don't understand your own threads, JR.
You posted that Apple blamed pretty much everything that can be blamed.
BTW, the concept of _why_ Apple blamed a dozen things is too complicated
for you to comprehend - but adults know why Apple likely did that.
HINT: Apple is (rather slyly) almost certainly (cleverly) trying to hide
the real cause (which badgolferman understood) behind a long smokescreen.
They blamed Instagram, for example, right?
Wrong. They identified a bug in Instagram that caused excessive resource
usage and in turn generated excessive heat.
Apple blamed Instagram.
Did Instagram exist prior to Apple releasing the defective iPhone 15?
Yes? or No?
Allow me to ask you a simple _adult_ question of your own words, JR...
*Did Instagram exist before the iPhone 15 released?* Jolly Roger?
Allow me to ask you some follow-up questions in response:
HINT: Apple is (rather slyly) almost certainly (cleverly) trying to hide
the real cause (which badgolferman understood) behind a long smokescreen.
*Has Instagram been updated before and after iOS 17 was released?*
You're _desperate_ to blame Instagram, Jolly Roger.
Let's say it _is_ the fault of Instagram, then Jolly Roger.
OK?
Now why then did Apple provide a virtual litany of "other causes" then?
Think about that.
*Do you understand that bugs can be introduced during updates?*
Again, it's clear how _desperate_ you are to blame anyone but Apple.
But let's again agree with you that "bugs were introduced", OK?
Now... why then did Apple blame one of those bugs as being in iOS 17?
Do you think maybe Apple _forgot_ to test the iPhone 15 with iOS 17?
Yes? or No?
*Do you know that Instagram has had previous bugs that caused excessive
resource usage in the past?*
That's a repeat of your initial desperate attempt to blame Instagram for Apple having forgotten to sufficiently test the defective iPhone 15.
Do you think Apple simply _forgot_ to test the iPhone 15 with Instagram?
Yes? or No?
iOS 17 has been installed on my work iPhone 11 and I havenÄ…t noticed >>>>> any problems
Many others echo this. The bug does not effect most people.
First off, you're calling it "the bug"
It is a bug.
Actually, your own words show clearly that Apple said it was a whole lot of things that Apple happened to not test for before selling that iPhone 15.
An intelligent _adult_ might wonder (like badgolferman did), why exactly is Apple so desperate to claim it was a ton of things - not just one bug?
I think I know why - because I know Apple's history of clever lies.
But time will tell why Apple said it was everything under the sun.
HINT: Apple is (rather slyly) almost certainly (cleverly) trying to hide
the real cause (which badgolferman understood) behind a long smokescreen.
You are one of several idiot trolls here who wrongly claimed it was a
hardware defect That's on record. No way to change it now. You're just
making yourself look like the sad, little, squirming man-child you are.
I have clearly claimed that Apple themselves told us what the problem is.
*Apple did not sufficiently test the iPhone 15 on iOS 17 before selling it*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/YKdktNAV7vY>
For the intelligent adults on this newsgroup, I must point out that the
mere fact Apple stooped so low as to sleazily blame pretty much everything that they possibly could think of to blame, that the real problem is far
more embarrassing to Apple - which - I predict - we'll find out over time.
Do they test them against the most popular apps as rated on their own App Store?
On 9/30/2023 4:33 PM, badgolferman wrote:
Do they test them against the most popular apps as rated on their own App
Store?
That is a good point. This is different than a "computer company" trying
to test "every single piece of third-party made software." The only
software for the iPhone is what is on the App Store. You'd think that
they'd at least test the most-used apps, including Instagram.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2023-09-30 20:28:41 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
On 9/30/23 15:07, badgolferman wrote:
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
It's really that simple, is it not?
Do you agree?
Or disagree?
Why or why not?
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when >>>> there are millions of people available to do it for free? It’s not like >>>> anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only way >>>> most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them… >>>>
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
Do they test them against the most popular apps as rated on their own App Store?
On 2023-09-30 17:48, sms wrote:
On 9/30/2023 4:33 PM, badgolferman wrote:
Do they test them against the most popular apps as rated on their
own App Store?
That is a good point. This is different than a "computer company"
trying to test "every single piece of third-party made software." The
only software for the iPhone is what is on the App Store. You'd think
that they'd at least test the most-used apps, including Instagram.
Who says they didn't?
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship
now, fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
On 9/30/23 18:01, Your Name wrote:
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship
now, fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
Isn't there only 5-10 models of iphones supported?
On 9/30/23 18:01, Your Name wrote:
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, test their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
Isn't there only 5-10 models of iphones supported?
Do they test them against the most popular apps as rated on their own App Store?
You're a clown.
For example, you said that Apple blamed "Instagram" (among many others).
Liar. I never said that. You did, though.
I'm actually embarrassed for you.
We shall see, though I hold no bias here. And people who talk down their noses at others as if adulting aren't.
On 9/30/2023 4:33 PM, badgolferman wrote:
<snip>
Do they test them against the most popular apps as rated on their own App
Store?
What is odd about the "fix" to iOS 17 to address the overheating issue
in the iPhone 15 Pro/Pro Max is that if there really is some kind of a problem with some of the apps that causes overheating by "overloading
the iPhone CPU" then why isn't the same issue occurring with the iPhone
14 Pro/Pro Max with the A16 Bionic?
It's likely that these apps, whatever they are, are causing the A17
Bionic to run at maximum power which is too much for the thermal
solution in the iPhone 15 Pro/Pro Max to deal with.
It was also odd to see that claim that the titanium frame will conduct
heat out the phone better than the stainless steel frame in the iPhone
14 Pro/Pro Max since titanium is a poorer thermal conductor. And if it
did conduct heat better then the outside of the phone would get even
hotter but the inside would be cooler.
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when there are millions of people available to do it for free? It¡¦s not like anyone is going to stop using the iPhone if they found a bug. The only way most people would drop Apple is if they started losing trust in them¡K
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
You're a clown.
That's your response
For example, you said that Apple blamed "Instagram" (among many others).
Liar. I never said that. You did, though.
It's not just Instagram that you said Apple blamed
I'm actually embarrassed for you.
Blah blah blah blah...
Thank you for admitting out loud Apple doesn¢t test their software.
He very clearly didn't say they don't test.
On 2023-10-01 01:32, sms wrote:
It was also odd to see that claim that the titanium frame will
conduct heat out the phone better than the stainless steel frame in
the iPhone 14 Pro/Pro Max since titanium is a poorer thermal
conductor. And if it did conduct heat better then the outside of the
phone would get even hotter but the inside would be cooler.
Let's see. There are a range of stainless steel alloys with varying
degrees of thermal conductivity. Per Apple they use "Surgical grade" stainless in the iPhone 14. ( * ) below.
SS - 304 : 14.4 W/(mK)
SS - 347 : 14.3 W/(mK)
SS - 316 : 16.3 W/(mK) *
SS - 440 : 24.2 W/(mK) *
SS - 420 : 24.9 W/(mK) *
Titanium: 24.5 W/(mK) - better than SS 304,347 and 316. Same as 440
and 420.
This is in Watts per metre-Kelvin. Thus the thicker the material, less
the conductivity (obviously). For you non-metric folks, a Kelvin is a difference of 1°C with 0K at absolute 0.
Finding 1)
So, Titanium is a better heat conductor in the kinds of SS that Apple
likly used (the 440/420 are very hard SS so not ones you'd want to manufacture at large volume). And even if you used 440 or 420 it would
be the same thermal conductivity as Titanium.
*Denotes so-called "Surgical steel" - although there is no formal
definition of such.
