Apple up to no good? They could possibly be intentionally slowing down older devices.

[mr moose]

According to the U.S. patent office IBM still owns any and all intellectual property rights associated with x86 and its distribution. I believe what AMD pays Intel for is microcircuit interconnect technology.

Nope, Intel own the x86.  and license it to AMD.

 

history of the x86:

 

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/patent/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective-2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

 

It's actually really quite interesting how we ended up with the x86 and the twists and turns the industry took that landed us with such an open playing field.

[patrickjp93]

Nope, Intel own the x86.  and license it to AMD.

 

history of the x86:

 

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/patent/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective-2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

 

It's actually really quite interesting how we ended up with the x86 and the twists and turns the industry took that landed us with such an open playing field.

It's too bad IBM doesn't buy up AMD and make Intel shit its proverbial pants. Intel has fun toying with AMD, but imagine if you had IBM's mainframe designers, business and data analysts, and its money behind AMD's manufacturing. Prices would plummet and Intel would have to flush its development pipeline in 1 or 2 generations to stay ahead of the storm.

[mr moose]

It's too bad IBM doesn't buy up AMD and make Intel shit its proverbial pants. Intel has fun toying with AMD, but imagine if you had IBM's mainframe designers, business and data analysts, and its money behind AMD's manufacturing. Prices would plummet and Intel would have to flush its development pipeline in 1 or 2 generations to stay ahead of the storm.

Depending on the law, intel would still be able to rework it's licensing agreement,  there have been times in the past when AMD have had the run all over Intel with superior CPU's, I don't know that IBM could bring anything to the table that would upset Intel too much even If they managed to provide a cheaper production (debatable) and better R+D. 

[patrickjp93]

Depending on the law, intel would still be able to rework it's licensing agreement,  there have been times in the past when AMD have had the run all over Intel with superior CPU's, I don't know that IBM could bring anything to the table that would upset Intel too much even If they managed to provide a cheaper production (debatable) and better R+D. 

IBM does it every day in the mainframe world. The biggest thing is capital for AMD to use since it's currently outgunned 20 to 1. And AMD has not had better CPUs than Intel since the very first dual-core and quad-core releases.

[I liek toitles]

interesting point but theres not enough evidence to support anything. I dont know of any way to benchmark a phone other than daily use. Also im sure there are some psyche social elements involved in having an aging phone. But its definitely possible and believable.

[Derangel]

Since this article likes to use baseless information as "fact" or "research" I'll use totally anecdotal "evidence" to "prove" it wrong. My mother has an iPhone 4. It's still quite snappy despite being MUCH weaker than the new devices and Apple is still supporting the thing with updates. How many four year old Android devices are not only still officially supported but are still as snappy as the iPhone 4? New OSes have higher requirements at times, that's just how it is. When the generation jump is as drastic as it can from time to time with phones the old one is bound to feel slow even if in reality the performance is not that much different compared to the previous release. That isn't to say there haven't been releases where Apple has royally screwed up performance on older devices, but for the most part it is pretty good about it.

[mr moose]

IBM does it every day in the mainframe world. The biggest thing is capital for AMD to use since it's currently outgunned 20 to 1. And AMD has not had better CPUs than Intel since the very first dual-core and quad-core releases.

2003/2004 AMD's winchester cores shat all over everything from Intel, even their extreme edition stuff.  AMD were also the ones that pioneered the 64bit architecture.  All I am saying is even if IBM was to enter the market or buy out AMD they would be pushing shit uphill to scare intel.  They are similar sized companies which would make it difficult for IBM to match Intel's R+D budget considering all their other business interests.

[coder-guy22296]

maybe just completely optimizing for latest get at risk of slowdown on older models

[patrickjp93]

2003/2004 AMD's winchester cores shat all over everything from Intel, even their extreme edition stuff.  AMD were also the ones that pioneered the 64bit architecture.  All I am saying is even if IBM was to enter the market or buy out AMD they would be pushing shit uphill to scare intel.  They are similar sized companies which would make it difficult for IBM to match Intel's R+D budget considering all their other business interests.

