Apple prematurely ends IOS 14 updates and claims it never promised to support IOS 14 in the long term

[Distinctly Average]

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

I like everything you say however literally safety data and statistics has already proved 18650's are safer, it's a done deal on this one. Fighting data with opinion isn't a good idea here, just saying. We could debate some of the likely many reasons why however there is little value in it since they are safer today and back then so it doesn't change the result. Laptop batteries are in fact rather poorly protected, most have plastic bottom on the laptop with either only a small air gap with or without a tiny foam pad between it to protect the battery. Speaking from support experience it does not require much to impact the laptop battery if you are of a clumsy disposition.

 

You might find this interesting or already know, not relevant to portable device batteries at all I believe, but the Lithium Ion batteries in our UPS have a membrane in them that melts if the internal battery temperature gets to hot and inerts the battery by blocking the electron flow. Was one of the safety factors that made us agree to switch from VRLA to Lithium Ion.

Thing is, statistics are skewed. There are many more flat cells out there for instance. Also, because the density was lower when 18650s were generally more in use there were less failures. We also have a situation these days where many more cheaper devices are in circulation, many using cheap or re-used batteries and also held in shoddy containers. Often these lack the basic protection circuitry. This has been especially true of vape devices and other cheap tat. The stats for those are included in many countries. These days 18650 cells are mainly used in torches and are becoming rarer.

 

My comments are purely based on the intrinsic technology, not their implementation. I do agree that 18650 cells are safer in devices where they are removable. Same could be said of phone batteries when they were removable as they were encased, like the Nokia 5l etc. Some of the later phones had flat removable cells that were not encased in plastic and instead a much softer wrap. These ones were very poor imho, and were withdrawn but probably more because of the trend to make them a non user replacement part than any safety aspect. They also again had a lower energy density.

 

An ex colleague still does battery testing on a daily basis testing thousands per week for a government department. He often has to visit suppliers around the world to give them certification etc. Many of the facilities are superb but some are less than adequate, I cannot repeat his exact words. 18650s tend to be produced by only a few manufacturers such as Sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, more well known brands. Flat cells are more profitable in the current market and due to their packaging are easier to produce. As a result many more facilities have sprung up, especially as that is the direction the industry is moving.
 

It is quite frightening really to have such a large amount of energy stored in such a small package. Shoddy batteries, terrible chargers and in many cases dreadful or totally absent protection. All this in our pockets or homes charging at night.

 

The Chevrolet bolt uses pouch cells and we all know how that is going. But there are now pouch cells that you can push spikes through without issue, like the ones in your UPS. Technology is rapidly changing in the battery arena and I reckon we will see this in laptops a lot sooner than we think. Hopefully it will lead to safer devices, especially as we move to new chemistry.

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Great. Apart from all the issues that arise when comparing phones with 5years in between them: Go measure the battery volume of each of those phones and how much larger the battery of the S10e is for almost double the capacity. It is not at all as insignificant as you want it to be. Making a battery safe for user handling and fit for reliable and repeated electrical (de)connection adds mechanical overhead at all kinds of places.

Nah it is insignificant, you are staring directly at the evidence and deny it which is curious to watch. Even the thickness difference isn't due to the swappable battery which is honestly the thing I was expecting you to point out. The 635 is thicker because it's using a horrid and old tech thick camera, enough so the back case has a bulge for it.

 

Neither does a swappable battery have to be designed for repeated (de)connections, it just has to be swappable easily when required to do so of a very limited number of times. I don't have a spare battery for it and I've yet to replace it but if/when I do it's a few seconds of my time with zero tools ergo vastly better.

 

Battery dimensions of both:

42.69mmx76.89mmx5.51mm (sourced online, they used digital calipers)
38mmx78mmx6mm (my own, ruler, couldn't find online)

 

So very similar volume. 5 years difference based on high end expensive battery cell capacity increase over the time period is about 70% (lets ignore the 635 is a cheap phone with a cheap battery). 6.8 * 1.7 = 11.56Wh. And before you throw accusations, I did that math only working off the Lithium Ion cell capacity increases over time and didn't even look at the Nokia battery capacity during that until I did this calculation, the fact it's near exactly the same figure as the S10e battery is pure chance. I personally was expecting it to be less.

 

Facts and evidence support what I've being saying, I base my arguments on such things and not opinions unless I state it's an opinion but my opinions are generally, not always, based off of facts and evidence.

