iBone the Repair industry - Apple locks down batteries, marking own batteries as degraded

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, harryk said:

Yes, all lithium batteries have some form of control circuitry, typically an analog IC chip which merely controls the safe charge and discharging of the battery. Apple has gone a step further and utilized a micro controller to accomplish the same and more.

 

According to the folks at iFixit, from the original article linked by OP, the micro controller, "provides information to the iPhone, such as battery capacity, temperature, and how much time until it fully discharges. Apple uses its own proprietary version, but pretty much all smartphone batteries have some version of this chip".

 

Looking at the data sheet for the Texas Instruments bq27546-G1 control chip, it "uses the patented Impedance TrackTM algorithm for fuel gauging, and provides information such as remaining battery capacity (mAh), state-of-charge (%), run-time to empty (min.), battery voltage (mV), and temperature (°C). It also provides detections for internal short or tab disconnection events".

 

Thus it could be important for iOS to get trustworthy information from this chip for proper power management. Without some form of authentication it'd be easy to spoof the output from the chip in a cheap knock-off battery.

 

 

 

 

Some "version" of that chips means a current limiter, voltage sensing and cutoff.  It actually provides nothing new to iphones that they didn't already have, other than ability to lock out 3rd party repair and batteries.

[ARikozuM]

21 minutes ago, Arika S said:

you mean just like every other phone and iphone up until now?

I don't know if other phones will track battery health, so I can't comment on that. But Apple should add a method of training for the battery health indicator. 

[Yongtjunkit]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Forget about warning users etc,  that's for the power saving software features when the battery degrades, I am still trying to think of a reason for this to be needed in the first place.  It won't make phones run longer because there is nothing you can do electronically to make the battery supply more power, it won't keep the battery cooler for the same reason.  Anything they add to the battery only increases cost and adds another point of failure,  I really see no benefit to the end user in this.

I agree with this, this brings no benefits other than the benefits of service at apple

1. Original battery
2. Clear the service warning 
3. $$$$$ if the battery has been serviced at a 3rd party or battery bloated 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, harryk said:

Yes, all lithium batteries have some form of control circuitry, typically an analog IC chip which merely controls the safe charge and discharging of the battery. Apple has gone a step further and utilized a micro controller to accomplish the same and more.

 

According to the folks at iFixit, from the original article linked by OP, the micro controller, "provides information to the iPhone, such as battery capacity, temperature, and how much time until it fully discharges. Apple uses its own proprietary version, but pretty much all smartphone batteries have some version of this chip".

 

Looking at the data sheet for the Texas Instruments bq27546-G1 control chip, it "uses the patented Impedance TrackTM algorithm for fuel gauging, and provides information such as remaining battery capacity (mAh), state-of-charge (%), run-time to empty (min.), battery voltage (mV), and temperature (°C). It also provides detections for internal short or tab disconnection events".

 

Thus it could be important for iOS to get trustworthy information from this chip for proper power management. Without some form of authentication it'd be easy to spoof the output from the chip in a cheap knock-off battery.

 

 

Totally agree. With the amount of energy a lithium battery potentially contains the more monitoring we have the better. I have been involved in battery testing, and seen what can happen when things go wrong. Think about it, we are putting what is in theory a small bomb in their pocket next to our man globes. We trust in the big manufacturers to not turn us into a eunuch. When we use third party batteries, they man not have the protection or the build quality the manufacturer intended. The third party might also not provide the support you may need when your testes have been popped into a thousand bits of charcoal. Many companies fear litigation, and rightly so. Take all the camera manufacturers for a start, most will not give you health information. It goes further as many will not charge third party batteries, you have to buy a third party charger too.

 

At the end of the day this is just a message that will end up on a part of the menu system that most users never bother looking at. I am sure Apple will know that a phone has been worked on and this is where for me it does get interesting. If a device then sets light to your love spuds, Apple can then blame the third party repairer and/or battery maker. I am sure that information will be sent back to Apple and their "improvement" servers the moment you switch on your phone after a repair.

