We believe there are other factors broadly impacting our iPhone performance, including consumers adapting to a world with fewer carrier subsidies, US dollar strength-related price increases, and some customers taking advantage of significantly reduced pricing for iPhone battery replacements.
Why spend $1,449 on an XS Max when you could have replaced the battery on your phone for $29?
Hi, I was someone who traded my 64GB 6s in for a 256GB XS.
- $200 no questions asked buy-back
- Better camera
- Larger screen in a just about the same size form factor
I expect to have this phone for ~4 years with probably a battery refresh in ~2ish.
I went 4S -> 6S -> XS. I hadn't upgraded an iPhone in years, Apple has made the process extremely slick and painless. I was seriously impressed at picking up the new phone and being "good to go" in ~45 min when my apps downloaded.
I think I'm with you in that a better camera is really what incentivised me to switch. Modern phone cameras are simply stunning - the video on the X series and the photos on the Pixel devices are incredible for their form factors. To me it was never a question of "Do I want to spend $1k on a phone", it's always been a question of "would I spend $1k to have the majority of my photos from these 4 years be of much higher quality". That's what made me switch.
I agree. The camera is great. But I have to admit that I’m also a bit underwhelmed. The Apple keynote obviously shows the best pictures only.
In not-perfect-light scenarios (not necessarily by night), photos shot with the iOS stock camera App have noticeably grain or "patches". The portrait mode is nice, but has glitches occasionally such that some item in the background gets merged with the face in the foreground.
So, I’m not a professional photographer, I only use the camera of my iPhone XS Max. The results are good enough, but the improvement isn’t that big over the iPhone 7 or 8.
What I do like is the big screen, since I use my phone only a couple times per week to make a call. Most of the time is spend in apps.
One thing that makes me hesitant on changing my phone is Google Authenticator. I still have some services using that instead of Authy. I got my secret codes but it will be a hassle to use them when the time comes...
I replaced both Authy and Google Authenticator with 1Password; it is really nice to have OTPs all in one place and sync'd across mobile devices and laptops.
I don't understand the problem. I went from 100% Google Authenticator to 100% Authy. It's a pain to turn off 2FA, then turn it back on using Authy instead of Google, but it's 100% under your control. So you can do 2 or 3 a day until you're done or one long session.
Now I have 2 devices that I can use, which makes me much less fearful about losing (or more likely misplacing) my phone.
I use KeePassXC on a Linux desktop and store the 2FA codes in it. Every site that offers 2FA will let you use a code instead of scanning the QR image. As long as I have the underlying codes I can reuse them anywhere else.
I wonder if there's an equivalent on iOS for andOTP. It puts the backup responsibility on the user in which you can export all tokens to plaintext or password-secured encrypted text. You ultimately put trust in the app maintainers instead of a third party like Authy.
Checkout OTP Auth, which does all that. Very friendly, and very well written with excellent attention to usability details. No net connection unless you enable iCloud saving. No ads even in the free version. Well worth the tiny donation for premium!
I have no connection other than being a happy premium user for around 2 years. By far the best of those I found.
Jumping in to reply because I made the switch to Authy about two years ago and haven't looked back. You get the ability to sync MFA across devices and desktop without a hitch. Add in the backup (with encryption) and you can onboard a device quickly and it fits every use case I need.
I actually just completed a migration from Authenticator to Authy. I don’t have much to say except that it was pretty seamless. Sync between multiple devices works very well. I’m not a fan of the Authy UI but it does what I need.
If you use a password manager that supports OTP tokens (lastpass with their authenticator app, 1password, bitwarden) you could just use that and remove Authy out of the picture.
You really shouldn't be storing OTP tokens in your password manager. Yes it's better than nothing, but if your password manager vault gets compromised your 2FA does nothing to stop it.
My thoughts exactly. The iPhone 6S is still plenty fast, does everything I need it to, has a large screen, and a headphone jack.
I have used the latest models and don't see any improvements worth upgrading for. FaceID is cool, but not enough on its own to convince me to upgrade.