Issue 2)
Further, It's not so much the thermal conductivity that matters as the
way the thermal management is designed: placing the hot components where their heat has a pathway to the outside via conducting material or other means.
Issue 3)
Further, since Titanium is stronger, you may need less thickness, thus
the heat transits across less of it - so more conductivity. This is speculation on my part..
That's your response
Yes, because you are a clown.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
That's your response
Yes, because you are a clown.
It's interesting that the adults provide facts and the iKooks can't.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
Thank you for admitting out loud Apple doesn┤ test their software.
He very clearly didn't say they don't test.
*Apple themselves openly admitted they didn't test it, JR*
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
It is because there are "millions of people" using their iPhones in
millions of different ways that there is no possible way that Apple
could test for all possible problems.
It's very obvious neither badgolferman or Arlen (Wally) have ever worked professionally in a software team in charge of deploying software to
massive numbers of heterogeneous clients.
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship
now, fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
Isn't there only 5-10 models of iphones supported?
Do they test them against the most popular apps as rated on their own App
Store?
That is a good point. This is different than a "computer company" trying
to test "every single piece of third-party made software." The only
software for the iPhone is what is on the App Store. You'd think that
they'd at least test the most-used apps, including Instagram.
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now, >>>> fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, test their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
Isn't there only 5-10 models of iphones supported?
Maybe, and only a couple of models that a few people reporting the heat problem with ... but there are millions of apps which Apple cannot
possibly test nor be expected to.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
*All these excuses for a defective product mean Apple forgot to test it.*
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when
there are millions of people available to do it for free?
<snip>
There is just no way that they could test all the different apps in all
the different usage scenarios. It's expected that there will be issues
that don't turn up until the devices are in the hands of a very large
number of users.
What will be interesting to see is if the A17 benchmarks change once iOS
17 is updated to address overheating.
Kuo stated that they'd have to
throttle the CPU in order to address the overheating, in which case the benchmarks could be affected.
"Those who must not be named" insisted
that there is no issue because not every user has reported overheating, though they now are aware that the issue is real. The truth will come
out soon enough.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:11:35 -0700, sms wrote:
Why should they put all those resources into testing their software when >>> there are millions of people available to do it for free?
<snip>
There is just no way that they could test all the different apps in all
the different usage scenarios. It's expected that there will be issues
that don't turn up until the devices are in the hands of a very large
number of users.
Did you count the number of things that Apple didn't test until now?
What will be interesting to see is if the A17 benchmarks change once iOS
17 is updated to address overheating.
Of course it will.
Apple cares so much about you that they'll again "extend the life" for you.
Kuo stated that they'd have to
throttle the CPU in order to address the overheating, in which case the
benchmarks could be affected.
The benchmarks are bogus.
Even more so now that the iPhone performance will require cutting.
"Those who must not be named" insisted
that there is no issue because not every user has reported overheating,
though they now are aware that the issue is real. The truth will come
out soon enough.
Apple already said they have identified many causes for the overheating. Which means they are overheating.
Which means anyone saying they're not is disagreeing with Apple's findings.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:48:50 -0700, sms wrote:
Do they test them against the most popular apps as rated on their own
App
Store?
That is a good point. This is different than a "computer company"
trying to test "every single piece of third-party made software." The
only software for the iPhone is what is on the App Store. You'd think
that they'd at least test the most-used apps, including Instagram.
You'd think they'd test not only Instagram, but their own iOS 17 too.
They didn't.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
It is because there are "millions of people" using their iPhones in
millions of different ways that there is no possible way that Apple
could test for all possible problems.
It's very obvious neither badgolferman or Arlen (Wally) have ever
worked professionally in a software team in charge of deploying
software to massive numbers of heterogeneous clients.
Hehhehheh... ah... but we have.
Both of us have.
These come at the expense of performance.
On 1/10/2023, sms wrote:
These come at the expense of performance.
The only way Apple can reduce overheating is at the expense of
performance.
Damn Instagram.
Why is it always the app that nobody uses that makes the iPhone overheat.
On 1/10/2023, sms wrote:
These come at the expense of performance.
The only way Apple can reduce overheating is at the expense of performance.
No, you very clearly haven't.
These come at the expense of performance.
The only way Apple can reduce overheating is at the expense of performance.
Since the fix is bug fixes in iOS and some apps, would you care to
elaborate?
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 21:55:25 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship
now, fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
Isn't there only 5-10 models of iphones supported?
Not only are there a puny set of models but the software on them is limited to the App Store where apparently Apple didn't know Instagram even existed.
On 10/1/2023 12:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
<snip>
Damn Instagram.
Why is it always the app that nobody uses that makes the iPhone overheat.
LOL, here are the iOS apps that are downloaded the most:
1. TikTok
2. Instagram
3. Facebook
4. WhatsApp
5. Telegram
I did see a complaint that Instagram causes Android phones to heat up as well. It seems like Instagram will just use as much CPU power as it can
get. This is not really a bug in Instagram, the operating system should
be limiting the amount of resources that an app can consume.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
No, you very clearly haven't.
Well, both badgolferman and I have said we've worked on military grade software for decades but you can choose to disbelieve what we say.
It's _you_ who hasn't ever worked with software as complicated as the military grade stuff both badgolferman and I worked on for decades.
On 2023-10-01 16:38, sms wrote:
On 10/1/2023 12:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
<snip>
Damn Instagram.
Why is it always the app that nobody uses that makes the iPhone
overheat.
LOL, here are the iOS apps that are downloaded the most:
1. TikTok
2. Instagram
3. Facebook
4. WhatsApp
5. Telegram
I did see a complaint that Instagram causes Android phones to heat up
as well. It seems like Instagram will just use as much CPU power as it
can get. This is not really a bug in Instagram, the operating system
should be limiting the amount of resources that an app can consume.
Not at all. The OS cannot tell if badly written software is doing
something useless driving up power consumption.
On 1/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
Since the fix is bug fixes in iOS and some apps, would you care toThese come at the expense of performance.
The only way Apple can reduce overheating is at the expense of performance. >>
elaborate?
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower performance.
That means all the benchmarks to date are no longer valid.
They never were valid.
Apple sold an inherently untested product which turned out to be defective. The benchmark results are on that defective product.
It's fast. But too hot.
The non-defective iPhone will be cooler.
And slower.
There is no other way to solve the problem without a complete hardware redesign (which isn't what Apple said they would do to fix the problem).
On 2023-10-01 12:13, Wally J wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship now, >>>> fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
 *All these excuses for a defective product mean Apple forgot to test
it.*
No, clown.
It doesn't.
On 2023-10-01 14:13, Wally J wrote:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
No, you very clearly haven't.
Well, both badgolferman and I have said we've worked on military grade
software for decades but you can choose to disbelieve what we say.
That's convenient, Clown...
...because we do so choose.
On 10/1/23 16:36, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 16:38, sms wrote:
On 10/1/2023 12:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
<snip>
Damn Instagram.
Why is it always the app that nobody uses that makes the iPhone
overheat.
LOL, here are the iOS apps that are downloaded the most:
1. TikTok
2. Instagram
3. Facebook
4. WhatsApp
5. Telegram
I did see a complaint that Instagram causes Android phones to heat up
as well. It seems like Instagram will just use as much CPU power as
it can get. This is not really a bug in Instagram, the operating
system should be limiting the amount of resources that an app can
consume.
Not at all. The OS cannot tell if badly written software is doing
something useless driving up power consumption.
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage, or outright kill it.