[Tenelia]

Keep it in context. If I'm making purchase decisions on an individual or corporate scale, there are actually very few options available. This isn't to say that companies like Google or Apple (or Tesla) are being supported by idiots and fools. Sure, you can continue bashing on people if that makes you feel any better about your self-righteousness. My experience in all the projects and people I've met is that people (even the most oblivious office granny) are fully capable of navigating their lives even in the absence of complete information. While I don't know about what folks in USA or Europe are doing, let me share some experiences here in Asia:

Story 1: I'm working on IT deployment in Vietnam, and they're insistent on secondhand Macbooks (pre-2012 era) rather new Ryzen Lenovos. Due to dumping from affluent nations, parts of the pre-2012 Macbooks are common, cheap, and durable. As developing nations here continue to improve their manufacturing, I've seen local shops that learned how to repair dented aluminium chassis of Macbooks in minutes. Larger establishments can manufacture fans used in Macbooks. Given the stability of BIOS, firmware, OS, drivers, the overall system architecture is much less of a headache to maintain compared to Windows + Android. This is especially true for nations without governments enforcing a transition to linux distros. In this scenario, it's easy to see why people would still prefer iPads and iPhones. They simply work.

Story 2: I was having drinks with friends from China and chatting about smartphones. For a while, the guys were talking about specs (RAM, CPU, screens, etc), but the girls eventually steered the conversation back to actual usage and overall integration. On this point, the guys were trading stories on how easy it is to swap out batteries, RAM, or other board components at the IT malls (I kid you not, they are HUGE in China), or customize their phones. The girls' counterpoint to this was that they don't want to have to change components or figure which .apk and processes to run; they simply want to click-and-run for a few years until they swap for a new phone because they just want to send out emails, look at word documents, and generally get on with life.

 

Look, I know 2 stories aren't enough to form any sort of good data points. But my point to share in the midst of all this table-thumping and borderline derision towards Apple is that Apple is simply the least of the evils.

Take a leaf from Intel VS AMD today.

 

If you guys really really care about the future, the negativity and anger will do nothing towards Intel/Apple. If you want a real systemic change that shakes up the industry, it's not hatred that will bring about change. You gotta put in the work to create something good. It's not a platitude. I like the news I get on this forum, but it's been a damn long time since I've seen any constructive thoughtful discussion here.

[rcmaehl]

11 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

 

It's like BMW and their damn check engine light clear sequence. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Turn the key to ON

depress the brake

press the odometer button for three seconds

release the brake

call your mom for lunch

turn the key to OFF

go to the dealership

 

disclaimer: I'm joking.

 

You joke but

 

https://itstillruns.com/reset-cherokee-service-required-message-7416437.html
 

https://www.integrityautoinc.com/toyota-maintenance-required-light

[aham1]

19 hours ago, harryk said:

Nearly all Lithium battery have some form of control chip so nothing new there.

 

If an iPhone battery is replaced with a non-genuine battery there's no guarantee the control chip is returning correct and safe information so its reasonable that Apple would not want to utilize possibly invalid battery info in iOS when it comes to power management. 

 

Defaulting to a "service required" message when the battery is changed, even with a genuine replacement. I don't really like this but it's possible this is just the way the software works. The batteries are not made to be hot-swapped so its not crazy that it will require some form of software intervention to verify the battery. This could be Apple being <insert choice of adjective> or it could just be the way the engineers wrote the software. 

 

-> if battery info changes:

    -> require verification of battery

 

...is much simpler than writing some kind of script that must run every time the phone boots to verify the battery.

 

I haven't seen any info that this actually changes anything regarding functionality of the phone, just no battery health.

 

Lastly, car manufacturers have been doing this for decades. Ever since computer controlled components made their way into cars, swapping certain parts often requires reprogramming the ECU, which means going to the dealership or a service shop which has the appropriate tools and software. You either figure a way around it or move on, life's too short to really care.

I been working on cars since the lat 80s and never had to do that once. Maybe clear CEL codes but never take the car into the dealer.