In previous cycles, my update from 3GS to 4S was a no-brainer (retina, massive speed improvement), as was the upgrade from 4S to 6S (lightning port, LTE, massive speed improvement, larger screen).
Once I got my battery swapped, the phone was as good as new.
From someone having sweaty hands (Hyperhidrosis). FaceID is not only cool, but it’s a game changer! I always get frustrated when attempting to unlock my 6S plus 3 times, then ultimately being just asked for my passcode. With FaceID, everything just works smoothly/seamlessly as if there’s not even an authentication phase.
If I knew this earlier, I could’ve bought the X sooner. Couldn’t recommend it enough.
Was just talking to the family the other day about this. Every phone up to the 6 I had in my hands the day it was available, and that’s including the original iPhone which wasn’t available in Australia. We imported them and had to wait for a jailbreak until we could do anything with them!
So yeah, iPhone nerd here.
I’ve been rocking an SE for a couple of years now. Love it. Works. Quick enough. Small, robust. No plans to update.
I think the novelty has worn off. They used to be these cool new toys. Now it’s just a phone. I want to spend less time with the thing as time goes on, not more.
Whether it’s $29 or $79 for a battery replacement for an iPhone 6S, it’s still a good value proposition to get more years out of it. I’m planning to do the same.
I'm in the same boat, I intend to keep my 7+ and X for quite a while - especially since there's nothing really interesting out on the market or any new killer feature on the horizon for now.
Having recently deleted all my timeline-based social media accounts, I'd even consider switching to a smart dumbphone like the Nokia 8110 if it had WhatsApp and Spotify (WhatsApp is rumoured to be at least coming soon to KaiOS) and just get rid of the distraction altogether.
That's one part. The other is that iOS 12 really did focus on speed improvements. For many (most?) people, an iPhone 7 with a new battery is still a great phone.
I replaced an iPhone 6 or 6s with a 7. I also find $1,000 just obscene for a phone. I'm a person could have afforded the OLED versions and chose not to.
And ios 11 may have shifted sales forward. I was still doing ok on ios 10 on my iphone 6. Ios 11 slowed it down (even with a replaced battery) so I got an iphone 8.
Now on ios 12 my iphone 6 is fast again. But, I probably would have bought the iphone 8 by now anyway, just because of camera quality, etc. The speed trouble just pulled my purchase up by a year. (I even bought a stopgap SE in the summer of 2017)
I suspect others also upgraded early in 2011 due to ios 11. Of course this situation is better long run now that its fixed. I'm so pleased with ios 12.
In an attempt to get more mileage from my iPhone 6S and prolong a future phone purchase, I recently did the $29 battery replacement. I hoping that I avoid getting a new phone for another 2 years.
I’ve noticed that people like to spout the price for the highest tiered item as a reason for not buying a product. Like the original Apple Watch with the $10k Apple Watch Edition.
Just one anecdote, but I got my battery replaced and initially my phone was super-fast. After a few months though, it slowed down considerably, and is now as slow as it was before I replaced the battery.
The battery-protection performance throttling is either on or of, and you can check the status in iOS 12 (settings>battery>battery health). If it's off ("Peak performance mode") and your phone is slow, it's something else (bloated apps or web pages perhaps)
Not true - lithium cells see most 'wear' when used and stored above 90 percent charge and below 10 percent charge.
The effect is so dramatic that some manufacturers rescale the indicator so it isn't possible to reach those charge levels, and makers of electric cars won't charge above 90 percent by default.
Right but we're talking about the whole battery, not individual cells. I thought "prevent the cells from charging too high or dropping too low" was standard practice these days for everybody, and so at the battery level the "don't charge to 100%" advice is obsolete.
I don’t think you got that quite right. Most cellphone batteries are single cell (L shaped ones excluded). All cells have the property of degradation per cycle depending on range of charge/discharge (0-100 worse than 10-90 worse than 20-80). Standard cell phone BMS charges 0-100 because most manufacturers optimize for battery life per unit weight, not cycle count. Planned obsolescence and all that..