On 2023-10-01 17:43, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 10/1/23 16:36, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 16:38, sms wrote:
On 10/1/2023 12:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
<snip>
Damn Instagram.
Why is it always the app that nobody uses that makes the iPhone
overheat.
LOL, here are the iOS apps that are downloaded the most:
1. TikTok
2. Instagram
3. Facebook
4. WhatsApp
5. Telegram
I did see a complaint that Instagram causes Android phones to heat
up as well. It seems like Instagram will just use as much CPU power
as it can get. This is not really a bug in Instagram, the operating
system should be limiting the amount of resources that an app can
consume.
Not at all. The OS cannot tell if badly written software is doing
something useless driving up power consumption.
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage,
or outright kill it.
Some apps justifiably need a lot of CPU so the OS cannot do more that
allow the app / thread to run its time slice until the slice is over or pre-empted by something with higher priority for which no other core is available.
Could one design an OS that applies the rule as you say? Sure. But
that is not the case in general purpose OS'.
Could the OS detect race conditions and kill a thread (or several)? Probably. My example has no such possible state.
And while my example might be trivial, there are cases where converging
on a solution with many variables can take a hell of a lot of CPU and
time. And it's a very valid thing for a program to do.
The main point is that OS' don't arbitrarily kill processes (or throttle them) just because a given process is using a lot of CPU.
On 10/1/23 14:24, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-01 12:13, Wally J wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship
now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
 *All these excuses for a defective product mean Apple forgot to
test it.*
No, clown.
It doesn't.
Then how did so much slip through?
There is a difference between not finding a particular issue in
particular circumstances and "forget[ting]" to test.
Agreed?
On 10/1/23 14:24, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-01 12:13, Wally J wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote
Because people expect polish?? What kind of argument is this? Ship
now,
fix later is hated by consumers for a reason.
No computer company on the planet does, nor can, terst their devices
against every single piece of third-party made software and hardware.
It's not remotely sensible for anyone to expect them to either.
 *All these excuses for a defective product mean Apple forgot to
test it.*
No, clown.
It doesn't.
Then how did so much slip through?
On 10/1/23 17:25, Alan wrote:
There is a difference between not finding a particular issue in
particular circumstances and "forget[ting]" to test.
Agreed?
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
On 2023-10-01 17:38, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-01 14:13, Wally J wrote:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
No, you very clearly haven't.
Well, both badgolferman and I have said we've worked on military grade software for decades but you can choose to disbelieve what we say.
That's convenient, Clown...
...because we do so choose.
Using terms like "military grade software" is a red flag.
There is a way to say what he desperately wants to convey but since he
said it the way he said it we know it is poppycock (at best).
On 10/1/23 17:25, Alan wrote:
There is a difference between not finding a particular issue in
particular circumstances and "forget[ting]" to test.
Agreed?
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
On 10/1/23 16:59, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 17:43, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 10/1/23 16:36, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 16:38, sms wrote:
On 10/1/2023 12:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
<snip>
Damn Instagram.
Why is it always the app that nobody uses that makes the iPhone overheat.
LOL, here are the iOS apps that are downloaded the most:
1. TikTok
2. Instagram
3. Facebook
4. WhatsApp
5. Telegram
I did see a complaint that Instagram causes Android phones to heat up >>>>> as well. It seems like Instagram will just use as much CPU power as it >>>>> can get. This is not really a bug in Instagram, the operating system >>>>> should be limiting the amount of resources that an app can consume.
Not at all. The OS cannot tell if badly written software is doing
something useless driving up power consumption.
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage, or
outright kill it.
Some apps justifiably need a lot of CPU so the OS cannot do more that
allow the app / thread to run its time slice until the slice is over or
pre-empted by something with higher priority for which no other core is
available.
Could one design an OS that applies the rule as you say? Sure. But
that is not the case in general purpose OS'.
Could the OS detect race conditions and kill a thread (or several)?
Probably. My example has no such possible state.
And while my example might be trivial, there are cases where converging
on a solution with many variables can take a hell of a lot of CPU and
time. And it's a very valid thing for a program to do.
The main point is that OS' don't arbitrarily kill processes (or
throttle them) just because a given process is using a lot of CPU.
At the very least, it should warn the user if a program is using a lot.
On 2023-10-01 22:05:14 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
At the very least, it should warn the user if a program is using a lot.
At the very least the user should have enough brains not to use utter
crap "Social Media" apps like Instagram. :-p
On 10/1/2023 2:43 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage,
or outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources by shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage, or outright kill it.
On 10/1/23 14:09, Wally J wrote:
It's _you_ who hasn't ever worked with software as complicated as the
military grade stuff both badgolferman and I worked on for decades.
You've coded operating systems?? That's awesome!
On Oct 1, 2023, Alan Browne wrote
(in article <xQlSM.36250$%_f1.3838@fx06.iad>):
On 2023-10-01 17:38, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-01 14:13, Wally J wrote:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
No, you very clearly haven't.
Well, both badgolferman and I have said we've worked on military
grade software for decades but you can choose to disbelieve what
we say.
That's convenient, Clown...
...because we do so choose.
Using terms like "military grade software" is a red flag.
There is a way to say what he desperately wants to convey but since
he said it the way he said it we know it is poppycock (at best).
Military Grade software does exist. VHDL (MIL-STD-454N) and Ada (MIL-STD-1815) are examples. But just because something is military
grade doesn't mean it is good. Military grade means it is the cheapest
made while still meeting minimum contract specifications.
On 2023-10-01 17:18, Frankie wrote:
On 1/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
These come at the expense of performance.
The only way Apple can reduce overheating is at the expense of
performance.
Since the fix is bug fixes in iOS and some apps, would you care to
elaborate?
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower performance.
Not at all. There are many ways you can make errors that cause CPU
use to rise w/o doing any useful work.
On 1/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
Since the fix is bug fixes in iOS and some apps, would you care toThese come at the expense of performance.
The only way Apple can reduce overheating is at the expense of performance. >>
elaborate?
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower performance.
On 10/1/23 17:25, Alan wrote:
There is a difference between not finding a particular issue in
particular circumstances and "forget[ting]" to test.
Agreed?
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
On 2023-10-01 15:59, Frankie wrote:
On 1/10/2023, sms wrote:
These come at the expense of performance.
The only way Apple can reduce overheating is at the expense of performance.
Since the fix is bug fixes in iOS and some apps, would you care to
elaborate?
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower performance.
Wrong. It is quite typical for bugs to cause excessive resource usage
which lowers performance, and fixing those bugs results in an increase
in performance as resources are then free to be used more efficiently.
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower performance.
Not at all.
What it means is after the bug fix is that the benchmarks will be pretty
much identical.
Apple sold an inherently untested product which turned out to be defective. >> The benchmark results are on that defective product.
In any new product and OS release, the chances of bugs is pretty high no matter how much testing was done. These are consumer appliances and
there are too many undetermined (undeterminable) cases to test them all.
It's fast. But too hot.
See above. Threads can be very fast and very unproductive. Fix that
and life goes on.
At the very least, it should warn the user if a program is using a lot.
At the very least the user should have enough brains not to use utter
crap "Social Media" apps like Instagram. :-p
At the very least the user should have enough brains not to use utter
crap "Social Media" apps like Instagram. :-p
This idea from Your Name is great as it will instantly solve all of Apple's overheating iPhone 15 problems while still allowing sales to proceed.
Apple should instantly remove TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp & Telegram from the App Store (and Apple should remove those installed).
That way Apple doesn't have to do anything else to fix the overheating phones. Well, there is the problems of indexing and iOS 17 bugs too.