 

[leadeater]

31 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

Often these lack the basic protection circuitry. This has been especially true of vape devices and other cheap tat. The stats for those are included in many countries. These days 18650 cells are mainly used in torches and are becoming rarer.

Good point, very true. The hoverboard incidents from a few years ago springs to mind. Catching fire charging, while riding and when hitting things as people fall off. Those managed a perfect 3 for 1 deal on fire heh.

 

31 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

I cannot repeat his exact words. 18650s tend to be produced by only a few manufacturers such as Sony, LG, Samsung, Panasonic, more well known brands. Flat cells are more profitable in the current market and due to their packaging are easier to produce. As a result many more facilities have sprung up, especially as that is the direction the industry is moving.

I personally put a decent amount of weighting in to this. Rarely do a trust no-name or unknown brands, even more so the case for batteries but what comes in devices I don't get a choice.

 

We were affected by the bad batch of HP laptop batteries around 2015-2017 (I forget), they all swelled and HP had to do a recall. Also we contributed to that issue because we mostly have our laptops on docking stations and the batteries were getting over charged cycled, HP also released firmware update for those to stop that. I get rather annoyed with you are paying a premium for a higher end HP EliteBook 800 series that is supposed to have actually good parts in it and then it's let down by a next to nothing cost saving on a battery that causes physical damage to the device in less than 6 months.

 

31 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

But there are now pouch cells that you can push spikes through without issue, like the ones in your UPS. Technology is rapidly changing in the battery arena and I reckon we will see this in laptops a lot sooner than we think. Hopefully it will lead to safer devices, especially as we move to new chemistry.

I hope those are the ones in the PBS battery documentary, the one you can cut with scissors and the battery keeps working. That looked really good, don't remember what the energy density was though, good few years ago I watched that.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

It's funny they go all out justifying one of biggest laziest things about Android by claiming using ancient outdated OS is totes fine and then continue to call out Apple for "planned obsolescence" and throw around 7 years old battery problem as an argument. It's just beyond hilarious.

I think I have been quite reasonable in not referring to your posts as silly or hilarious or even outright BS as you seem to love doing to others.  But now you are just taking the piss. 

 

 

The shear hypocrisy in your post is unbelievable.  First you lambast someone for their opinion on updates to which you claimed you were championing a higher moral standard because some people might read it and stop updating which is bad.  Then you turn around and claim anyone who tries to highlight actual anti consumer things apple has done as being  "hilarious" and insinuate that what apple did was of no consequence.   

 

Basically you can't work out which is more dangerous and puts consumers at a loss between a single internet opinion and an entire company fucking over it's consumers with an unannounced update that hides a design error that caused an actual premature failure (in a premium priced product none the less).  That is why you are being hypocritical and why your attempts to side step the discussion with borderline ad hominem attacks are futile.

 

 

 

[Dracarris]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Nah it is insignificant, you are staring directly at the evidence and deny it which is curious to watch. Even the thickness difference isn't due to the swappable battery which is honestly the thing I was expecting you to point out. The 635 is thicker because it's using a horrid and old tech thick camera, enough so the back case has a bulge for it.

Sorry but this is hardly evidence. And I do not know how often I have to repeat this: My argument is not about absolute size/volume/thickness but capacity per volume, aka energy density of only the battery, not the whole freakin phone!

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Neither does a swappable battery have to be designed for repeated (de)connections, it just has to be swappable easily when required to do so of a very limited number of times. I don't have a spare battery for it and I've yet to replace it but if/when I do it's a few seconds of my time with zero tools ergo vastly better.

Just because you use it that way doesn't mean that has any effect on how they are manufactured. They are made for frequent swaps which again adds overhead compared to the super thin flex cables of glued batteries.

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So very similar volume.

Indeed, while one has 70% higher capacity - but

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

5 years difference based on high end expensive battery cell capacity increase over the time period is about 70% (lets ignore the 635 is a cheap phone with a cheap battery).

All these factors render your comparison quite useless. We don't have a clue of how large the impact of improved battery tech is and what is due to said overhead. How do you arrive at the 70% cell capacity increase - a welcome coincidence that it perfectly matches the capacity difference of the two phones? C'mon.