But I have to agree with the first part. Lipos are not all to safe of a battery and they need a chip and smart charring setup to keep them from blowing up.

[steelo]

27 minutes ago, aham1 said:

I been working on cars since the lat 80s and never had to do that once. Maybe clear CEL codes but never take the car into the dealer.

But I have to agree with the first part. Lipos are not all to safe of a battery and they need a chip and smart charring setup to keep them from blowing up.

There is a level of caution one should take while working with lipo batteries. However, nicad/nimh are capable of exploding whereas lipo batteries typically catch on fire.

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, rcmaehl said:

You joke but

 

https://itstillruns.com/reset-cherokee-service-required-message-7416437.html
 

https://www.integrityautoinc.com/toyota-maintenance-required-light

I was joking about the sequence (except "go to dealership"). BMW does require you to have an OBD scanner to clear the light (not the codes) on newer cars. It certainly isn't as easy as my '98 328ic, '99 Celica, or '05 Highlander. 

[Kisai]

12 hours ago, harryk said:

 

Thus it could be important for iOS to get trustworthy information from this chip for proper power management. Without some form of authentication it'd be easy to spoof the output from the chip in a cheap knock-off battery.

 

 

This. Remember swelling and exploding batteries?

 

My guess is that Apple probably had enough "third party replacements" that were traded in to see a pattern of counterfeit batteries.

 

At any rate, also realize that, while this looks like it might be a security issue, this happens to be the case for most laptop batteries as well. You can buy a third-party manufactured battery for many laptops, including ones that have security screws holding them together. Likewise, look at ink tanks/cartridges with printers. There's no risk of a printer catching fire from a "refilled/recycled" cartridge, there is however a very high risk of fire where a third party replaces the LiON cells of an official battery and reuses the official microcontroller from an otherwise dead battery. Hence that appears to be the reasoning for this. If it happens to harm third party repair, that's just collateral damage from the change, and "working as designed."

 

Don't chalk this up to a conspiracy theory to block third party repair. That may be an intended goal, but it wouldn't have changed if Apple wasn't maybe having support costs related to bad third party repairs that they justified this. 

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Totally agree. With the amount of energy a lithium battery potentially contains the more monitoring we have the better. I have been involved in battery testing, and seen what can happen when things go wrong. Think about it, we are putting what is in theory a small bomb in their pocket next to our man globes. We trust in the big manufacturers to not turn us into a eunuch. When we use third party batteries, they man not have the protection or the build quality the manufacturer intended. The third party might also not provide the support you may need when your testes have been popped into a thousand bits of charcoal. Many companies fear litigation, and rightly so. Take all the camera manufacturers for a start, most will not give you health information. It goes further as many will not charge third party batteries, you have to buy a third party charger too.

 

At the end of the day this is just a message that will end up on a part of the menu system that most users never bother looking at. I am sure Apple will know that a phone has been worked on and this is where for me it does get interesting. If a device then sets light to your love spuds, Apple can then blame the third party repairer and/or battery maker. I am sure that information will be sent back to Apple and their "improvement" servers the moment you switch on your phone after a repair.

Except:

1. it's not up to apple to decide what quality battery I choose to put in MY phone.  And

2. battery control circuits are already very safe and these new ones add nothing to the life expectancy or energy density of batteries.

 

In fact these new ones control the battery in exactly the same way all the analogue ones do, the only real difference is they have a digital out put for the voltage and a method of encryption to identify itself.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except:

1. it's not up to apple to decide what quality battery I choose to put in MY phone.  And

2. battery control circuits are already very safe and these new ones add nothing to the life expectancy or energy density of batteries.

 

In fact these new ones control the battery in exactly the same way all the analogue ones do, the only real difference is they have a digital out put for the voltage and a method of encryption to identify itself.

It is not just Apple that do this. Companies are trying to protect themselves from potentially getting sued. If you put a battery in your phone and this message appears in a menu to say it is not going to give you the depredations state I still cannot see a problem.  You will still have a working phone and still see the battery level, so not sure why people are upset. If Apple made the phones stop working then I could understand the anger, but they are not. 
 