For that, Apple should turn off indexing (what does it do anyway?).
And Apple should allow the overheating iPhones to backport to iOS 16.
Problem solved thanks to Your Name!
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage, or
outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources by shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
At the very least the user should have enough brains not to use utter
crap "Social Media" apps like Instagram. :-p
While I don't disagree, they should still have some safeguards against
rouge apps.
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 17:22:58 -0700, sms wrote:
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage, or
outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources by
shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
The only way Apple can stop this problem in software is to cut performance.
There is a difference between not finding a particular issue in
particular circumstances and "forget[ting]" to test.
Agreed?
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
candycanearter07 wrote on 02.10.2023 00:04
There is a difference between not finding a particular issue in
particular circumstances and "forget[ting]" to test.
Agreed?
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
I don't think Alan is correct that Apple "forgot" to test.
Apple consciously decided not to bother wasting the money to test it.
That's different.
It was a conscious decision not to test these iPhones for overheating.
It's clear there was no testing for this widespread overheating problem. Otherwise it wouldn't be so many situations & so many of them being common.
Anyone saying it was tested has to first read that Apple said almost everything is causing this overheating - which means they didn't test it.
None of this would have been allowed through had there been any testing.
But there wasn't any testing. That much is clear to everyone. Even Apple.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:33:26 +0800, Patrick wrote:
At the very least the user should have enough brains not to use utter
crap "Social Media" apps like Instagram. :-p
This idea from Your Name is great as it will instantly solve all of
Apple's overheating iPhone 15 problems while still allowing sales to
proceed.
Clown... ...stick to one nym.
Clown:
Stick...
...to...
...one...
...nym.
On Oct 1, 2023, Alan wrote
(in article <ufdl24$2q1ir$1@dont-email.me>):
Clown... ...stick to one nym.
On Oct 1, 2023, Alan wrote
(in article <ufdmu0$2qbmc$1@dont-email.me>):
Clown:
Stick...
...to...
...one...
...nym.
These aren't the same person
On 10/1/23 16:59, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 17:43, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 10/1/23 16:36, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 16:38, sms wrote:
On 10/1/2023 12:20 PM, Patrick wrote:
<snip>
Damn Instagram.
Why is it always the app that nobody uses that makes the iPhone
overheat.
LOL, here are the iOS apps that are downloaded the most:
1. TikTok
2. Instagram
3. Facebook
4. WhatsApp
5. Telegram
I did see a complaint that Instagram causes Android phones to heat
up as well. It seems like Instagram will just use as much CPU power
as it can get. This is not really a bug in Instagram, the operating
system should be limiting the amount of resources that an app can
consume.
Not at all. The OS cannot tell if badly written software is doing
something useless driving up power consumption.
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage,
or outright kill it.
Some apps justifiably need a lot of CPU so the OS cannot do more that
allow the app / thread to run its time slice until the slice is over
or pre-empted by something with higher priority for which no other
core is available.
Could one design an OS that applies the rule as you say? Sure. But
that is not the case in general purpose OS'.
Could the OS detect race conditions and kill a thread (or several)?
Probably. My example has no such possible state.
And while my example might be trivial, there are cases where
converging on a solution with many variables can take a hell of a lot
of CPU and time. And it's a very valid thing for a program to do.
The main point is that OS' don't arbitrarily kill processes (or
throttle them) just because a given process is using a lot of CPU.
At the very least, it should warn the user if a program is using a lot.
On 10/1/23 19:22, sms wrote:
On 10/1/2023 2:43 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage,
or outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources
by shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
That's what I said?
On 10/1/23 17:25, Alan wrote:
There is a difference between not finding a particular issue in
particular circumstances and "forget[ting]" to test.
Agreed?
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
It was a conscious decision not to test these iPhones for overheating.
On 10/1/23 19:22, sms wrote:
On 10/1/2023 2:43 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage,
or outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources
by shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
That's what I said?
On Oct 1, 2023, Alan Browne wrote
(in article <xQlSM.36250$%_f1.3838@fx06.iad>):
On 2023-10-01 17:38, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-01 14:13, Wally J wrote:
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
No, you very clearly haven't.
Well, both badgolferman and I have said we've worked on military grade >>>> software for decades but you can choose to disbelieve what we say.
That's convenient, Clown...
...because we do so choose.
Using terms like "military grade software" is a red flag.
There is a way to say what he desperately wants to convey but since he
said it the way he said it we know it is poppycock (at best).
Military Grade software does exist. VHDL (MIL-STD-454N) and Ada (MIL-STD-1815) are examples. But just because something is military grade doesn't mean it is good. Military grade means it is the cheapest made while still meeting minimum contract specifications.
On 1/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower performance.
Not at all.
You believe in miracles.
You don't remember the pre-and-post benchmarks with iOS 10.2 it seems.
What it means is after the bug fix is that the benchmarks will be pretty
much identical.
Apple will greatly chop performance as it was with the iOS 10.2 "fixes." Apple "fixed" that problem the same way Apple's going to "fix" this one.
Apple sold an inherently untested product which turned out to be defective. >>> The benchmark results are on that defective product.
In any new product and OS release, the chances of bugs is pretty high no
matter how much testing was done. These are consumer appliances and
there are too many undetermined (undeterminable) cases to test them all.
It's obvious that Apple only tested for overheating after it blew up.
Same as when the battery issue came up. It couldn't have been tested.
It's fast. But too hot.
See above. Threads can be very fast and very unproductive. Fix that
and life goes on.
Maybe you don't remember how Apple handled a similar issue in the past.
What happened in the past, is what's going to happen in the future.
Nobody should buy oveheating iPhones until we see all new benchmarks.
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 17:22:58 -0700, sms wrote:
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage, or
outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources by
shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
The only way Apple can stop this problem in software is to cut performance.
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 19:09:20 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:
At the very least the user should have enough brains not to use utter
crap "Social Media" apps like Instagram. :-p
While I don't disagree, they should still have some safeguards against
rouge apps.
Apple marketing has started the new campaign to solve the problem the way they always have solved any bad press in the news about Apple's product.
First Apple will only admit to "slight warming" of the iPhone 15 series.
Then Apple will "assure the safety" of the new iPhones so rest at ease.
Apple will issue new guidelines explaining not only how to hold it,
but also the types of Apple-approved fire-safe asbestos-free gloves to use.
These new fire-safe iPhone gloves will be called the iGlove, and will
retail for $79.99 USD if you wait outside in line at the Apple Store.
In addition, users will have the opportunity to beta test the new ten-foot iPole that Apple is selling in various new bold colors like red & yellow.
The new iPoles will be sold for only $39.99 USD so get them now before the bold color of your choice sells out (Sorry. Not available in plain white.)
candycanearter07 wrote on 02.10.2023 00:04
There is a difference between not finding a particular issue in
particular circumstances and "forget[ting]" to test.
Agreed?
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
I don't think Alan is correct that Apple "forgot" to test.
Apple consciously decided not to bother wasting the money to test it.
That's different.
It was a conscious decision not to test these iPhones for overheating.
It's clear there was no testing for this widespread overheating problem. Otherwise it wouldn't be so many situations & so many of them being common.
Anyone saying it was tested has to first read that Apple said almost everything is causing this overheating - which means they didn't test it.
None of this would have been allowed through had there been any testing.
But there wasn't any testing. That much is clear to everyone. Even Apple.
For the overheating, they can throttle the CPU under certain conditions
but it doesn't address the root cause of the need for a better thermal solution (vapor chamber).
