TR Forums

Will a battery replacement actually fix the slowdown/throttling though? It sounds to me like Apple is just slowing down the phones based on model # and not necessarily battery health. Can anyone provide input.

DPete27 wrote:

Will a battery replacement actually fix the slowdown/throttling though? It sounds to me like Apple is just slowing down the phones based on model # and not necessarily battery health. Can anyone provide input.

About a year ago in iOS 10.2.1, Apple delivered a software update that improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE. With the update, iOS dynamically manages the maximum performance of some system components when needed to prevent a shutdown. While these changes may go unnoticed, in some cases users may experience longer launch times for apps and other reductions in performance.

Customer response to iOS 10.2.1 was positive, as it successfully reduced the occurrence of unexpected shutdowns. Apple recently extended the same support for iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus in iOS 11.2.

When a chemically aged battery is replaced with a new one, iPhone performance returns to normal when operated in standard conditions.

Edit with additional info:

Early in 2018, Apple will issue an iOS software update with new features that give users more visibility into the health of their iPhone’s battery, so they can see for themselves if its condition is affecting performance.

Not only that, but they will replace the battery for S29 or so, at any of their shops worldwide. I wish Lenovo/Moto would discount their OEM batteries. The industry needs to do more 'social responsibility'. These boost future financial performance when done right, anyway.

I'm torn. It's nice that they offer inexpensive battery replacement, but why do I need 'full performance' to open the text message app in under 30 seconds?

Most other old phones will not deliver better, so it's mostly a wash operationally.

What Apple has wrought marketing-wise is smart. They shut down the complaints bandwagon, deflect regulatory attention without political cost (especially Presidential tweets), remind buyers of how long-lived their phones can be, and draw in potential upgrade customers during the holidays. The CSR issue of expiring batteries is also pushed as a competitive burden to rivals, most of whom can hardly afford to match the program.

The messaging sneakily aligns with the arrival of higher disposable incomes arising from tax breaks. At a retention cost of maybe $20 or less per account, expensable as global community relations/PR. They can wrap it up as 'environmentally-responsible' recycling, too.

HERETIC wrote:

FireGryphon wrote:

My 6s+ was great for a while, but recently it hangs for a good 30 seconds at random times, such as bringing up a txt message or opening an email. Never happened before. I’m sure my battery is degraded, and Apple claims to be limiting burst performance to conserve battery life, but opening a txt message doesn’t require ‘burst performance’ to run reliably.

I just thought it was Apple’s now-sh***y product offering, but it seems that Apple meant it to happen all along and has a great excuse, too. Either way my experience with successive iPhones is so soured by this point that I’ll likely look elsewhere for my next handset.

Lot of 6s had faulty batteries-That's why apple did this-to save millions in warranty costs.
A new battery will fix your problem-I think apple in damage mode just reduced the cost.
Just hope they not using same shi**y battery as before..................................

The primary 6s battery problem was actually a manufacturing defect with the batteries. There was a recall on a range of serial numbers a year or two ago because of the known defect.

DancinJack wrote:

techguy wrote:

DancinJack wrote:

Awww yeah let's run Geekbench (of all things) on two different operating systems and compare them like it means something!

Yeah, cuz an Operating System affects multi-platform benchmark results sooooooo much.

This attitude is pretty funny IMO. Most people in here wouldn't run the "same" benchmark on Ubuntu and Windows 10 and compare the scores. Go ahead and keep relying on synthetic benchmarks across platforms to gauge performance though. I'll stick to something else.

It was such a stupid comment I just couldn't bring myself to reply to it. I'm still not sure it can be adequately explained for him.

Given that the topic of this thread involves CPU performance (primarily) and that CPU performance is not dependant upon APIs or drivers, the performance differences observed by running benchmarking applications on different OSes, given all else being equal, tends to be minor. So small in fact that they are considered noise, statistically speaking.

Multi-platform benchmarks are, by definition, designed to be compared across platforms. If you think the results obtained by these applications are not valid "because different OS", you don't understand the subject matter and I suggest you refrain from responding further until you've done some research.

If your opinion were correct, the expected behavior should be that multi-platform benchmarks would show MAJOR differences between runs across platforms (again, all else being equal) and that is not, in fact the case. Here's an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqHVdWWYhY

Two things:

1. That's only true if the benchmark is using assembly code. Otherwise it's at the very least using some sort of math libraries. I'll let you make an assertion one way or another. I have no evidence but I have suspicions.
2. GeekBench also equates a Core i5-7200U with an A11. Clearly something is broken.

As far as I'm concerned the benchmark has exactly one redeeming value, and that's comparing performance on the same platform and architecture. Good news for everyone in this thread: that's how this problem was found.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/01/02/ap ... ass-tests/

Apple is replacing batteries from iPhone 6 later regardless of battery condition. So if you think you're even close to needing one, go get one.

Apple's battery offer is a joke bordering on fraud.