I have done battery testing, seems iffy batteries and the damage they can cause. Some iffy third party batteries do not contain even the minimum of cell protection. I was involved in some testing of various LP-E6 batteries. These are lithium ion battery packs for Canon DSLRs. The OEM batteries were as advertised, with the expected ratings etc. Dismantling them all the expectations were met with regards to protection. There is a reason battery packs have more than just a positive and negative connection when we are talking this kind of cell and the ones in phones are no different. Of the fifty or so either rip off packs, ebay specials or supposedly regarded third party brands, not many made the grade.The worst were seriously poor with no protection at all. In one case all that was in the case were two unprotected recycled cells with nothing more than a resistor for current limiting. It lacked even the thermal sensor to cut the cells off if they go thermonuclear.

 Most of the non OEM batteries we tested would not charge in the Canon chargers. Canon prevent their use and rightly so. They are protecting the consumer. When a battery has no thermal protection (that is what the pin marked T is for), no over/under volt protection, no cell balancing and no short circuit fuse then they are dangerous. So the purchasers of these then have to use the third parties also iffy chargers. One was a death trap. When we examined it it was nothing but a capacitive dropper to charge the already dodgy cells. The output pins were at mains potential. They work in the Canon bodies, but like Apple there is a warning. Other brands do just the same, this really is nothing new.

 

[79wjd]

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except:

1. it's not up to apple to decide what quality battery I choose to put in MY phone.  And

They're not limiting what batteries you can use though. You can use any battery you want, you just won't be able to take advantage of the battery health reporting in iOS.

 

[mr moose]

Just now, Phill104 said:

It is not just Apple that do this. Companies are trying to protect themselves from potentially getting sued. If you put a battery in your phone and this message appears in a menu to say it is not going to give you the depredations state I still cannot see a problem.  You will still have a working phone and still see the battery level, so not sure why people are upset. If Apple made the phones stop working then I could understand the anger, but they are not. 
 

The chip doesn't give the phone any new information on the battery.   We don;t know what effect it has on the phone, does the phone go into it's low power state state and throttle as if the battery is degraded because that is what it is telling the consumer?  We don't know, what we do know is that that is an artificial limitation, they can still read the battery condition they just are choosing not to.    I don't know another manufacturer that does that.

 

Just now, Phill104 said:

I have done battery testing, seems iffy batteries and the damage they can cause. Some iffy third party batteries do not contain even the minimum of cell protection.

If you did do that you;d know that point is largely moot,  every phone has adequate battery protection,  the notes exploding had nothing to do with cell protection (they were physically damaged).   Please show me an incident where the lack of protection caused a phone to have issues (not an malfunction of the protection but actual lack of protection).

Just now, Phill104 said:

I was involved in some testing of various LP-E6 batteries. These are lithium ion battery packs for Canon DSLRs. The OEM batteries were as advertised, with the expected ratings etc. Dismantling them all the expectations were met with regards to protection. There is a reason battery packs have more than just a positive and negative connection when we are talking this kind of cell and the ones in phones are no different. Of the fifty or so either rip off packs, ebay specials or supposedly regarded third party brands, not many made the grade.The worst were seriously poor with no protection at all. In one case all that was in the case were two unprotected recycled cells with nothing more than a resistor for current limiting. It lacked even the thermal sensor to cut the cells off if they go thermonuclear.

 Most of the non OEM batteries we tested would not charge in the Canon chargers. Canon prevent their use and rightly so. They are protecting the consumer. When a battery has no thermal protection (that is what the pin marked T is for), no over/under volt protection, no cell balancing and no short circuit fuse then they are dangerous. So the purchasers of these then have to use the third parties also iffy chargers. One was a death trap. When we examined it it was nothing but a capacitive dropper to charge the already dodgy cells. The output pins were at mains potential. They work in the Canon bodies, but like Apple there is a warning. Other brands do just the same, this really is nothing new.

 

This has nothing to do with  intentional holding back battery information because apple didn't do the repair. The fact is most phones already have adequate electrical protection for lithium cells.  They have very a very long time, this chip does not increase the protection at all.