On 10/1/2023 5:41 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
On 10/1/23 19:22, sms wrote:
On 10/1/2023 2:43 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage,
or outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources
by shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
That's what I said?
Sorry, I was correcting one of our favorite trolls.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:33:26 +0800, Patrick wrote:
At the very least the user should have enough brains not to use
utter crap "Social Media" apps like Instagram. :-p
This idea from Your Name is great as it will instantly solve all of
Apple's overheating iPhone 15 problems while still allowing sales to
proceed.
People not using crappy "Social Media" would solve lots of the world's problems in one go!
On 10/2/23 08:51, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-01 19:04, candycanearter07 wrote:
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
Depends on what testing is done and how the tests were designed.
If tests look for "did task BB002 complete w/o errors?" and it's
affirmative then it passes.
If tests look for "did task BB002 complete w/o errors and use little
CPU, time or result in the temperature not going up" and it's
affirmative then it passes.
Then, did the above while each of 100's of popular 3rd party apps was
also running?
This sort of thing shoots off to infinite tests pretty quickly...
Fair, but temperature should be at least measured in testing I'd think.
On 2023-10-01 19:04, candycanearter07 wrote:
If so many people have this issue then it would've come up in testing.
Depends on what testing is done and how the tests were designed.
If tests look for "did task BB002 complete w/o errors?" and it's
affirmative then it passes.
If tests look for "did task BB002 complete w/o errors and use little
CPU, time or result in the temperature not going up" and it's
affirmative then it passes.
Then, did the above while each of 100's of popular 3rd party apps was
also running?
This sort of thing shoots off to infinite tests pretty quickly...
Silos. Typically, the processor board engineers and mechanical
engineers will work together and test the ability of the box to shed
heat when there is load. And they will have a definition for that test (numerous tests at the cold end, room temp, max temp). This will
involve very little from the s/w side, other than actions required to
protect the hardware (extreme cold, extreme heat) from damage. (This can
also be done in h/w with the s/w merely displaying a message).
Software testing OS + Apple apps (another silo) is usually done
independently of the processor/mechanical engineers except for some
narrow cases such as protecting the hardware through s/w actions
(Throttling, sleeping, etc.)
And of course interactions with 3rd party apps is a whole other realm.
New h/w.
New OS verion.
Bugs! Really!
But so few.
IAC, in some time in the near future, this will all be a memory.
On 10/1/2023 11:06 PM, Peter wrote:
<snip>
It was a conscious decision not to test these iPhones for
overheating.
It was likely the belief that since the apps all ran fine on iOS 17 on
the iPhone 14 Pro/Pro Max that there was no operating system issue
with those apps.
On 2023-10-01 23:15, Frankie wrote:
On 1/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower
performance.
Not at all.
You believe in miracles. You don't remember the pre-and-post
benchmarks with iOS 10.2 it seems.
What it means is after the bug fix is that the benchmarks will be
pretty much identical.
Apple will greatly chop performance as it was with the iOS 10.2
"fixes." Apple "fixed" that problem the same way Apple's going to
"fix" this one.
Apple sold an inherently untested product which turned out to be
defective. The benchmark results are on that defective product.
In any new product and OS release, the chances of bugs is pretty
high no matter how much testing was done. These are consumer
appliances and there are too many undetermined (undeterminable)
cases to test them all.
It's obvious that Apple only tested for overheating after it blew up.
Same as when the battery issue came up. It couldn't have been tested.
It's fast. But too hot.
See above. Threads can be very fast and very unproductive. Fix
that and life goes on.
Maybe you don't remember how Apple handled a similar issue in the
past. What happened in the past, is what's going to happen in the
future.
Nobody should buy oveheating iPhones until we see all new benchmarks.
You're talking out of your hat.
I used to write real time programs for a living. It is all too easy
to make mistakes and have a section of code run in circles doing
nothing productive but consume power. Fix that bug, and life goes on
and no limits to the product are needed. In a multi-threaded
environment (and iOS is decidedly such), it is even easier to make
such errors and harder to detect them.
I guess Frankie=Arlen?
On 1/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower
performance.
Not at all.
You believe in miracles.
On 2/10/2023, Jolly Roger wrote:
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower
performance.
Wrong. It is quite typical for bugs to cause excessive resource usage
which lowers performance, and fixing those bugs results in an
increase in performance as resources are then free to be used more
efficiently.
Maybe you don't remember how Apple blah blah blah...
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:33:26 +0800, Patrick wrote:
At the very least the user should have enough brains not to use utter
crap "Social Media" apps like Instagram. :-p
This idea from Your Name is great as it will instantly solve all of
Apple's overheating iPhone 15 problems while still allowing sales to
proceed.
Apple should instantly remove TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp &
Telegram from the App Store (and Apple should remove those installed).
That way Apple doesn't have to do anything else to fix the overheating
phones. Well, there is the problems of indexing and iOS 17 bugs too.
For that, Apple should turn off indexing (what does it do anyway?).
And Apple should allow the overheating iPhones to backport to iOS 16.
Problem solved thanks to Your Name!
Good idea. Apple also needs to remove Uber and Asphalt 9 Legends games.
And Apple has to figure out how to turn off charging the iPhone 15 too.
As a side note, Apple has made the unusual admission that their iPhone may feel slightly warmer but if you stop holding it - you won't feel it at all.
Apple suggests you lay the phone on a flat fire-proof surface and that you interact with it remotely - they even sell a ten-foot long iStick for that.
On 2023-10-02, Frankie <frankie@nospam.usa> wrote:
On 2/10/2023, Jolly Roger wrote:
The only way Apple can lower the heat output is to lower
performance.
Wrong. It is quite typical for bugs to cause excessive resource usage
which lowers performance, and fixing those bugs results in an
increase in performance as resources are then free to be used more
efficiently.
Maybe you don't remember how Apple blah blah blah...
As usual, you can't address what is actually being discussed, so you
resort to repeating your tired, old, trolls. You're a clown, Arlen.
On 2023-10-02 09:55, sms wrote:
For the overheating, they can throttle the CPU under certain
conditions but it doesn't address the root cause of the need for a
better thermal solution (vapor chamber).
Laughably stupid. If the cause of the CPU overrun is a bug in s/w, you don't implement a mechanical change, you implement a software change.
There is a way to say what he desperately wants to convey but since he
said it the way he said it we know it is poppycock (at best).
Military Grade software does exist. VHDL (MIL-STD-454N) and Ada (MIL-STD-1815) are examples. But just because something is military grade doesn't mean it is good. Military grade means it is the cheapest made while still meeting minimum contract specifications.
There is a way to say what he desperately wants to convey but since he
said it the way he said it we know it is poppycock (at best).
On 2023-10-02 10:38, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-02 09:55, sms wrote:
For the overheating, they can throttle the CPU under certain
conditions but it doesn't address the root cause of the need for a
better thermal solution (vapor chamber).
Laughably stupid. If the cause of the CPU overrun is a bug in s/w,
you don't implement a mechanical change, you implement a software change.
+1
It's _you_ who hasn't ever worked with software as complicated as the
military grade stuff both badgolferman and I worked on for decades.
You've coded operating systems?? That's awesome!
I used to write real time programs for a living. It is all too easy to
make mistakes and have a section of code run in circles doing nothing productive but consume power.
You lack basic understanding of software and systems.
Many software
defects cause excessive resource usage which decreases performance.
Fixing such a defect allows those system resources to be used more efficiently, which in turn increases performance. This is *basic* stuff.
And the fact that you call it "miracles" says all we need to know about
your knowledge in this area.
