Apple or Android?

[Jonathan]

My first smartphone in 2012 was an Android one - an HTC Wildfire S. It was such an unpleasant experience that not much more than 18 months later, I bought an iPhone 5s, and have been with Apple ever since, purchasing a 6s in May 2016 and an 8 in February last year. When it came to getting a new phone last time around, I could've bought the latest model, but couldn't justify the cost. Furthermore, the 8 offered all I needed, and I got a really good deal on it. I know Android's developed a lot since 2012, but I really get on with iOS, and don't see much of a need to change. I've also had an iPad since May 2015 (now on my second), and the same principle applies.

 

[DistortAMG]

Apple moved from a 32bit OS to a 64bit one. Trainline don’t want to keep writing an app for older systems.
This is nothing new software for years has had minimum specs or requires a certain version of an OS.

Indeed they did. But unlike Android, Windows and even their own MacOS. They totally removed support for 32 bit apps. I mean the support was there already so why disable it. They keep it there on their desktops but suspiciously remove it on mobile, their biggest market. My point still stands.

 

[rob666]

Oh come on Matt...

"Apple surely wouldn't make devices obsolete unless they absolutely had to, would they? "

Yes they would.
Yes they do.
Welcome to the real world of electrical goods

 

[jon81uk]

Indeed they did. But unlike Android, Windows and even their own MacOS. They totally removed support for 32 bit apps. I mean the support was there already so why disable it. They keep it there on their desktops but suspiciously remove it on mobile, their biggest market. My point still stands.

although having looked into it, the 64bit issue isn’t relevant to the problem Matt has of Trainline not supporting iPhone 6. 32bit apps stopped working on iOS 11, the iPhone 6 is on 12.5.4, it isn’t supported with iPhone 13. Trainline could if they wanted to keep supporting iOS 12. The Great Western Railway app & Avanti west coast works on iOS 11.2, LNER on iOS 12. Trainline is in the minority by insisting on iOS 13.4 or newer. It’s more of a trainline issue than an Apple one.
Matt could easily use plenty of other apps instead.
Wouldn’t surprise me if there is the same issue on Android with Trainline insisting on newer OS versions.

Many apps I’ve just looked at only need iOS 11, which means they have been updated to 64bit but will still work on older phones.

The iPhone 6 was supported by five versions of iOS. The 6S is now the first to be supported by seven versions as it will be compatible with iOS 15 this month. So this will be even less of an issue in the future.

 

[geo4chg]

Oh come on Matt...

"Apple surely wouldn't make devices obsolete unless they absolutely had to, would they? "

Yes they would.
Yes they do.
Welcome to the real world of electrical goods

They do, but this isn't something unique to Apple - they are just the most famous example and very few other companies have such control over an entire ecosystem (Microsoft tried it with Windows and failed). However, until this generation this was the way games consoles worked (you had games for the PS3 that then no longer worked on a PS4 but to get the latest games you are forced into upgrading etc).

However, it is disingenuous to suggest it is as simple as Apple turning off a feature that makes old products obsolete - they are catering for the 90%+ of users that upgrade their phone within 3-4 years of each other, and the expense and resource to ensure every patch, version and iteration of iOS works on every Apple device becomes a trade-off that is not worth it for the company. At some point, support for older devices has to end. iOS 14 was compatible with iPhones back to the iPhone 6S - so the newest phone not supported was released in Autumn 2014, 6 years is pretty old for a mobile phone. On the Mac side they support devices for longer as people tend to purchase a new computer at a far lower frequency than a new phone.

Additionally, Apple's reputation is built on good quality products but also a user experience that is slick and hassle-free - seeing their newest software struggle to perform on an old device does not fit in with that image and could be highly damaging to their reputation, so Apple is probably more sensitive than most companies that people get the best possible experience. I'm not saying this is necessarily right but it is a factor.

 

[jon81uk]

At some point, support for older devices has to end. iOS 14 was compatible with iPhones back to the iPhone 6S - so the newest phone not supported was released in Autumn 2014, 6 years is pretty old for a mobile phone.

The 6S will accept iOS 15 this year, so a six year old device will get a seventh generation of the OS.

I'm less familiar with Android, but it seems the Samsung Galaxy S6 was also released in 2015 and that is on Android 7.0 (Nougat) which was released in 2018, so that device only got three years of updates, which makes six years of updates on iOS seem amazing. Although I'm not sure whether app developers insist on newer OS versions on Android?