IBM is 4x the size of Intel in raw capital. Also, no, AMD and Intel developed 64-bit in parallel and AMD's model got released just moments soon enough to become popular. I'm willing to give AMD its dues, but let's not try rewriting history to do it.

 

And with Jim Keller (first man to design dual and quad-core designs) back in charge of all AMD's projects, there is potential there which has been lacking for years.

[patrickjp93]

maybe just completely optimizing for latest get at risk of slowdown on older models

Older models will always become antiquated, but here's the overall strategy: parallelize as much as you can on the maximally-available hardware so as to make a "perfect" wide model, and then check what your resources are when the application launches before choosing an execution path to use 8 parallel threads if available vs. 4. There will be a slowdown, but it will already be optimal anyway. It's the same design as the weighted interval scheduling algorithm, and it works. Modern OS bootloaders are a great example of this. They're only single-core applications on single-core chips.

[mr moose]

IBM is 4x the size of Intel in raw capital. Also, no, AMD and Intel developed 64-bit in parallel and AMD's model got released just moments soon enough to become popular. I'm willing to give AMD its dues, but let's not try rewriting history to do it.

 

And with Jim Keller (first man to design dual and quad-core designs) back in charge of all AMD's projects, there is potential there which has been lacking for years.

 

Who's rewriting history, the facts are there for all to read.  I certainly haven't changed them.  Just google for the history on wiki pages, company pages,  Market watch publishes all these companies financials. it's all there.   If IBM wanted to do what you are suggesting they would have to extend themselves beyond reasonable risk for a return that wouldn't necessarily pay off.   When it comes to fab work IBM are already talking about selling their assets (likely to global foundries) signalling and end to their own work.  It's just not that black and white,  a 99 Billion dollar income stream doesn't just equate to a large R+D budget.  

[DeViLzzz]

NEWS: Game Developers are releasing new games that deliberately make your old graphics cards useless.

This is not the same thing as what was mentioned with the original post.  Seriously don't even ..

[Derangel]

This is not the same thing as what was mentioned with the original post.  Seriously don't even ..

 

It has about as much fact behind it as the original post though.

[DeViLzzz]

More supporting articles/discussions below now also put in my original post ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2480059/Is-Apple-deliberately-slowing-iPhone.html

 

http://www.zdnet.com/does-apple-throttle-older-iphones-to-nudge-you-into-buying-a-new-one-7000032136/

 

http://www.theweek.co.uk/technology/59708/does-apple-deliberately-slow-old-iphones-before-a-new-release

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/29/old-iphone-slower

[Aniallation]

This isn't really news. Apple has been doing this for ages. Somebody gave me their first generation iPhone, I replaced the battery cause it was broken, but what could I do with it? Make calls, send texts, listen to music, that was it. Sold it and got the first Android phone, an HTC G1. Updated it to 2.2 Froyo and it still worked fine for everything I usually do with a phone, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

 

I still use an HTC MyTouch 4G as a daily driver. It can do many things that I know an iPhone 4 would have a hard time doing.

I use an HP TouchPad as a daily driver. It can do thing I know an iPad 2 would have a hard time doing.

 

That's the reality, folks.

[Derangel]

Wth are you talking about?  The original post is very clear in telling what is going on.  The article gives further detail.

 

No, what the article does it make up claims based on search results and ZERO evidence or REAL research. Hell my post above involves more fact and research than the article because I've actually USED the phone and can back up my claims with my own experience. If there were any real facts or information backing up the claims then there might be some merit to the article. As it stands it's little more than shitty click-bait. You can't make claims based on nothing more than a Google search, it doesn't work that way. Actual evidence requires testing and some bloody effort.

[Mooshi]

I know this forum can be stubborn as balls with blind Apple hatred, but come on.

 

New York Times, said that Apple could be engineering the new operating system so it only works properly with the newest version of the product.

 

As if an old box running an older version of Windows would be up to par with a new system running the latest OS. How is this at all any different? It isn't. Apple can do some dumb things, but use some common sense!

[Vacsol]

not as bad as Sony who cut off support for the Xperia Z after releasing a patch which destroyed battery life.