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
It's _you_ who hasn't ever worked with software as complicated as the
military grade stuff both badgolferman and I worked on for decades.
You've coded operating systems?? That's awesome!
I never said I was a programmer, although I took classes in Fortran before there was a Fortran 77, along with COBOL and IBM assembly language, perhaps before you were even born.
When I was in graduate school, I was building my own Motorola 68701 micro controller boards, and my first few jobs in Massachusetts were on DEC computers before the VAX and SunOS and Solaris 'nix software debuted.
The software I worked on is classified as a munition - so I worked with
Fort Meade and other government agencies - but the main reason I used the words I did was to lump my experience in with that of badgolferman's where
he used the terminology I was equating my experience with.
Remember, people like Alan Browne have a low IQ so we have to dumb down the message for them - but if you want to take a look at my software, there are papers I've published that you might find my writing style in.
Hell... some of those papers are in a completely different field than software, since I have multiple degrees in vastly different arenas.
Anyway, the point here is that we have to remember the iKooks aren't only stupid - they're religious fanatics who are stupid.
Sure, none of the iKooks has an IQ approaching normal (nospam's is probably about 80, and Alan Browne's ten points below that - with the rest like
Jolly Roger and Joerg Lorenze and Alan Baker half of what those are).
Sure, none of the iKooks has any formal education, with Joerg Lorenz and Jolly Roger and Alan Baker never having graduated even what we'd call High School in the USA - Jolly Roger tried three times for the GED & failed -
for example.
Sure, none of the iKooks ever reads the news about Apple so I had to tell them that, for example, Apple only fully supports a single release - which
- for years (and years!) they've been claiming that's not the truth.
And yet it is the truth about Apple.
What makes these iKooks what they are isn't so much they're ignorant, uneducated and unfortunately of a rather low IQ - no - what makes them
iKooks is you combine that stupidity with their Jim Jones' adherence to the Apple religion.
That's why they're iKooks.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
There is a way to say what he desperately wants to convey but since he
said it the way he said it we know it is poppycock (at best).
Do you doubt that my IQ has to be something like fifty points above yours?
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage, or
outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources by shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
IAC, in some time in the near future, this will all be a memory.
I actually didn't know that, that makes a lot of sense.
It was a conscious decision not to test these iPhones for overheating.
It was likely the belief that since the apps all ran fine on iOS 17 on
the iPhone 14 Pro/Pro Max that there was no operating system issue with
those apps. They didn't take into account the higher power consumption
and higher thermals of the A17 Bionic or the change from a metal with a higher thermal conductivity to one with a lower thermal conductivity.
Remember the iPhone 4 antenna issue? The belief there was that the
phones that were being tested had cases on them, to hide what they were,
so no one was touching the frame in the wrong place.
Remember the iPhone 6/6s/7 throttling issue? It actually wasn't a
problem with the battery it was that the PMIC was unable to deliver sufficient power to the Bionic chip when the battery had slightly aged.
In the iPhone 8 they added another PMIC to address the issue and there
have been no reports of the iPhone 8 or newer throttling even though the throttling code is still there.
A replacement battery was a workaround
to the problem on the 6/6s/7 but it didn't address the root cause.
For the overheating, they can throttle the CPU under certain conditions
but it doesn't address the root cause of the need for a better thermal solution (vapor chamber).
There are user settings in Unix to lower the priority of a program, but
it will still get all the CPU it can that is available. Not sure if
there are internal calls in iOS so an app can have its priority lowered.
On 2/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
I used to write real time programs for a living. It is all too easy
to make mistakes and have a section of code run in circles doing
nothing productive but consume power.
You don't understand
On 10/2/2023 2:40 PM, Mark L wrote:
On 2023-10-02 10:38, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-02 09:55, sms wrote:
For the overheating, they can throttle the CPU under certain
conditions but it doesn't address the root cause of the need for a
better thermal solution (vapor chamber).
Laughably stupid. If the cause of the CPU overrun is a bug in s/w,
you don't implement a mechanical change, you implement a software
change.
+1
If the cause were a bug in the s/w then it would have shown up long
ago since iOS 17 was out long before the iPhone 15 or the A17 Bionic.
It can be "fixed" in software.
If the cause were a bug in the s/w then it would have shown up long ago
since iOS 17 was out long before the iPhone 15 or the A17 Bionic. It can
be "fixed" in software.
It can be "fixed" in software.
Apple is on record stating the fix will be *drum roll* in software.
On 2/10/2023, Jolly Roger wrote:
You lack basic understanding of software and systems.
because of nops, is absurd.
Many software defects cause excessive resource usage which decreases
performance. Fixing such a defect allows those system resources to
be used more efficiently, which in turn increases performance. This
is *basic* stuff. And the fact that you call it "miracles" says all
we need to know about your knowledge in this area.
crazy excuse
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 10:12:50 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:
IAC, in some time in the near future, this will all be a memory.
I actually didn't know that, that makes a lot of sense.
There are very many instances of Apple not testing the hardware and/or software before making a big deal of their "big" release of the product.
Apple Maps is one of them, but a whole bunch of iPhones had hardware issues that Apple didn't test for (the antenna, the power delivery, the modem).
Thankfully the new bold colors WERE TESTED thoroughly - and were a hit!
Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote
There is a way to say what he desperately wants to convey but since he
said it the way he said it we know it is poppycock (at best).
Military Grade software does exist. VHDL (MIL-STD-454N) and Ada
(MIL-STD-1815) are examples. But just because something is military grade
doesn't mean it is good. Military grade means it is the cheapest made while >> still meeting minimum contract specifications.
I Dorper,
You have to dumb down the message when you're conversing with the iKooks. (You can raise the level to normal speech only when dealing with adults.)
I used that term because I was lumping my decades of Silicon Valley experience with that of badgolferman's - but the point is that toy software like Apple's operating systems is Barbie-doll stuff compared to that.
Suffice to say the software I worked with for decades is classified as a munition (and hence can't be sold to certain countries & parties).
But what's funny is that the low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks are trying
to say they're more intelligent than I am or than badgolferman is - which they're welcome to believe...
But why don't they ever show any semblance of normal adult cognition then? Worse than the iKooks' almost complete lack of adult cognitive skills is
how these ignorant low-IQ uneducated iKooks react to facts about Apple.
They only have 7 responses to all truths about Apple.
The first few are to outright deny all facts about Apple and in doing so to blame Samsung for everything bad that Apple does - and then to distract and change the conversation to classic "whataboutism" (which they don't even
know they're using since none of them has earned a high school GED even).
HINT: Jolly Roger said he failed three times to attain his High School GED.
If you look at Alan Baker, it's even worse than Alan Browne, where he has
an IQ I estimate at about 40 which is why he has the honor of my killfile (along with Snit and Rod Speed and Joerg Lorenze) due to the fact he can't ever add value.
What's interesting is people like Alan Baker whose IQ is less than half of normal, "think" they're geniuses - and yet - they're completely ignorant.
As a simple example, Alan Baker doesn't know a bimmer from a beemer - which is OK as tons of people are completely ignorant of BMWs, but then Alan
Baker swears he's a racer and owner of a BMW (which happens to be a
bimmer).
How can someone be _that_ ignorant when NOBODY who races and NOBODY who
owns a bimmer or a beemer (I own both) would be _that_ completely clueless.
On 10/2/23 20:05, Wally J wrote:
Remember, people like Alan Browne have a low IQ so we have to dumb
down the
message for them - but if you want to take a look at my software,
there are
papers I've published that you might find my writing style in.
Hell... some of those papers are in a completely different field than
software, since I have multiple degrees in vastly different arenas.