They claim they will do as far back as iPhone6, so my wife scheduled a Genius Bar appointment today for the replacement and drove a half hour to the nearest Apple Store. And they were then obligated by policy (they said) to refuse when they discovered a third party battery inside. Never mind that the phone is otherwise in excellent condition, or that the battery replacement last summer had to be done (on too short of notice to let Apple handle it) because of random shutdowns, or that very few iPhone6 models are going to have an original battery at this point anyway.

If you advertise a $29 non-warranty battery replacement for a product you originally sold, and the customer shows up with an otherwise-working product and $29, you give the customer a $29 battery replacement, end of story.

Wait wait wait...someone other than Apple opened the device, and you expect them to work on it? I wouldn't expect any tech company to do what you think Apple should be doing, if the device was opened and serviced by a non-authorized service provider.

derFunkenstein, this is more nuanced then that. Apple is straight-up offering new batteries for a certain price on certain phones.

Yes, "modified" phones shouldn't qualify for warranty service. Bummer for Apple that this isn't warranty service. Someone at the company should have dotted their i's and crossed their t's before the knee-jerk press release.

In other words, ludi's point is valid in this specific case (even if it normally wouldn't be).

derFunkenstein wrote:

Wait wait wait...someone other than Apple opened the device, and you expect them to work on it? I wouldn't expect any tech company to do what you think Apple should be doing, if the device was opened and serviced by a non-authorized service provider.

To build on what Vhalidictes wrote: my wife's phone is still receiving latest iOS updates and is affected by the throttling slowdown as much as anyone else's, probably more-so since the third party battery doesn't seem to be as stout as a new Apple battery.

The Apple offer for $29 battery replacements was supposed to be a mea culpa for not telling people they were doing that. So they got the tech press off their back by supposedly doing the right thing, but wrote fine print exclusions to avoid having to honor that agreement for maybe half of the older models still in use? That's a load of horse hockey, except that actual horse hockey would at least make the garden a bit greener.

Well, they are really strapped for cash and all that, so it's understandable, I guess.

Glorious wrote:

Well, they are really strapped for cash and all that, so it's understandable, I guess.

To be fair, I heard most of their fortune is stashed overseas and being guarded by leprechauns, and those guys really hate it when you mess with their treasure pots. Or Lucky Charms.

Kinda surprised that you were surprised by that Ludi. As much as it sucks, Apple did what I would have expected from any of the phone makers if they found a third-party battery inside.

DancinJack wrote:

Kinda surprised that you were surprised by that Ludi. As much as it sucks, Apple did what I would have expected from any of the phone makers if they found a third-party battery inside.

I am surprised by it. This was supposed to be Apple's goodwill gesture. I wouldn't have been surprised if they disclaimed any warranty on the battery replacement, or refused to service if they found water damage or a swollen battery. But a blanket no-do after a big PR annoucement saying they would-do?

It's still a goodwill gesture to the 90+% (total guess, but I have a feeling that number is low) of people who haven't opened their phones and messed with the guts themselves. For the techies that open their own equipment by removing glue and two-sided tape, you're free to replace your battery again on your own, I guess. I have a hard time faulting Apple or any other phone manufacturer for not dealing with something someone else messed with.

Why should they replace another company’s battery? That certainly is outside the scope of expectations. It would have been nice but I certainly wouldn’t think it fair to have that be expected.

derFunkenstein wrote:

It's still a goodwill gesture to the 90+% (total guess, but I have a feeling that number is low) of people who haven't opened their phones and messed with the guts themselves.

Huhwut? There's plenty of third parties that will swap phone batteries, notably some franchise mobile vendors and Batteries+Bulbs. We have one of the latter 5 minutes down the street in addition to the dozen-odd others that have sprung up to fill one of RadioShack's vacant niches, and that's where the last one was done as a walk-in appointment. Nearest Apple-authorized is 30 minutes away, and that's if you don't hit traffic and have a Geniuse Bar appointment scheduled.

Besides that, if you did it yourself you could literally save the depleted Apple battery, swap it back in before going to service, and then Apple would apparently handle it for you no-questions-asked. They're not discriminating against techies, they're discriminating against everyone who bought a battery anywhere else because they couldn't wait a week to get their phone shipped to Apple and returned.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

Why should they replace another company’s battery? That certainly is outside the scope of expectations. It would have been nice but I certainly wouldn’t think it fair to have that be expected.

Who cares whose battery it was? It's going into the recycle bin regardless and I reiterate, this isn't a warranty service or claim. If the phone is in good operating condition and doesn't show signs of mechanical or physical damage, there's no practical reason for Apple not to put a new battery into it, especially since they already did the thing to this phone that resulted in them offering the discounted battery service in the first place.

They don't have to service a machine that's been touched by a third party, regardless of warranty status.

They make a change and then you return saying, hey, this thing is doing X and it didn't used to do X.

Now they've got dilemma. Did they cause X? Or did the previous repair cause X and change Y finally exposed the problem?

The customer is gonna be real sure it's the former, but anybody that's dealt with these devices long enough realizes that not all problems follow a straight line of cause and effect and it might well be the latter.