[Derangel]

More supporting articles/discussions below now also put in my original post ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2480059/Is-Apple-deliberately-slowing-iPhone.html

 

http://www.zdnet.com/does-apple-throttle-older-iphones-to-nudge-you-into-buying-a-new-one-7000032136/

 

http://www.theweek.co.uk/technology/59708/does-apple-deliberately-slow-old-iphones-before-a-new-release

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/29/old-iphone-slower

 

Your support isn't very good. Even the Daily Mail, a freaking tabloid known for making stuff up and bending the truth won't do anything more than provide some simple information. Not one single other source takes it as anything than more some a slight possibility. It's pretty bad when the so-called support doesn't actually support it.

[BallGum]

No, what the article does it make up claims based on search results and ZERO evidence or REAL research. Hell my post above involves more fact and research than the article because I've actually USED the phone and can back up my claims with my own experience. If there were any real facts or information backing up the claims then there might be some merit to the article. As it stands it's little more than shitty click-bait. You can't make claims based on nothing more than a Google search, it doesn't work that way. Actual evidence requires testing and some bloody effort.

Thing is people seem to be having very different experience with the four. My experience was that it was too slow to use daily, while yours seems to be the opposite.

I'd much rather not have an update / "support" if all it does is give me new icons but slow everything down.

While you're right that Android phones don't usually get that much support from their manufacturers, the updates that they do get, especially the latest ones, generally improves performance on the device.

Like others have said, this us because Google wants to spread its software, while Apple is trying to sell new hardware.

Whether or not Apple deliberately handicaps their older devices is up for debate. But the older devices definitely are slower after updates.

[Derangel]

Thing is people seem to be having very different experience with the four. My experience was that it was too slow to use daily, while yours seems to be the opposite.

I'd much rather not have an update / "support" if all it does is give me new icons but slow everything down.

While you're right that Android phones don't usually get that much support from their manufacturers, the updates that they do get, especially the latest ones, generally improves performance on the device.

Like others have said, this us because Google wants to spread its software, while Apple is trying to sell new hardware.

Whether or not Apple deliberately handicaps their older devices is up for debate. But the older devices definitely are slower after updates.

 

That's why I said it was anecdotal, there are way too many conflicting personal reports just about the iPhone 4 to make any solid claims without in-dept testing. It would also be hard to prove intent versus simply designing updates to take advantage of newer hardware while trying to make sure the old devices aren't entirely unusable (at least for some people). All that said there have been very obvious cases where Apple has wrecked performance on their older devices. iOS 7.0 on the iPhone 4 is a great example, however Apple improved iPhone 4 performance in the 7.1 update. It's a weird situation where supporting that old hardware for several years will hurt performance simply by the nature of the new OS versions being designed for newer and much much more powerful devices.

[STRMfrmXMN]

Thing is though, is that Apple isn't the only company that does this...

[LAwLz]

Thing is though, is that Apple isn't the only company that does this...

Source?

According to the OP, other brands do not show the same pattern.

[dalekphalm]

Did you guys even read the original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/upshot/hold-the-phone-a-big-data-conundrum.html?referrer=?

 

This comment there summed it up perfectly for me:

 

 

There is no concrete proof at all, heck there is no proof whatsoever. This is just based on assumptions and hypothesis. It is likely that a new OS can slow down an older phone but that doesn't explain why the spikes are just at the launch times when new iOS versions have released at other times also.

 

 

Give me a break.  Apple knows what they are doing.

 

 

That may well be, but as a scientist I can't accept this article without any proof.

 

 

I don't know if you two realize it or not, but it REALLY sounds like you're agreeing with each other, lmao.

 

Unless @DeViLzzz you're implying that Apple does indeed intentionally cripple their older devices with updates? If so, you should really clean up that post, as your wording is extremely ambiguous.

 

Anyway either way I agree with @VSG 100%. This article is about a freaking poll and search results. There is no factual evidence and no logical basis or procedure behind this. This article is stupid and pointless. If they wanted to claim that Apple cripples their own devices, they should have tested them!

[VSG]

His next few posts leave no ambiguity.