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

They're not limiting what batteries you can use though. You can use any battery you want, you just won't be able to take advantage of the battery health reporting in iOS.

 

 

And at this stage we are waiting to see what other effects it has.   Like I said before, why? what does this offer?  as far as I can tell not reporting the battery health is an artificial limitation, if this is truly only about safety then they should be reporting it and as accurately as they can, not hiding it. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The chip doesn't give the phone any new information on the battery.   We don;t know what effect it has on the phone, does the phone go into it's low power state state and throttle as if the battery is degraded because that is what it is telling the consumer?  We don't know, what we do know is that that is an artificial limitation, they can still read the battery condition they just are choosing not to.    I don't know another manufacturer that does that.

 

If you did do that you;d know that point is largely moot,  every phone has adequate battery protection,  the notes exploding had nothing to do with cell protection (they were physically damaged).   Please show me an incident where the lack of protection caused a phone to have issues (not an malfunction of the protection but actual lack of protection).

This has nothing to do with  intentional holding back battery information because apple didn't do the repair. The fact is most phones already have adequate electrical protection for lithium cells.  They have very a very long time, this chip does not increase the protection at all.

 

The protection in many phones is on the battery. Not all third party batteries have that protection. Not all phones have charge protection on board, they in some cases rely on the charger. Not all chargers are of good or even safe quality.

 

while it is not an Apple phone, but a windows phone, I personally have had a battery go thermonuclear in my pocket. I could probably get pictures and the teardown from work. You would also be surprised by the number of fires put down to  devices left on charge. From stupid ass vape doohickies to hoverboards to phones, the cells contain a huge amount of potential energy. I can guarantee you that in time countries will introduce ever tighter standards on batteries. Most manufacturers see that on the horizon so are pre-emptively adding features to limit their liabilities. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Phill104 said:

The protection in many phones is on the battery. Not all third party batteries have that protection. Not all phones have charge protection on board, they in some cases rely on the charger. Not all chargers are of good or even safe quality.

The iphone6 has a separate charge controller on the main board to do exactly what this chip does ( minus the ID), so does the s10 and most high end phones. That is the point, that and those that don't still have the batteries management chip.  Please show me a phone battery that doesn't have protection in it.

 

1 minute ago, Phill104 said:

while it is not an Apple phone, but a windows phone, I personally have had a battery go thermonuclear in my pocket. I could probably get pictures and the teardown from work. You would also be surprised by the number of fires put down to  devices left on charge. From stupid ass vape doohickies to hoverboards to phones, the cells contain a huge amount of potential energy. I can guarantee you that in time countries will introduce ever tighter standards on batteries. Most manufacturers see that on the horizon so are pre-emptively adding features to limit their liabilities. 

 

So nothing then?   I specifically asked for a device that had an issue because it "DIDN'T" have protection on it like you claimed.

 

 

And all this is ignoring that this chip does not add more protection,  it doesn't do anything for safety that current charge controllers don't already do.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

The iphone6 has a separate charge controller on the main board to do exactly what this chip does ( minus the ID), so does the s10 and most high end phones. That is the point, that and those that don't still have the batteries management chip.  Please show me a phone battery that doesn't have protection in it.

 

 

So nothing then?   I specifically asked for a device that had an issue because it "DIDN'T" have protection on it like you claimed.

 

 

And all this is ignoring that this chip does not add more protection,  it doesn't do anything for safety that current charge controllers don't already do.

The iPhone 6 is not affected by this change, so where exactly is your problem? The X range appears to have moved the protection to on cell.
 

I could detail a number of devices that have caused fires because of iffy third party or copy batteries. It would not change your opinion or the opinion of many who dislike anything Apple do whether it is right or wrong. In this case I think Apple are right. To the end user this minor change in IOS really doesn’t have any noticeable effect as far as we can see. If Apple slow down devices as a result then we have cause to complain, but as it stands all we would seem to loose is a little bit of information.