 

[John C]

For years I was very reluctant to get a smart phone as all I needed to do was phone and text. But about 5 years ago I got an iphone 5S which had just been discontinued and was relatively cheap. From then on I was won over by Apple. I'm now on an iphone 11 and really like it. I very much doubt that I would now switch to Android.

 

[Matt.GC]

The 6S will accept iOS 15 this year, so a six year old device will get a seventh generation of the OS.

I'm less familiar with Android, but it seems the Samsung Galaxy S6 was also released in 2015 and that is on Android 7.0 (Nougat) which was released in 2018, so that device only got three years of updates, which makes six years of updates on iOS seem amazing. Although I'm not sure whether app developers insist on newer OS versions on Android?

They don't tend to, no. If you think about app developers, if you had a simple app you want people to use and you know that the people who are going to use it might have an older version of Android, you're less likely to design it to exclude others. Back in the early days, almost every Android update did make the old version more obsolete but I know people with 5 year old Android phones who can still use them perfectly fine. Mine still runs on Android 10 and not 11 (which was released a year ago) and there's nothing I've found so far that doesn't work.

 

[geo4chg]

They don't tend to, no. If you think about app developers, if you had a simple app you want people to use and you know that the people who are going to use it might have an older version of Android, you're less likely to design it to exclude others. Back in the early days, almost every Android update did make the old version more obsolete but I know people with 5 year old Android phones who can still use them perfectly fine. Mine still runs on Android 10 and not 11 (which was released a year ago) and there's nothing I've found so far that doesn't work.

It is really much the same with Apple. I have an old iPad Mini from 2013 that now not been supported for the last few years and is on an older version of iOS but is still perfectly fine to use for the majority of everyday things. It still syncs with iCloud absolutely fine, plays Apple Music with no problems and is perfectly acceptable for doing a bit of browsing or looking at emails or whatever when our newer iPad is in use by another member of the family. Just because a product doesn't accept a newer version of the OS or the manufacturer says its obsolete doesn't turn it into a paperweight overnight.

 

[jon81uk]

They don't tend to, no. If you think about app developers, if you had a simple app you want people to use and you know that the people who are going to use it might have an older version of Android, you're less likely to design it to exclude others. Back in the early days, almost every Android update did make the old version more obsolete but I know people with 5 year old Android phones who can still use them perfectly fine. Mine still runs on Android 10 and not 11 (which was released a year ago) and there's nothing I've found so far that doesn't work.

Very few iOS apps exclude users who are just one generation behind too. The Trainline app that started this discussion wants iOS 13.2, the current version is 14 (with 15 coming in the next few weeks), but most other apps will work on iOS 11 or 12 so a six year old iPhone 6 will run them. My local train service is Greater Anglia, their app needs iOS 11 but if you want to use it to update a smartcard via NFC it needs iOS 13.

Trainline really seems to be an exception in terms of excluding old hardware, as you say most app developers want people to use it even if they have older hardware and they don't want to stop people using it.

 

[DistortAMG]

although having looked into it, the 64bit issue isn’t relevant to the problem Matt has of Trainline not supporting iPhone 6. 32bit apps stopped working on iOS 11, the iPhone 6 is on 12.5.4, it isn’t supported with iPhone 13. Trainline could if they wanted to keep supporting iOS 12. The Great Western Railway app & Avanti west coast works on iOS 11.2, LNER on iOS 12. Trainline is in the minority by insisting on iOS 13.4 or newer. It’s more of a trainline issue than an Apple one.
Matt could easily use plenty of other apps instead.
Wouldn’t surprise me if there is the same issue on Android with Trainline insisting on newer OS versions.

Many apps I’ve just looked at only need iOS 11, which means they have been updated to 64bit but will still work on older phones.

The iPhone 6 was supported by five versions of iOS. The 6S is now the first to be supported by seven versions as it will be compatible with iOS 15 this month. So this will be even less of an issue in the future.

Still an Apple issue if you ask me. Windows, as an example. Will pretty comfortably run applications made for older operating systems pretty well, without any developer input.

I do not buy into this notion of a developer having to update their app for a newer OS else it will not work. That, that right there is a concious design choice by Apple, meaning you need developer input, even on older and probably not as frequently updated apps if they still want to be compatible, something which is the real world is not always done, adding to the pressure to force people to upgrade. Also forcing developers to maintain multiple code branches of the same app for different OS version compatibility, something the train line havent done and Apple know many devs wont.