17 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Facts and evidence support what I've being saying, I base my arguments on such things and not opinions unless I state it's an opinion but my opinions are generally, not always, based off of facts and evidence.

I am all for facts and evidence but your comparison is highly problematic. For a valid comparison, use a current glued and a current replaceable battery.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

How do you arrive at the 70% cell capacity increase - a welcome coincidence that it perfectly matches the capacity difference of the two phones? C'mon.

Google Lithium Ion capacity increase over time, plenty of graphs and data showing the increases.

 

And no it doesn't render my comparison useless at all.

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

My argument is not about absolute size/volume/thickness but capacity per volume, aka energy density of only the battery, not the whole freakin phone!

Yes I just literally did that for you, those were battery measurements . Same volume, different capacity, 5 years, 70% technology increase, matches nearly perfectly. coincidence, maybe? Or is it maybe that two batteries made 5 years apart of similar volumes would have this kind of Wh capacity difference?

 

Can you actually read, I said dimensions of the battery in my post, so please don't yell back about phone size and how you are talking about the battery, the very thing I gave you, spelled out and you couldn't be bothered to read because it goes against your opinion.

 

Got any facts to disprove mine? Post them, please do so. I'm not interested in you repeating your opinions which are wrong in the face of facts and evidence. Time to step up.

 

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

For a valid comparison, use a current glued and a current replaceable battery.

If you can tell me a phone and battery that has a replaceable battery then I'll compare it. I don't know of any because they are basically non existent.

 

Edit:

And please don't tell me you don't understand Wh and relation to volume. Because if you bring up that isn't energy density then we have a fundamental problem in this discussion. 

[Dracarris]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Can you actually read, I said dimensions of the battery in my post, so please don't yell back about phone size and how you are talking about the battery, the very thing I gave you, spelling you and you couldn't be bothered to read because it goes against your opinion.

Yes I realized that but was confused about why you discuss thickness of the phone in the beginning again.

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If you can tell me a phone and battery that has a replaceable battery the I'll compared it. I don't know of any because they are basically non existent.

Here you go

Fairphone 4: 15.03Wh / 26cm3  = 0.58 Wh/cm3

Your Samsung: 11.55Wh / 18.21cm3 = 0.63 Wh/cm3

That makes a difference of roughly 9% in energy density. If you think that is irrelevant or insignificant, okay. I do not. Additionally I'd say the Fairphone has a more recent battery tech, I however had troubles finding dimensions of the actual battery of current smartphones.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Google Lithium Ion capacity increase over time, plenty of graphs and data showing the increases.

 

And no it doesn't render my comparison useless at all.

Yes I just literally did that for you, those were battery measurements . Same volume, different capacity, 5 years, 70% technology increase, matches nearly perfectly. coincidence, maybe? Or is it maybe that two batteries made 5 years apart of similar volumes would have this kind of Wh capacity difference?

 

Can you actually read, I said dimensions of the battery in my post, so please don't yell back about phone size and how you are talking about the battery, the very thing I gave you, spelling you and you couldn't be bothered to read because it goes against your opinion.

 

Got any factors to disprove mine? Post the, please do so. I'm not interested in you repeating you opinions which are wrong in the fact of evidence. Time to step up.

 

Here's the thing, I have a Li ion battery here form my lumia windows phone from 2015 (released in 2014 same as the iphone6)  But my MS phone was not only smaller (top to bottom and side but slightly thicker), but had a removable battery that was of a higher capacity.    I dare say there is a little more to it than just the battery for the size difference, however it actually proves you can have a removable battery of the same if not higher capacity for a very little change in physical size.

 

 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Yes I realized that but was confused about why you discuss thickness of the phone in the beginning again.

Here you go

Fairphone 4: 15.03Wh / 26cm3  = 0.58 Wh/cm3

Your Samsung: 11.55Wh / 18.21cm3 = 0.63 Wh/cm3

That makes a difference of roughly 9% in energy density. If you think that is irrelevant or insignificant, okay. I do not. Additionally I'd say the Fairphone has a more recent battery tech, I however had troubles finding dimensions of the actual battery of current smartphones.

My removable Lumia battery from 2014,  7.8wh / 12.16 cm³  = 0.64Wh/cm³

 

 

[Dracarris]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My removable Lumia battery from 2014,  7.8wh / 12.16 cm³  = 0.64Wh/cm³

Source? You want to tell me a phone from 2014 has superior or equal energy density then all examples so far from 2019 and younger? That Fairphones removable battery is a significant step back compared to a 2014 phone?