At the very least, the "battery" includes the circuitry protecting and mediating access to the cell(s), and that's the point where it would prevent the cell(s) from overcharging.
This site seems like a decently credible source on battery life, and they recommend setting devices into a mode to leave the charge at around 80% if its not going to be really used heavily as a mobile device.
"A laptop battery could be prolonged by lowering the charge voltage when connected to the AC grid. To make this feature user-friendly, a device should feature a “Long Life” mode that keeps the battery at 4.05V/cell and offers a SoC of about 80 percent."
I've had a lot of laptops with this kind of mode on them from several different manufacturers. I think Samsung, Lenovo, and HP have some knowledge of extending the life of their batteries.
https://support-us.samsung.com/cyber/popup/iframe/pop_troubl...
"...it is strongly recommended to select "Optimize for Battery Lifesapn mode" or Conservation Mode and keep AC adapter connected alll the time. This mode will enable the battery to be fully charged to 80% or 60% of its design capacity."
https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/ht069687
I have little reason to think a similar concept applies to phone batteries, as they're usually a similar chemistry these days.
Common knowledge and from what I've read about batteries the last two decades. And from using AccuBattery.
Please do state why it is wrong, so we can sort it out :)
Both samsung and apple says that you should have at least 50% charge if you store the device long term and also avoid going too low and leave it empty.
I get that apple/samsung will not recommend not charging 100%, from using accubattery (play store) they say that a full charge uses about one charge cycle, but charging to 82% does not take any charge cycle.
From what I've read the best thing for the longevity of the battery would then be to have it between 20 and 80%. But if you will replace the battery or phone after 500 charging cycles you could just charge it to 100% as much as you like. But never go below 20%.
AccuBattery should really add a warning about the battery health when going under 20%.
I did not know that it's possible to monitor battery health in iphone settings nowadays, that's great!
Can you share why it's wrong? I learned the same thing as the OP and would love to learn more. As far as I learned, the more harmful part is discharging to very low levels, especially if you use it until it shuts off and then don't connect it to the charger for a long time. Is that also no longer the case?
I know that manufacturers sometimes gate off some of the capacity so that the battery doesn't actually reach extremely high or low levels of charge, but that would still imply that avoiding the very high and low ends of the reachable spectrum would still be helpful, just maybe not as much.
>Why spend $1,449 on an XS Max when you could have replaced the battery on your phone for $29?
Just have to crack that digitally signed battery cable ;)
Jokes aside, Apple been deliberately reducing their products' repairability since at least iphone 3. I myself had a side business of selling factory refurbished phones when I was an exchange student in Singapore from 2007 to 2009. Malaysian refurbishers told me that in the middle of production run, Apple deliberately began gluing their front glass to the display with impossible to undo glue to nuke any chance of profitable refurbishment.
In contrast to "dumb" phones of Japanese brands, that were designed for extreme manufacturability, Apple's products are unique in that regard to be engineered with an opposite goal.
Yes please let me spend more on an "inferior product" (without a headphone jack) instead of replacing the battery
Funnily enough I got an email about availability of the new models for a discounted price "for a limited time only". Maybe their prices will be reviewed?
Once you lose that giant bezel it looks really jarring on phones that still have it. As for the headphone jack, for many, it doesn't make the phone inferior any more than the MacBook is inferior for not including an ethernet port.
Once you lose that giant bezel, you get it back immediately by putting that phone in a case.
And very few people won't do it to a phone that costs several hundred dollars to buy, and that will likely suffer considerable damage if you ever drop it on any hard surface without a case.
We once waited until the tech matured before removing older legacy components. Last I checked, Bluetooth audio still sucks, and Apple knows it, which is why they supplied a dongle to get around the justified complaints.
I guess that depends on your definition of sucking. Between AirPods, random $10 BT speakers, my car, and a pair of Bose QC's, my phone (X) works well with BT, but I may not be a discerning audiophile.