I mean other more consumer friendly operating systems do this just fine, there is no reason Apple could not either, apart from forcing people to upgrade in many passively aggressive ways. The backwards compatilibty could be built into the iOS if they wished, they choose not to do it. 10000% blame Apple.

@Matt N. Come in mate, stop being so nieve. The world is not all Disneyland and fairy tales, it is a dog eat dog world out there.

Apple were caught red handed making their devices unnessicarily obsolete a few years ago. Purposly and permanantly slowing down your phones processor, thus making the phone slower. Once the battery had degraded a certain amount. No indication of battery health and no way for the average user to see that their processor had slowed down. Their phone would just get more sluggish, prompting them to upgrade.

This is directly why you have a battery health menu on iPhones now. Apple were caught red handed.

Mate, do a bit of research. Apple are historically the single worst company for making devices obsolete early, through many ways. They are also one of the most anti consumer, anti competitive and anti repair companies on this planet. Really really aggressive in those respects actually.

 

[geo4chg]

Apple were caught red handed making their devices unnessicarily obsolete a few years ago. Purposly and permanantly slowing down your phones processor, thus making the phone slower. Once the battery had degraded a certain amount. No indication of battery health and no way for the average user to see that their processor had slowed down. Their phone would just get more sluggish, prompting them to upgrade.

This is directly why you have a battery health menu on iPhones now. Apple were caught red handed.

This is actually incorrect. Apple weren’t “caught red handed” doing anything - it was Apple that openly revealed what was happening within the OS regarding battery management. As phone batteries get older they lose peak performance and the same processing strain will result in the battery draining faster - in order to help reserve battery life (and therefore make older phones actually last longer) Apple reduced the peak strain that was put on the battery so that an older battery would still get better battery life but would not work as hard. This still happens within the OS today. In real world tests the actual slowing down of processing had a negligible effect on everyday operations. Furthermore this was only done on older devices - for context, I have an iPhone X which is coming up to 4 years old, it’s battery health is at 91% and it still supports Peak Performance Capability. The iPhone battery “scandal” was a lot like the iPhone 4 antenna scandal and numerous others, a storm in a tea cup perpetuated by a vocal minority in tech media that actually had next to no impact on how devices worked for the vast majority of people.

 

[DistortAMG]

This is actually incorrect. Apple weren’t “caught red handed” doing anything - it was Apple that openly revealed what was happening within the OS regarding battery management. As phone batteries get older they lose peak performance and the same processing strain will result in the battery draining faster - in order to help reserve battery life (and therefore make older phones actually last longer) Apple reduced the peak strain that was put on the battery so that an older battery would still get better battery life but would not work as hard. This still happens within the OS today. In real world tests the actual slowing down of processing had a negligible effect on everyday operations. Furthermore this was only done on older devices - for context, I have an iPhone X which is coming up to 4 years old, it’s battery health is at 91% and it still supports Peak Performance Capability. The iPhone battery “scandal” was a lot like the iPhone 4 antenna scandal and numerous others, a storm in a tea cup perpetuated by a vocal minority in tech media that actually had next to no impact on how devices worked for the vast majority of people.

They were caught red handed mate.

Nothing was really known until Geekbench, the popular benchmark application, publicly released benchmarks showing the phones running slower in newer iOS updates. Then once they were caught, Apple admitted it was what they were doing. But even before then, there were rumours suggesting this was happening, but Apple were silent on the matter, saying nothing, until concrete evidence was pushed in their face and they had no choice but to say something.

They did not openly reveal anything, Geekbench forced their hand.

They have had over 50 class action lawsuits over it (59 to be exact), from consumers and governments world wide. Apple lost every single one.

If they did not hide anything in the first place, there would be no base for a law suit, let alone 59 class action lawsuits!! With each class action representing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of customers.

The consequences of all this, like I said, was Apple replacing batteries for free for a period and they provided more detailed battery information, as well as an option to disable the throttling within iOS, features still there today. These were a direct result of getting sued all over.

Also, it was not old phones at all. The latest phones at the time were the iPhone 6, 6S, 6S plus and the SE, and that is what the benchmarks that discovered the scandal were carried out on. Seeing as the throttling was directly tied to a new update in the operating system, it could only happen on the newer iPhones. Apple drop support for the latest iOS on older phones. You can even get compensation if you was running an iPhone 7, as it was possible to get iOS 11.2 on them, which was the iOS build that was at the centre of this scandal.