 

How about this?

33 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Google Lithium Ion capacity increase over time, plenty of graphs and data showing the increases.

 

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Fairphone 4: 15.03Wh / 26cm3  = 0.58 Wh/cm3

Your Samsung: 11.55Wh / 18.21cm3 = 0.63 Wh/cm3

 

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

My removable Lumia battery from 2014,  7.8wh / 12.16 cm³  = 0.64Wh/cm³

 

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I dare say there is a little more to it than just the battery for the size difference, however it actually proves you can have a removable battery of the same if not higher capacity for a very little change in physical size.

Correct, the two main ways to increase energy density is more material in the battery cell or to increase the cell voltage.

 

While increasing the cell voltage will result in a higher Wh it does also increase the strain and wear on the battery so resilience wise could be slightly interior to a non-replaceable battery. Targeting a higher cell voltage is basically cheating in my mind however this is also one of the go to ways to increase Wh capacities as there isn't always a technology or manufacturing improvement to increase the density another way.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Source? You want to tell me a phone from 2014 has superior or equal energy density then all examples so far from 2019 and younger? That Fairphones removable battery is a significant step back compared to a 2014 phone?

 

How about this?

 

It's sitting right in front of me now:  I made a mistake, this is from 2015 not 2014, my first lumia was 2014.

 

 

EDIT: would you like me to take a photo with size comparisons or are you happy to google?

 

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: would you like me to take a photo with size comparisons or are you happy to google?

Isn't the BL-T5A 16.4cm³? Unless that is the package dimensions and not the battery?

 

8.2x4.0x0.5cm

 

Edit:

Also probably time to take this to a topic of it's own, well past iOS 14 vs 15 conversation.

[Dracarris]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: would you like me to take a photo with size comparisons or are you happy to google?

I googled as this didn't pass my BS detector. As @leadeater already said, the correct dimensions are around 16.5cm3 and the energy density is thereby 0.47Wh/cm3, vastly inferior to anything posted so far. Your numbers are plain wrong.

 

Makes zero sense that a removable battery from 2014 is superior to a current one.

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

Isn't the BL-T5A 16.4cm³? Unless that is the package dimensions and not the battery?

 

8.2x4.0x0.5cm

I just measured it with calipers and yes it is,  you live and learn. 

 

I got 8.1x4x0.4

 

Which equals 0.6Wh/cm³

 

Still, we are talking manufacturing variance and age,  so it's not that bad.  I would argue it still makes a good case for capacity to not be a major concern with going removable again.  And that's a cheaper battery too,  remember it came in a budget phone, not from a top tier premium range.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I googled as this didn't pass my BS detector. As @leadeater already said, the correct dimensions are around 16.5cm3 and the energy density is thereby 0.47Wh/cm3, vastly inferior to anything posted so far. Your numbers are plain wrong.

 

Makes zero sense that a removable battery from 2014 is vastly superior to a current one.

BS detector ey?    You know I actually measured it before posting?  just because my measurements were a little bit off doesn't make it BS,  BS is an intentional or outright lie.  And that was not my intention at all.

[Dracarris]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I got 8.1x4x0.4

Thickness should be 5mm which changes volume by 20% and thereby energy density.

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

just because my measurements were a little bit off

Measuring "a little bit off" can have quite a large impact on energy density.

[Distinctly Average]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Isn't the BL-T5A 16.4cm³? Unless that is the package dimensions and not the battery?

 

8.2x4.0x0.5cm

Yes, it is the package dimensions.  IIRC that was one of the first removable batteries that didn't have a more solid plastic case and was quite easy to damage. It may have been the version after that, I do not remember and as I am only using my phone today it is hard to tell from the image. 

 

It is possible as Mr Moose says to have a higher capacity removable battery but that often comes at the expense of a reduction in casing thickness to do so. The risks compound as we increase energy density so going removable with a large cell has design compromises. We can either accept that or just do like many and and have an internal battery where the phone becomes the impact protection. Personally I would rather that, or a bigger phone than have a smaller phone with a poorly protected from impact battery. But I am not the general market who would rather go for aesthetics and the in thing than safety. As I said earlier, nearly having my manhood melted put a dent in my confidence. I think I still have that battery and windows phone in my office desk drawer. 