[79wjd]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

And at this stage we are waiting to see what other effects it has.   Like I said before, why? what does this offer?  as far as I can tell not reporting the battery health is an artificial limitation, if this is truly only about safety then they should be reporting it and as accurately as they can, not hiding it. 

When evidence comes up that there are actually impactful side effects, then we can have that discussion. But got now, it's just not supporting health reporting on batteries that weren't under Apple's control.

 

Disabling health monitoring is an easy way to determine at a glance that someone other than Apple touched the internals of the device. It can also be to prevent some kind of access to the device by means of the battery. Or to prevent malicious third parties from using low capacity batteries that lie about their health (similar to the $1 1tb flash drives).

 

At the end of the day, I can't find much of a reason to care so long as the side effects are effectively non existent.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Phill104 said:

The iPhone 6 is not affected by this change, so where exactly is your problem? The X range appears to have moved the protection to on cell.
 

Are you not following the discussion? 

 

1 minute ago, Phill104 said:

I could detail a number of devices that have caused fires because of iffy third party or copy batteries. It would not change your opinion or the opinion of many who dislike anything Apple do whether it is right or wrong. In this case I think Apple are right. To the end user this minor change in IOS really doesn’t have any noticeable effect as far as we can see. If Apple slow down devices as a result then we have cause to complain, but as it stands all we would seem to loose is a little bit of information.

 

I did not ask for you to detail fires due to dodgy products, I ask you to show me an incident where a lack of battery management was thee cause.  Like you claimed.

 

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, 79wjd said:

At the end of the day, I can't find much of a reason to care so long as the side effects are effectively non existent.

I would argue one of the reasons you can't find anything is because it is totally unnecessary.    Failing to report battery condition is by choice, they are intentional withholding that information from owners,  Why?  If I want to replace my own battery why should I loose the health monitoring features that I bought with the phone?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are you not following the discussion? 

 

 

I did not ask for you to detail fires due to dodgy products, I ask you to show me an incident where a lack of battery management was thee cause.  Like you claimed.

 

 

 

 

 

You can find lots of evidence for yourself. I could detail hundreds of cases, even find videos online. It will not change your mind so I would be wasting my time.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

You can find lots of evidence for yourself. I could detail hundreds of cases, even find videos online. It will not change your mind so I would be wasting my time.

Burden of proof is on those who make the claim.    YOU claimed batteries don't have safety circuits on them causing fires, you prove that is the case.

 

As I said right back at the start, there is nothing in this chip that adds to the quality of the battery.   It simply moves the battery monitoring components from the main board on to the battery and adds an Encrypted ID system.    So nothing new is being added to the phone other than the ability to ID the battery itself. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Burden of proof is on those who make the claim.    YOU claimed batteries don't have safety circuits on them causing fires, you prove that is the case.

 

As I said right back at the start, there is nothing in this chip that adds to the quality of the battery.   It simply moves the battery monitoring components from the main board on to the battery and adds an Encrypted ID system.    So nothing new is being added to the phone other than the ability to ID the battery itself. 

There is nothing for me to prove. It is well known to anyone in the industry, anyone with any electronics knowledge will know the inherent dangers of packaging a lot of energy in a small place. Fine if you do not want to take my word for it. I do have the qualifications and experience but you would not know that.  Here is a good article detailing what is in a battery, how they work, details of some recalls and incidents and details of the mitigation technology to prevent problems.

 

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/archive/lithium_ion_safety_concerns

 

Take away those protections and you are at risk. Brands do not want to loose their reputation for safety, it did hurt Samsung for a short while and cost them a lot. If a third party battery causes an issue, and they have, then the product maker can prove quickly that is was the fault of the third party product. That is what this change in IOS is about. The moving of the protection to on cell makes sense from a design point of view.

 

There are far worse uses of technology adding ID chips. Take for instance one brand of printer. Cartridges are region coded so you cannot but from a cheaper region and use in in your locale. To me that is wrong.

 

[Tieox]

This happens because people buy them, for whatever reason you have the simple action of purchasing Apple is supporting this.