It isn't even the clicks or stutters, though that can be annoying. It's the stickiness. I turn on my bluetooth speaker and ... it connects to a phone in the other room. So, now I have to walk through the house to find it and turn off bluetooth. Now I can connect to the speaker with my phone.
Headphones, same issue, phone wants to initially connect to any other bluetooth device except the headphones in my hand. So, now I have to dig into settings, etc... I don't have that issue with 3.5mm jacks.
I totally agree with you. This also does not make any sense to me:
> US dollar strength-related price increases
A weaker dollar (due to inflation, etc.) is the reason that consumer prices increase. A stronger dollar in theory should make the prices decrease.
EDIT: I understand that a stronger dollar means the prices in other currencies will increase, but I was referring to specifically the price in US markets. Pretty sure the iPhone prices in the United States increased as well.
A stronger dollar in theory should make the prices decrease.
But for whom? If you're outside the US, and I'll remind you that most of the world, including China, is, then goods effectively priced in US dollars will be more expensive.
The US price increases aren't being attributed to the strong dollar. The letter is referring to the reasons Chinese sales are weaker than predicted. The stronger dollar is one of those reasons.
But I'm still a bit confused on it. How is Foxconn being paid? In dollars or in yuan? If the dollar is strong, shouldn't the BOM and manufacturing costs decline in lockstep with the Chinese buyers' purchasing power (relative to USD)?
I imagine the BOM and manufacturing costs aren't as big as paying all of those employees at 1 Apple Park Way, their IP holding companies overseas, or all their construction costs on billion dollar campuses they're building, who are being paid in dollars.
They increase the price in US, they also increase the price in local currency ON top of that, to hedge the currency fluctuations. In the end, the oversea consumers pay much more even in terms of us dollars.
So US probably has the cheapest iPhone in the world.
Rather than provide rational treatment, they just force her to take "anti-psychotics" in the delusional belief that their drugs (rather than sobriety) are what allows my friend to be functional.
My best friend's father is a paranoid schizophrenic. Antipsychotic medication allows him to live a relatively normal life.
> My best friend's father is a paranoid schizophrenic. Antipsychotic medication allows him to live a relatively normal life.
How do you know that it's the medication that allows him to "live a relatively normal life", and not the other factors?
If you want to trade anecdotes... My other friend's father fell out of a tree and broke his back when she was a child (iirc). Some time later they decided he was a "schizophrenic". He's been on antipsychotics ever since. His condition has spiraled downward over the subsequent years. Last I heard he was full-on crazy. If the doctors had provided supportive treatment instead of suppressive, his life trajectory would have been totally different.
My aunt's good friend had a "psychotic break" soon after her husband died unexpectedly. The friend was put on "anti-psychotics". She's now dying of liver failure, certainly as a consequence of her long-term drugging.
The ugly truth about so-called "antipsychotic medication" is that the class is palliative rather than curative, and actually causes the deterioration it supposedly treats.
I dislike exchanging anecdotes too. If you can point me to a treatment for schizophrenia tested in quality randomized trials with the success rate of antipsychotics (which still have a very poor success rate), please do.
> If you can point me to a treatment for schizophrenia tested in quality randomized trials with the success rate of antipsychotics (which is really miserable), please do.
It will be 15-20 years for a randomized trial initiated today to get such a result. Who would pay for such studies? The businesses who've been making $billions on their FDA-approved drugs for decades? The status quo defends itself, and refuses to admit they made a mistake in forcing palliative treatments on vulnerable patients.
As I'm sure you're aware, there's a thing called the Dunning-Kruger effect, which predicts that people with less knowledge are more confident in their grasp of the situation than people who really do know what's going on. Reading your comments makes me wonder if perhaps you might want to reflect on whether you've seen 10,000 psychiatric patients on the in-patient wards. If not, I'm guessing you may want to revisit the possibility that the thousands of psychiatrists and nurses on the floors, who have invested their lives in caring for the sick might have a better appreciation for the signal-to-noise ratios that matter in the present topic of discussion.