Go and look properly , it is known online as the Apple battery gate scandal. It is known as one of the companies biggest and they were sued left right and centre for it. Rightly so too. As it did work in Apples favour to sell more phones.

 

[geo4chg]

The fact that literally the second paragraph of the Wiki page on this says:

“Critics argued the slowdown amounted to planned obsolescence, however this may stem from the common misconception that all older iPhones were slowed down. Some have argued that introducing a feature to prevent handsets with degraded batteries from rebooting is in fact the opposite of planned obsolescencesince a slower non-rebooting phone would be preferable to the alternative.”

Also, Apple said such a feature existed in iOS in 2016, a full year before the Geekbench report. The Geekbench report also was incorrect as the slowing of iOS is due to performance of the battery and is not related to the actual handset the battery sits within. Add on to this that the average life of an iPhone is significantly longer than a similar spec Android phone (for reference, Samsung supports Galaxy S phones with updates for 2 years from release and considers a handset obsolete 4 years after release, shorter than Apple does with iPhone). Apple is a huge company, agreeing to give iPhone users $25 in a lawsuit is a drop in the ocean for a company that size and allows the bad press to go away quickly so shouldn’t be seen as admission of guilt. I’m not saying Apple is whiter than white but they suffer in a similar way to McDonalds or Coca Cola in that they are the biggest in their industry and so take the brunt of most bad press- Google, Microsoft, Amazon and the rest are no better (and likely no worse) than them when it comes to ethics and business practice.

 

[DistortAMG]

If what you say is true, then there would not have been law suits, because Apple acted in an honest way.

Go and look at the law suits. Apple were specifically sued for the reasons of mis leading and deceiving customers to sell more iPhones. Those words are written in almost every law suit. Apple do not need to admit any guilt when they are found guilty. They were found guilty time and time again, specifically of 'deceiving customers to sell more iPhones'.

Ignore Wikipedia. It is slightly inacurate that article. Here is a quote from Business Insider, a very reputable business media outlet.

Apple on Wednesday said it has been throttling the performance of its iPhones. The smartphone maker says it's to prevent older models from malfunctioning as their batteries age.

But the trouble is that Apple's admission came only after several reports had accused it of intentionally slowing down older iPhones.

Over the past few months, people had seen their older iPhones become faster after replacing the battery. And earlier this week, data from a top iPhone benchmark developer seemed to confirm many people's suspicions.

Here is the article.

https://www.businessinsider.com/app...es-slowed-down-and-why-its-a-big-deal-2017-12

Like I said, Apple said nothing, until caught red handed.

If they did things like you said above, there would have been no lawsuits. I take it you havent actually looked at the reasons why they were getting sued. If you had, you would see every law suit would have been thrown out. Because if they acted in the way you claim. There would have been no grounds at all for the reasons they actually ended up sueing Apple for.

Most of Apples bad press is justified, what sort of statement is that.

The wikipedia article is rubbish because if you actually read the lawsuits. Apple agreed with the court that it could see that slowing down phones, would make people want to upgrade their phones. Especially if they knew it used to be faster, non tech savvy people will think it is just old.

Q: What caused Apple to come forward with these details?

Benchmark data released by Geekbench on Monday indicated that older iPhones that had batteries replaced saw significant increases in power performance.

Geekbench also found that, compared with a typical distribution for a full-strength phone, which should show one big peak, distributions for the iPhone 6, 6S, and 7 running a version of iOS newer than 10.2.1 had multiple peaks, suggesting a software limitation was holding those devices to a slower processor speed.

I remember it happening well. While Apple released the 'feature'a year before. They told no one. It wasnt until they were caught a year later did they say anything. That right there, specifically is what opened the door to massive lawsuits.

 

[geo4chg]

The point is that there is a justified reason for Apple implementing this iOS so-called "throttling", as it actually makes the iPhones last longer and less prone to unexpected shutdowns. Lawyers can argue this is to drive sales (a claim Apple strenuously denies, and due to the aforementioned reason for implementation is difficult to argue) but the fact is iOS still behaves in the same way today so there is nothing illegal about it - why Apple settles out of court (and therefore none of this is proven) is to minimise any bad publicity this might cause due to tech websites and general word of mouth incorrectly causing a far bigger fuss about this than is actually the case. Apple allows iPhones to upgrade to new iOS's that the phones weren't originally designed to run and in order to preserve user experience the software regulates the speed at which tasks are performed - there is nothing wrong with doing this, but where Apple came unstuck was that they didn't specifically say this was happening. There is nothing to suggest Apple is a morally more corrupt company than any of the big tech giants, all big businesses are shady to a certain extent.