Anyway, the point here is that we have to remember the iKooks aren't only
stupid - they're religious fanatics who are stupid.
Sure, none of the iKooks has an IQ approaching normal (nospam's is
probably
about 80, and Alan Browne's ten points below that - with the rest like
Jolly Roger and Joerg Lorenze and Alan Baker half of what those are).
Sure, none of the iKooks has any formal education, with Joerg Lorenz and
Jolly Roger and Alan Baker never having graduated even what we'd call
High
School in the USA - Jolly Roger tried three times for the GED & failed -
for example.
Ouch, really?
On 10/2/2023 2:40 PM, Mark L wrote:
On 2023-10-02 10:38, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-02 09:55, sms wrote:
For the overheating, they can throttle the CPU under certain
conditions but it doesn't address the root cause of the need for a
better thermal solution (vapor chamber).
Laughably stupid. If the cause of the CPU overrun is a bug in s/w,
you don't implement a mechanical change, you implement a software
change.
+1
If the cause were a bug in the s/w then it would have shown up long ago
since iOS 17 was out long before the iPhone 15 or the A17 Bionic. It can
be "fixed" in software.
As Jolly Roger points out, this overheating issue is occurring in older devices as well.
And yes, it can be fixed in s/w w/o any affect on performance.
On 3/10/2023, Jolly Roger wrote:
It can be "fixed" in software.
Apple is on record stating the fix will be *drum roll* in software.
Which means the only solution will be to slow down performance.
Either way, the performance of the "fixed iPhone 15" will be reduced.
On 10/3/2023 7:59 AM, Mark L wrote:
<snip>
As Jolly Roger points out, this overheating issue is occurring in
older devices as well.
LOL, you might want to reconsider who you believe.
And yes, it can be fixed in s/w w/o any affect on performance.
Thermal throttling is a fact of life.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 10:12:50 -0500, candycanearter07 wrote:
IAC, in some time in the near future, this will all be a memory.
I actually didn't know that, that makes a lot of sense.
There are very many instances of Apple not testing the hardware and/or software before making a big deal of their "big" release of the product.
Apple Maps is one of them, but a whole bunch of iPhones had hardware issues that Apple didn't test for (the antenna, the power delivery, the modem).
Thankfully the new bold colors WERE TESTED thoroughly - and were a hit!
On 2/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
There are user settings in Unix to lower the priority of a program, but
it will still get all the CPU it can that is available. Not sure if
there are internal calls in iOS so an app can have its priority lowered.
Apple has to lower performance, where that's one way they might do it.
On 2/10/2023, sms wrote:
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They can
just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage percentage, or
outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive resources by
shutting it down. There have been complaints by developers of this
happening when the app has a legitimate need for those resources.
Given there are many disparate excuses Apple has provided for why the defective iPhones are overheating, do you think the "fix" will involved
Apple lowering the performance?
I'm not speaking of the CPU speed since Apple will be clever to blame the apps and not the processor - so the wording of Apple's public apology will likely be just as much a Doozy as the last one was that Apple issued.
Do you think there's any chance Apple can decrease the disparate
overheating (happens during charging!) without lowering performance?
On 2/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
I used to write real time programs for a living. It is all too easy to
make mistakes and have a section of code run in circles doing nothing
productive but consume power.
You don't understand if that's your absurd excuse for the overheating.
We used to call those "for loops" or "do loops" (adding nops in between, pronounced "no ops") but for you to make the assertion without a single
fact that the dozen or so things Apple blamed are all that, is absurd.
Every crazy excuse you're making without any evidence is ridiculous.
Apple will slow down the performance of the iPhone 15.
It's the only choice Apple has.
Either Apple will slow down the CPU (but they won't do that).
Or they'll slow down the apps running on that CPU (that's what they'll do).
Either way.
The only choice Apple has now is to greatly slow down the performance.
Which means all the current benchmarks are trash.
The "fixed" iPhone 15 will be much slower than the overheating iPhone 15.
My recommendation is people not purchase these defective iPhones.
Nothing good can ever come of them.
They should wait for the iPhone 16 to be designed & tested to not overheat.
How can someone be _that_ ignorant when NOBODY who races and NOBODY who
owns a bimmer or a beemer (I own both) would be _that_ completely clueless.
Sorry... ...I never heard a distinction made about those two terms.
I used to write real time programs for a living. It is all too easy to
make mistakes and have a section of code run in circles doing nothing
productive but consume power.
You don't understand if that's your absurd excuse for the overheating.
I do. Completely. A little non-care in crafting complex code can
indeed result in a loop that should have called a ThreadSleep or exited
- but instead circles waiting for a signal or message rather than having
the thread manager "deliver" the message or wake the thread (OS
dependencies are also important...)
That's the nature of bugs. And further, bugs in multi-threaded apps can
be very hard to track down and fix (put another way: multi-threaded apps
are rife with opportunity to create bugs).
For that matter the CW is if you can avoid multi-threading, do avoid it.
We used to call those "for loops" or "do loops" (adding nops in between,
pronounced "no ops") but for you to make the assertion without a single
fact that the dozen or so things Apple blamed are all that, is absurd.
No need for NOP's, (and depending on language loops are still called do
/ for / while / etc ).
Waiting on a state change w/o calling ThreadSleep for some reasonable
period (which may be 10's or 100's of µs or ms or s. depending on the
nature of that signal) is a fine way to gobble CPU w/o doing anything
useful. And if the timeslice is long (say 10ms) and there are few
competing CPU hungry apps, then that thread can really burn CPU w/o
doing anything useful.
Of course I've not only written such code w/o error and also written
such code with errors and found those errors (sometimes with
difficulty), so, unlike you I don't have to talk out of my hat.
Been there. Got the paycheque.
These days, I write multithreaded code on my Mac and on Raspberry Pi and
can fall into the same sorts of errors when not careful.
Every crazy excuse you're making without any evidence is ridiculous.
Apple will slow down the performance of the iPhone 15.
It's the only choice Apple has.
Now those statements are the definition of ridiculous.
Either Apple will slow down the CPU (but they won't do that).
Or they'll slow down the apps running on that CPU (that's what they'll do).
Again, even the lowest priority thread has all the CPU it wants until it
is pre-empted (before or at the end of its time slice).
(Minor caveat, Apple silicon has "fast" and "efficiency" cores, so I
expect low priority threads are put onto the efficiency core.).
Either way.
The only choice Apple has now is to greatly slow down the performance.
Keep pounding at that statement. It does not make it valid.
Which means all the current benchmarks are trash.
The "fixed" iPhone 15 will be much slower than the overheating iPhone 15.
Which means 3rd party types will run their benchmark s/w and show the
result for before and after. So you'll have your "evidence" then.
<chuckle>.
My recommendation is people not purchase these defective iPhones.
Nothing good can ever come of them.
They should wait for the iPhone 16 to be designed & tested to not overheat.
Nothing to worry about at all. Indeed my SO will be picking up her new iPhone 15 in the next week or so.
Do you think there's any chance Apple can decrease the disparate
overheating (happens during charging!) without lowering performance?
Yes. Bugs that cause excessive CPU consumption w/o contributing useful
work are very possible. This has been explained to you. But you lack
the knowledge to understand it. That's okay - when Apple (and some app writers) implement their changes you'll see it for what it is (or more
likely go off on some other bizarre tangent).
Either way, the performance of the "fixed iPhone 15" will be reduced.
No.
And yes, it can be fixed in s/w w/o any affect on performance.
And yes, it can be fixed in s/w w/o any affect on performance.
Thermal throttling is a fact of life.