This really shouldn't be shocking with regard to batteries either. The fire risk, physical damage from swelling, component damage from bad voltage delivery, component damage from bad amperage delivery, installation damage to the battery, board, or connectors.

Without a clear service history, it's just easier to just avoid that mess, refuse service, and dodge the liability.

You'll also probably be shocked to know that some companies void warranties and refuse service on smoker PCs and PCs that are found to have cat or dog hair in them.

Service Manager: "Welcome to Toyota of Gainsville. You have a 2016 4Runner, and...yup, I see you have a service appointment. This is your tech, Rick."
Rick: *looks under hood* "Boss, I got bad news. Somebody else has worked on this thing. There's clearly a non-OE component in here."
SM: "Oh...oh boy, I wish I didn't have to to say this. Unfortunately our policy requires us to refuse service."
Customer: "But I'm not here for warranty work, I already passed the mileage limit anyway. I just need routine service per your own guide. I can pay your rates."
Rick: *shrugs apologetically*
Customer: "B...but it's otherwise in perfect condition. You can see for yourself. You told me when I made the appointment that you service this model."
Rick: *looks at SM*
SM: "Yeah, sorry, but that comes down straight from Toyota. Best I can suggest is that you go to another independent shop, or you might find a buyer on Craigslist. And since you're here, would you like to look at our 2018 models? Toyota deleted that pesky auxiliary input jack and eliminated every button on the center console in favor of a pure touchscreen experience."
Customer: [inaudible]

Did they deny you the $29 promotion, or just flat out refuse to service it? I would’ve actually been shocked if they didn’t deny you the promotion, and not terribly surprised by the latter. Electronics are different than cars because they can. That said, I imagine most car warranties would also be voided after major engine/transmission work by others. The extent of what’s allowable would be hidden in fine print. You’re alot less likely to see them refusing service, but I’m sure it can happen if there were some seriously shoddy work done by a backyard mechanic.

The Egg wrote:

Did they deny you the $29 promotion, or just flat out refuse to service it? I would’ve actually been shocked if they didn’t deny you the promotion, and not terribly surprised by the latter. Electronics are different than cars because they can. That said, I imagine most car warranties would also be voided after major engine/transmission work by others. The extent of what’s allowable would be hidden in fine print. You’re alot less likely to see them refusing service, but I’m sure it can happen if there were some seriously shoddy work done by a backyard mechanic.

That's the point, this isn't connected to any warranty, and it isn't a promotion per se. To review this thread, and my frustration:

1.) In late 2016, numerous iPhone users were experiencing sudden shutdowns and complained to Apple about it.
2.) In January 2017, Apple pushed the iOS 10.2.1 update to all supported devices (iPhone 6 and higher) that included a fix.
3.) Throughout 2017, numerous iPhone users now noticed their phones were experiencing unexplained performance drops.
4.) In late 2017, someone discovered the degradation was directly correlated to the age/condition of the battery.
5.) Apple responded that this behavior was intended to allow aged devices to continue functioning in situations that otherwise crash the phone.
6.) Users complained that Apple hadn't explained this and was misdirecting them toward new $500 phones instead of $80 battery swaps.
7.) The tech press picked up on it and flayed Apple for a couple weeks.
8.) In December 2017, Apple said "Mea culpa, our standard battery replacement service will drop from $79 to $29 for all affected models through the end of 2018."

Meanwhile, in the midst of 2017 before the full story came out, my wife's phone became so unstable that only a battery replacement would fix it. Since I was about to leave the state for business and we had an infant in the house, her phone was kind of, sort of, important and Apple's options were not convenient for quick turnaround. So, we had it done at the Batteries Plus down the street. And that did the trick, but over time the battery hasn't seemed to be as durable as an Apple OE unit, so when the $29 offer was announced, I figured "why not?"

Why not, indeed? Because Apple's "offer" got the negative publicity off their backs, so they can return to treating their users like feudal serfs.

To be clear, the folks at the Cherry Creek Apple Store (Denver) treated my wife very nicely, even ran her phone through the standard discharge tests to assess condition. In refusing the replacement, they were following a policy handed down directly from Apple, a company which currently has $200 billion cash stashed in overseas tax havens. If this were any other obscenely wealthy company refusing to provide a straight-up service for the advertised price on a product they broke, the pitchforks would come out pretty quick, but since it's Apple, they get a pass.

It's lousy that they refused to provide service, but again, not terribly surprising. If there's any sort of implied warranty on any portion of the device after they service it, it's likely easier to just refuse service rather than accept any amount of liability. I suspect every other electronics manufacturer would do the same if they had the clout to pull it off (and probably even a good number who don't).

Does BatteriesPlus warrant their work?

Let me know how your iPhone handles on those winding mountain roads.

Is it a blanket policy for them to refuse to service any phone (regardless of warranty status) which has previously been serviced by a third party? Unless the answer is "yes", I can't think of a good reason for them to have refused to honor the battery replacement deal.

That is their policy, at least with out-of-warranty products. A bar tech at their New Haven CT store told my wife that they would not service our older iPad Air, which screen had been replaced by a third party.