 

[jon81uk]

Yes Apple were "caught" but it wasn't planned obselence, or slowing down older phones. It was slowing down phones with weak batteries. It's possible people had a four year old phone with a battery in great health.

It's like would you rather drive at 50mph constantly instead of 60mph but the car breaks down occasionally.

 

[pluk]

If throttling was a genuine positive feature they'd have been promoting it, not hiding it, don't you think?

 

[DistortAMG]

If throttling was a genuine positive feature they'd have been promoting it, not hiding it, don't you think?

Exactly. They kept it totally secret. Until they were caught red handed. Yes, it did have the affect of prolonging phone life. But it also very very conveniently for Apple, had the affect of making people think their iPhones were slowing down due to age, thus needed new ones. Something Apple have agreed on, as part of the lawsuits. So you cant argue that point, as Apple themselves have agreed with it.

If it was a genuine feature it would not have been hidden. The detailed battery statistics that are now in iPhones would have been in there from the start. Not after they were sued left right and center.

I think the way in which they acted, makes it clear what their intentions actually were.

I think the fact they have lost law suit after law suit makes that clear too.

It's like would you rather drive at 50mph constantly instead of 60mph but the car breaks down occasionally.

It is not like that at all. Because let's change your statement to make it like what Apple did.

"We will slow your car down. We will not tell you we have slowed you car down. We wont even tell you the speed your car was or your car is going to be. Then, we will still advertise the car on the features and speed that not everyone will be getting due to our nice new "feature" that no one knows about."

In response to @geo4chg. I never said there wasnt anything illegal about it. Yes the features are still there today. But because you are now aware of the features, you are likely to know the cause and less likely to go buy a new phone. Before, people were totally in the dark as Apple were tight lipped about it even existing.

The issue here is Apple being deceitful and decieving customers. That is what the lawsuits centre around too. It has never been about legality. How is that so hard to grasp?

I still think Apple is more shady. They were caught just 2 years ago refusing to repair iMac pro machines for various reason. Apple for sure lead the pack with their bad practices but they can do it, they have a cult like following. So they can and do get away with it.

 

[geo4chg]

If throttling was a genuine positive feature they'd have been promoting it, not hiding it, don't you think?

I don't think you would actually - because it is a feature designed to mitigate a real life worsening of the phone hardware, and why would you promote the fact that your own OS may cause your own phones to unexpectedly shut down if this feature didn't exist. Why would they promote the fact that as iPhone batteries get older they are less capable of delivering the performance necessary to deal with the demands of the operating system?

Apple have admitted that a potential side effect of the battery health feature was people upgrading their phone more regularly, but almost all agree that this is not the reason Apple introduced it.

There are many things within an operating system that are hidden from view, it does not necessarily mean the intentions are shady. Apple prides itself on its products ease-of-use, and so in order to be user friendly, Apple OS's tend to be lighter on the settings side than rivals and so naturally more is hidden from view within iOS than it is in Android and more is hidden from view in macOS than it is within Windows - this even extends to Apple's descriptions of its products (Apple for a long time used the phrase Retina Display to mean a high resolution display, the actual resolutions between products differed but they were all badged as Retina so as to make it simple for the consumer and not get bogged down in comparing numbers for things). On the plus side, it makes file management in macOS a breeze compared to Windows as the OS worries about where things are actually stored and the front end remains very clean, tidy and user friendly, but on the down side, this means that Apple products don't have the customisation options that Android/Windows etc do so people that like to manage their own file structures, back up systems etc get frustrated with the closed down nature of Apple products. However, for millions of people they like the fact Apple dictates which App Store to use rather than having the choice on Android of multiple app stores, side-loading apps etc.

Here is a statement from one of the settlements of the law suits:

“Apple’s conduct can hardly be considered treacherous,” the final settlement states. “According to Apple, the relevant iOS systems potentially caused conditions such as longer app launch times, lower frame rates while scrolling, backlight dimming and lower speaker volume—conditions that may have been imperceptible to users and arguably did not cause any injury whatsoever.”

In this thread and on the internet in general there are a lot of mistruths about this. Most of the claimants are actually having their cases rejected as there was no noticeable difference caused by this practice. The internet likes to blow these things out of all proportion but ask Joe-average on the street about this and they won't care, and I don't think Tim Cook and the Apple board lose much sleep over it either to be honest.