So is fixing bugs that cause excessive resource usage.
You remind of the boy in high school who hangs out with some popular
alpha male, remaining safe in his shadow, and ends up with a dead end
life void.
So Apple just need to fix the offending processes (bugs) and there will
be no need to throttle performance to resolve this issue.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
It was a conscious decision not to test these iPhones for overheating.
It was likely the belief that since the apps all ran fine on iOS 17 on
the iPhone 14 Pro/Pro Max that there was no operating system issue with
those apps. They didn't take into account the higher power consumption
and higher thermals of the A17 Bionic or the change from a metal with a
higher thermal conductivity to one with a lower thermal conductivity.
You are correct because the causes are so mundane that the only way Apple could have not known about (charging & Instagram & common games) causing
the iPhone overheating is that Apple thought they didn't need to test it.
On 3/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
So Apple just need to fix the offending processes (bugs) and there will
be no need to throttle performance to resolve this issue.
Apple already said they have to reduce the performance "of certain apps."
On 3/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
I used to write real time programs for a living. It is all too easy to >>>> make mistakes and have a section of code run in circles doing nothing
productive but consume power.
You don't understand if that's your absurd excuse for the overheating.
I do. Completely. A little non-care in crafting complex code can
indeed result in a loop that should have called a ThreadSleep or exited
- but instead circles waiting for a signal or message rather than having
the thread manager "deliver" the message or wake the thread (OS
dependencies are also important...)
I'm not saying loops don't exist.
I'm saying very clearly that it's insanely absurd to the point of incredularity for you to make up the blame that all these overheating
causes are due to what you have shown not even a single one to be.
That's the nature of bugs. And further, bugs in multi-threaded apps can
be very hard to track down and fix (put another way: multi-threaded apps
are rife with opportunity to create bugs).
For that matter the CW is if you can avoid multi-threading, do avoid it.
Take the example of overheating while charging - as just one of the dozens
of causes that Apple has identified. How is THAT due to loops you claim?
We used to call those "for loops" or "do loops" (adding nops in between, >>> pronounced "no ops") but for you to make the assertion without a single
fact that the dozen or so things Apple blamed are all that, is absurd.
No need for NOP's, (and depending on language loops are still called do
/ for / while / etc ).
Waiting on a state change w/o calling ThreadSleep for some reasonable
period (which may be 10's or 100's of µs or ms or s. depending on the
nature of that signal) is a fine way to gobble CPU w/o doing anything
useful. And if the timeslice is long (say 10ms) and there are few
competing CPU hungry apps, then that thread can really burn CPU w/o
doing anything useful.
Of course I've not only written such code w/o error and also written
such code with errors and found those errors (sometimes with
difficulty), so, unlike you I don't have to talk out of my hat.
Been there. Got the paycheque.
These days, I write multithreaded code on my Mac and on Raspberry Pi and
can fall into the same sorts of errors when not careful.
Your claims are completely made up out of nothing but your own desperation.
Every crazy excuse you're making without any evidence is ridiculous.
Apple will slow down the performance of the iPhone 15.
It's the only choice Apple has.
Now those statements are the definition of ridiculous.
You deny that the most common cause of overheating is the processor
workload even as Apple has clearly said that it is processor workload?
Why are you so desperate to not only claim Apple lied about what caused the overloading but now you're saying what Apple claimed is ridiculous?
Again, even the lowest priority thread has all the CPU it wants until it
Either Apple will slow down the CPU (but they won't do that).
Or they'll slow down the apps running on that CPU (that's what they'll do). >>
is pre-empted (before or at the end of its time slice).
(Minor caveat, Apple silicon has "fast" and "efficiency" cores, so I
expect low priority threads are put onto the efficiency core.).
I don't think you realize that you're desperate to claim that Apple lied about the solution being the processor workload needed to be reduced.
Either way.
The only choice Apple has now is to greatly slow down the performance.
Keep pounding at that statement. It does not make it valid.
Apple said what the problem was. You claim Apple lied.
You are a nut.
Which means 3rd party types will run their benchmark s/w and show the
Which means all the current benchmarks are trash.
The "fixed" iPhone 15 will be much slower than the overheating iPhone 15. >>
result for before and after. So you'll have your "evidence" then.
<chuckle>.
You now claim not only did Apple lie about the causes, but now you're claiming that the 3rd parties are all conspiring against Apple?
Why can't you just admit Apple screwed up?
Nothing to worry about at all. Indeed my SO will be picking up her new
My recommendation is people not purchase these defective iPhones.
Nothing good can ever come of them.
They should wait for the iPhone 16 to be designed & tested to not overheat. >>
iPhone 15 in the next week or so.
The problem with any phone older than the iPhone XR is that it's
unsupported and the problem with the iPhone 15 is it's defective.
You deny both of those because you say Apple lied about both.
Despite your claims Apple lied, the truth remains that Apple won't fully patch any phone older than the iPhone XR and Apple has already said they
are going to reduce the performance in order to solve the overheating.
The software I worked on is classified as a munition
On 2023-10-02 21:37, Frankie wrote:
On 2/10/2023, sms wrote:
The operating system controls thread scheduling and memory. They
can just lower the apps priority if its past a certain usage
percentage, or outright kill it.
Actually the OS _can_ stop the app from consuming excessive
resources by shutting it down. There have been complaints by
developers of this happening when the app has a legitimate need for
those resources.
Given there are many disparate excuses Apple has provided for why the
defective iPhones are overheating, do you think the "fix" will
involved Apple lowering the performance?
I'm not speaking of the CPU speed since Apple will be clever to blame
the apps and not the processor - so the wording of Apple's public
apology will likely be just as much a Doozy as the last one was that
Apple issued.
Do you think there's any chance Apple can decrease the disparate
overheating (happens during charging!) without lowering performance?
Yes. Bugs that cause excessive CPU consumption w/o contributing
useful work are very possible. This has been explained to you. But
you lack the knowledge to understand it. That's okay - when Apple
(and some app writers) implement their changes you'll see it for what
it is (or more likely go off on some other bizarre tangent).
On 3/10/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
So Apple just need to fix the offending processes (bugs) and there
will be no need to throttle performance to resolve this issue.
Apple already said they have to reduce the performance "of certain
apps."
On 3/10/2023, Jolly Roger wrote:
Either way, the performance of the "fixed iPhone 15" will be reduced.
No.
Apple already said they have no choice but to reduce the performance
But why don't they ever show any semblance of normal adult cognition then? Worse than the iKooks' almost complete lack of adult cognitive skills is
how these ignorant low-IQ uneducated iKooks react to facts about Apple.
They only have 7 responses to all truths about Apple.
The first few are to outright deny all facts about Apple and in doing so to blame Samsung for everything bad that Apple does - and then to distract and change the conversation to classic "whataboutism" (which they don't even
know they're using since none of them has earned a high school GED even).
HINT: Jolly Roger said he failed three times to attain his High School GED.
Hint: No smartphone OS is anywhere nearly as insecure as iOS is.
(hackers don't even need to be within a thousand miles of your phone to
completely and fully take it over any time they want to - for years!)
In other news, Android has released it's latest security update:
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/android-october-security- update-fixes-zero-days-exploited-in-attacks/
Including fixes for "54 unique vulnerabilities, including two known to be actively exploited." Of the 54 fixes concerning Android 11 through 13, five are rated critical, and two concern remote code execution problems.
HINT: Jolly Roger said he failed three times to attain his High School GED.
Sad.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 145:18:41 |
| Calls: | 9,694 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,730 |
| Messages: | 6,178,514 |