Apple Store “Bait and Switch” IPhone Battery Gambit: Apple Giveth and Taketh Away

Beware the Apple Store “bait and switch” iPhone battery gambit. We faced this yesterday in Los Gatos, CA where they tried to claim a working iPhone 6s with a good screen / original owner was not eligible for their $29 battery replacement at the appointment because it had a slight bow in the frame.

Now, by this point everyone likely has some flaw in their old iPhone, whether it is a slightly dinged frame from being dropped to a minute crack or scratch under the frame. It’s normal wear and tear. And they likely didn’t have a problem replacing the battery before the discount was announced and replacements were more costly and infrequent. But now, it’s an issue.

They did offer to sell an iPhone 6s for close to $300! This is a terrible price. Don’t go for it. This is what they mean by bait and switch.

There’s a good reason why Apple doesn’t want to replace old batteries after their bungled attempt to intentionally slow down older iPhones with an OS update was discovered, but they don’t mind selling old inventory at a premium. Money.

According to¬†Barclays’ analyst Mark Moskowitz, extending the life of old iPhones will impact Apple’s bottom line and stock price severely:¬†“In our base case scenario, 10% of those 519M users take the $29 offer, and around 30% of them decide not to buy a new iPhone this year. This means around 16M iPhone sales could be at risk, creating ~4% downside to our current revenue estimate for C2018.”

I suppose we’re back to the maxim, “If it seems to good to be true, it is too good too be true“.

Consider your options carefully when they refuse to honor their agreement.

Intel’s X86 Decades-Old Referential Integrity Processor Flaw Fix will be “like kicking a dead whale down the beach”

Brian, Brian, Brian. Really, do you have to lie to cover your ass? Variations on this “exploit” have been known since Intel derived the X86 architecture from Honeywell and didn’t bother to do the elaborate MMU fix that Multics used to elide it.

We are talking decades, sir. Decades. And it was covered by Intel patents as a feature. We all knew about it. Intel was proud of it.

Heck, we even saw this flaw manifest in 386BSD testing, so we wrote our own virtual-to-physical memory mapping mechanism in software and wrote about it in Dr. Dobbs Journal in 1991.

You could have dealt with this a long time ago. But it was a hard problem, and you probably thought “Why bother? Nobody’s gonna care about referential integrity“. And it didn’t matter – until now.

Now a fix is going to be expensive. Why? Because all the OS patches in the world can’t compensate for a slow software path. We’re looking at 30% speed penalties, sir.

Now, we can probably and properly blame the OS side with their obsession with bloated kernels.

But you promised them if they trust your processors, you’ll compensate for their software bottlenecks and half-assed architectures. And they believed you.

So now you’ve got to fix it, Brian. Not deny it. Fix it. Google didn’t invent the problem. It’s been there in one form or another since the 8086 was a glimmer in Gordon Moore’s eye.

And now it’s going to cost Intel. How much is up to you.