 

And yes, we had those HP issues too. Saw plenty swell up while docked. So much so as soon as you got the call "My laptop isn't showing on my big screen" you knew what had gone wrong.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Thickness should be 5mm which changes volume by 20% and thereby energy density.

 

Measuring "a little bit off" can have quite a large impact on energy density.

 

It's an external battery from 2015,  lets round it down to 0.45Wh/cm³ and only improve it by 40% ( I think you guys said they have improved 70% over the last 5 years),  then you can make a battery of the same size at 0.63Wh/cm³    

 

 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

 

It is possible as Mr Moose says to have a higher capacity removable battery but that often comes at the expense of a reduction in casing thickness to do so.

 

I definitely think it will be thicker, but not that much thicker that it outweighs the benefits.    

 

But also see my last post where I rounded the figures down and up to make some room for error, it seems if they have indeed improved capacity per cm3 by anything above 40% over the last 5 years then there is no reason to have a battery that is more than 1 mm thicker on the outside and have it removable whilst retaining the safety of strength. 

[Distinctly Average]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I definitely think it will be thicker, but not that much thicker that it outweighs the benefits.    

 

But also see my last post where I rounded the figures down and up to make some room for error, it seems if they have indeed improved capacity per cm3 by anything above 40% over the last 5 years then there is no reason to have a battery that is more than 1 mm thicker on the outside and have it removable whilst retaining the safety of strength. 

I agree, it is possible. Not sure if it is not what the wider market dictates though. However, we buy in many cases what is available and if there are few or no phones/laptops with removable batteries then we have no option. 

 

Other things I hear are easy to debunk. First is waterproofing. It is often said on these forums that it is much harder or impossible to waterproof a phone with a removable battery. Anyone with a brain can see that is bunk. What is a problem is the increase in plastics required as we need the phone and the battery encased, which is not good environmentally. Whether that outweighs the number of phones chucked each year because the battery dies only the manufacturers and recyclers will know. We can only speculate.

[Dracarris]

46 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

Other things I hear are easy to debunk. First is waterproofing. It is often said on these forums that it is much harder or impossible to waterproof a phone with a removable battery. Anyone with a brain can see that is bunk.

No matter how often this claim is repeated, it won't get any less wrong. It is certainly possible, but harder to achieve for a given rating. And unless you are able to IP67/IP68 a removable plastic cover, you won't be able to avoid water getting to the battery contacts. Removable battery inherently means more possible points of failure for the water seal, more possible ingress ports. Simple as that.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

then you can make a battery of the same size at 0.63Wh/cm³ 

and yet the current removable battery of the fairphone falls short of that, as shown above.

[Imbadatnames]

15 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

It was their own opinion, thats it. No one was saying that people should question or refuse the idea of OS updates.

I'm not getting upset over someone else's personal opinion, and i'm not paranoid over updates either. I've used phones that have stopped getting updates and didn't get hacked. Using strong passwords, not storing personal stuff on it helps a lot, and not handing over all your personal info on social media helps too.

Do you have a source to back that up?

That’s literally what they were supporting.

 

Never heard of MiTB attacks? Keystroke logging? Doesn’t really matter what your password is if they can see what you’re typing. If they can grab your email account they can access 2FA, set up accounts in your name etc. 

[WhitetailAni]

Just some food for thought.

Anyone remember why iOS 14.8 was released?

FORCEDENTRY, a zero-click exploit done simply by sending a crafted image via iMessage.

Even if you don't open the message

Access to camera + microphone, plus they can make calls, and send texts + emails, and perhaps more. Arbitrary code execution has many opportunities.

[Distinctly Average]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

No matter how often this claim is repeated, it won't get any less wrong. It is certainly possible, but harder to achieve for a given rating. And unless you are able to IP67/IP68 a removable plastic cover, you won't be able to avoid water getting to the battery contacts. Removable battery inherently means more possible points of failure for the water seal, more possible ingress ports. Simple as that.

 

.

Where is your evidence? Please show me. You can easily have two units, the battery and the phone. Then the only different point of ingress are the four battery connection point. They are easy to waterproof. There are plenty of devices that do so and have removable batteries. The extra cost comes from having to build two separate housings, but that really is a small percentage of the overall cost. The technical aspect is a total non issue.