It seems you consider yourself wise. If that's true, I suspect you will recognize the value of at least projecting humility in the face of the cummulative lifetimes of effort others have invested in a problem.
The opposite side of Dunning-Kruger's coin is that "competent students tended to underestimate their own competence" [0]. I have no idea where I fall on the spectrum, I just try to be observant. I read books, and check references when it seems important. The science library at the nearest State University is quite useful for this purpose. I'm working on a model to help me understand what's going on. There are lots of holes in my model, and I'd certainly take myself straight to the hospital if I sustained a sudden injury (broken bone, etc).
I have videos from 2 weeks before my friend ran out of alcohol that show she was not psychotic when on her maintenance dose of alcohol. She was with me the weekend her mother said she "disappeared" -- I'd encouraged her to call her mother, but she did not do so. She ran out of alcohol when I took her home. She called me the next morning. I knew something was happening, but I didn't know anything about "psychosis" at the time. If I'd known then what I now know about withdrawal psychosis, I'd have called her mother right away...
I have the affidavits from the hospital's application for court-ordered evaluation, and the psychiatrists' affidavits from her first prosecution for having a "persistent or acute disability" (ambiguity in statute), even though the statutes distinguish between "mental disorders" and conditions resulting from "drug abuse, alcoholism or intellectual disability." I witnessed her deterioration while getting the finest of the mental health industry's standard of care. I drove five hours to retrieve my friend the day after she was released from a "stabilization" that left her more delusional at the end of the week than at the beginning.
There is a resistance against conventional psychiatry because of the field's long history of harmful treatment: Lobotomies, water torture, palliative medications, [edit: electrocution], etc. Robert Whitaker examined the predicament of the "mentally ill" in his first book, Mad in America: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0786723793
The tragedy of the situation is that the Quakers figured out how to compassionately care for people while they had mental episodes (Ref: Whitaker's book). This was without the benefit of the sciences' contributions to humanity's understanding of our condition. Furthermore, 20th Century Science figured out the physiological considerations behind most so-called "mental" conditions. For some reason, psychiatry didn't incorporate these findings into clinical practice. Whitaker makes the case that psychiatry has been compromised by profiteers in the drug industry in his third book, Psychiatry Under the Influence: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=113751602X
People have rights, even people who are declared to have a "mental disorder", but most such patients have trouble asserting their rights on their own. I had a breakthrough last month, and am now confident that my last 3 years of efforts have not been in vain.
Thank you for reminding me of the importance of humility.
We pride ourselves on being an efficient organization. In 2019 Let’s Encrypt will secure a massive portion of the Web with a budget of only $3.6M. We believe this represents an incredible value and that contributing to Let’s Encrypt is one of the most effective ways to help create a more secure and privacy-respecting Web.
A focused non-profit attacking a real problem can be extremely effective. I hope the rich tech people on HN strongly consider building or donating significant amounts to tech non-profits and open source. Certainly this is more impactful than another advertising network investment.
The concern I have is that these vital non-profits (one might say critical infrastructure, depending on the org) have to go hat in hand to the community each and every year for their operating funds, whereas if they had an endowment or some other investment account backing them, they'd be able to survive in perpetuity.
At a 4% withdrawal rate, Let's Encrypt would need $100 million invested to not need to ask for funds in the future (assuming they don't drastically increase their operating expenses).
Governance and oversight is mandatory though; Wikipedia has net assets almost near $113 million [1] and requires less than 600 servers to operate (plus colo costs, connectivity, technical staff, etc). On the other end of the spectrum, OpenStreetMap costs $118k a year to operate [2].
> whereas if they had an endowment or some other investment account backing them, they'd be able to survive in perpetuity
There's a strong argument that entities like Wikipedia having to constantly go back to the community trough to survive, assists in keeping them well behaved. I prefer to keep Wikipedia begging and slightly desperate, rather than obese, detached, entitled, crusty and overly bureaucratic.
The user community that funds them can kill them off through funding deprivation in a short amount of time if Wikipedia decided to become a scumbag. Their annual cost to operate has perpetually increased, it's closing in on $100 million now (three or four more fiscal years at the rate they've been increasing it). They wouldn't survive long without the donations flowing in every year. They could plausibly make a large deal with eg Google on advertising if the user funding dried up due to bad behavior, however that would just be more likely to accelerate their implosion.
It's dangerous to the mission of a charity / non-profit to hand it a position of certain financial perpetuity. All organizations are very much susceptible to bureaucratic creep and wandering off mission in such situations. It's why many of the great philanthropists (Buffett, Gates and Carnegie to name a few) have sought to expend their fortunes relatively rapidly in charity rather than have the charitable trove exist in perpetuity via a perma-institution for parasites to attach to over many decades.
This is a great comment and a really valuable perspective. I have to note, however, that financially precarious nonprofits can also veer off in bad directions, or become ossified, or whatever, and the result is they fail outright.
A benefit to Wikipedia’s situation is they go directly to their user base for funds. When nonprofits are financially precarious or dependent and rely on small numbers of moneyed donors, they can just as easily go off mission and/or become corrupted.
> When nonprofits are financially precarious or dependent and rely on small numbers of moneyed donors, they can just as easily go off mission and/or become corrupted.
What you're describing is exactly the situation that Mozilla has been in for the last decade or so, and I always feel a little uncomfortable about it. The vast majority of their income is from search deals with one or two vendors.
This was the Buddha's own thinking when he established his order of monks. Sadly, it has not weathered the last couple thousand years in such grace, as many East Asian Buddhist monasteries have become thoroughly corrupt, with monks misappropriating funds.
Perhaps nothing can preserve institutions from ossifying than date-determined termination.
Transferring ownership or control of a root CA requires assent from the trust stores.
That's one (of several) reasons WoSign / StartCom was distrusted, they tried very hard to conceal the change in ownership of StartCom.
Assent might well be given, but it isn't automatic. This came up for Symantec selling their CA business, and also for other CA outfits doing internal reorganisations which wanted to be clear that these were paper exercises (e.g. for branding) and had no effect on which people controlled the CA in practice.
In the specific case of Google acquiring Let’s Encrypt, the fact that they control the majority of browser share means that it will get added to the Chrome trust list, and everybody else will have to go along.
There is not really a "Chrome Trust List". The Chrome browser does have Google-specific policies, but it doesn't use a Google trust store, it uses the OS supplied trust store, e.g. on Windows it consumes SChannel's Trust Store and the macOS version of Chrome uses the macOS Trust Store.
On a Google Android device, such as a Pixel, Google are responsible for the OS trust store, as they build the entire OS, but in practice it's basically the Mozilla trust store.
To the extent that we can say "Everybody else will have to go along" with anything when it comes to the trust roots, I'd suggest it's whatever Mozilla, a public charity, chooses to do. A brutally frank person might suggest that for-profit trust stores (all the big ones except Mozilla are for-profits) see considerable value in having unwelcome but necessary decisions made officially by somebody else before they "reluctantly" go along with them.
Also, Google is a very big company, the people who work on Google's Certificate Authority, the people who work on Chrome, and the people who co-operate with Mozilla are three separate groups at Google.
I know of a guy who had previously run a successful VPS service. He dropped the VPS gig, sold the company, and is now driving trucks. Things aren't always as they seem.
No association with them, but the folks at Jolly Roger Telephone Compnay (https://jollyrogertelephone.com/) have an interesting approach to the problem. It's subscription based, but their bots are more advanced than Lenny and you get the conversations emailed to you after the transfer.
If just a few percent of callers used services like this, or wasted a few minutes time of the telemarketers, mass spoofed calls wouldn't be a viable business strategy.
https://transnexus.com/blog/2018/providers-responses-shaken-...
Once implemented incoming calls can be handled differently (e.g. UI differences on dialer, dropped to voicemail) based upon the attestation.