I’d argue that planned obsolescence is about designing something to break early and shorten its useful life, while graceful degradation is about designing things that are resilient, that work even after being broken, to give them as long a useful life as possible.
In that vein, the flashlight is a useful analogy even if you could argue it’s not an exact example - it works when it power source is at full, it works when it has fewer power sources, it works when it has less energetic power sources, it just tones down its output to match the power it has available.
Apple, on the other hand, went out and said “if you don’t buy a new phone we’re going to make your old phone run slower”. I think the battery life was just an excuse - did Apple really think its customers would rather have a slower phone than a phone with shorter battery life? Sounds ridiculous.
If you want a better example of graceful degradation in technology, think about solar panels. Solar panels gradually become less efficient with age - a 20-year-old solar panel is working at about 80% of its original efficiency. And for high efficiency needs, like powering a house where you have limited space to put solar panels, 80% might not be good enough anymore. But a solar panel that works at 80% is totally functional for other uses where less power is needed, so you can repurpose it and swap it out. And as long as somebody doesn’t drop a rock on the panel and break it, it can keep going for decades more.
Less efficient panels can be repurposed for systems that need less power. Older computers can get new operating systems and be repurposed for less demanding uses. Some things can be repaired indefinitely, and some can’t, but even things that gradually and inevitably decline in efficiency can be repurposed instead of being discarded. That’s the sort of resilient design we need for a sustainable future.
I appreciate the thought, but I think you’re giving the concept too much credit, and also misunderstanding exactly what Apple did or why it was bad.
“Graceful degradation” is simply the existence of a wider range of failure modes. The flashlight is nice because there are more conditions where you can do something with it, but the life cycle of such a product is obviously not limited by the replaceable batteries.
Apple’s hidden power management hacks were also, in fact, an example of “graceful degradation”. As a lithium-ion battery degrades, high-amperage loads (i.e., the the processor when executing an intensive workload) will cause an increasingly large voltage drop. If the voltage supplied to the processor drops too low, the latches inside the processor will destabilize and begin to produce incorrect results (a 1 that should have been a 0, or vice versa). This is immediately catastrophic for obvious reasons.
Given this, you have two choices: either the device shuts down when the voltage drop becomes too large (at, e.g., 40% charge, depending on the specific properties of the battery), or you reduce the maximum current draw of the processor by reducing its clock frequency.
Apple chose the latter, which probably makes sense in the grand scheme of things. However, this was still pretty bad for two reasons: they didn’t inform the user that they were doing it, and first-party battery replacements were prohibitively expensive until recently. Because of this, most users would assume that their phone was slowing down because it was old, not because their battery could no longer supply adequate power to sustain the maximum clock frequency. Worse yet, even if they did somehow figure this out, it was rarely worthwhile to shell out the $130+ Apple was charging to replace the battery (which basically just involves removing two screws and a ribbon cable).
The other problem is they didn’t give a choice to users. If I recognise I’m only going to keep my phone for another 6 months then I might prefer to just run the risk of a failure while maintaining high CPU function when the battery has sufficient charge.
And of course it wasn’t really a safety issue it wasn’t dangerous for the device to fail it was minorly irritating you just start the device again. So they basically made a unilateral decision on everyone’s behalf without asking anybody or telling them what they had done.
Apple got sued for lack of communication essentially.
Given this, you have two choices: either the device shuts down when the voltage drop becomes too large (at, e.g., 40% charge, depending on the specific properties of the battery), or you reduce the maximum current draw of the processor by reducing its clock frequency.
Yep, Apple took one route and Google took the other. There wasn’t a great solution short of replacing users batteries which no company is going to do without being forced.
Apple, on the other hand, went out and said “if you don’t buy a new phone we’re going to make your old phone run slower”. I think the battery life was just an excuse - did Apple really think its customers would rather have a slower phone than a phone with shorter battery life? Sounds ridiculous.
This isn’t how that happened at all and is an example of why this was such a bad marketing fail. Apple simply reduced the turbo just enough that the phone wouldn’t hitch or power off when the battery degraded. It was such a slight change it was literally only noticable by a very small shift in benchmark scores before and after a battery swap. They literally did a good thing for device longevity and got raked over the coals for it
I’d argue that planned obsolescence is about designing something to break early and shorten its useful life, while graceful degradation is about designing things that are resilient, that work even after being broken, to give them as long a useful life as possible.
In that vein, the flashlight is a useful analogy even if you could argue it’s not an exact example - it works when it power source is at full, it works when it has fewer power sources, it works when it has less energetic power sources, it just tones down its output to match the power it has available.
Apple, on the other hand, went out and said “if you don’t buy a new phone we’re going to make your old phone run slower”. I think the battery life was just an excuse - did Apple really think its customers would rather have a slower phone than a phone with shorter battery life? Sounds ridiculous.
If you want a better example of graceful degradation in technology, think about solar panels. Solar panels gradually become less efficient with age - a 20-year-old solar panel is working at about 80% of its original efficiency. And for high efficiency needs, like powering a house where you have limited space to put solar panels, 80% might not be good enough anymore. But a solar panel that works at 80% is totally functional for other uses where less power is needed, so you can repurpose it and swap it out. And as long as somebody doesn’t drop a rock on the panel and break it, it can keep going for decades more.
Less efficient panels can be repurposed for systems that need less power. Older computers can get new operating systems and be repurposed for less demanding uses. Some things can be repaired indefinitely, and some can’t, but even things that gradually and inevitably decline in efficiency can be repurposed instead of being discarded. That’s the sort of resilient design we need for a sustainable future.
TIL my middle-aged ass isn’t obsolete, it’s just gracefully degrading.
Eats chips
Gracefully degrading or just degrading?
Both? both. Both is good.
I appreciate the thought, but I think you’re giving the concept too much credit, and also misunderstanding exactly what Apple did or why it was bad.
“Graceful degradation” is simply the existence of a wider range of failure modes. The flashlight is nice because there are more conditions where you can do something with it, but the life cycle of such a product is obviously not limited by the replaceable batteries.
Apple’s hidden power management hacks were also, in fact, an example of “graceful degradation”. As a lithium-ion battery degrades, high-amperage loads (i.e., the the processor when executing an intensive workload) will cause an increasingly large voltage drop. If the voltage supplied to the processor drops too low, the latches inside the processor will destabilize and begin to produce incorrect results (a 1 that should have been a 0, or vice versa). This is immediately catastrophic for obvious reasons.
Given this, you have two choices: either the device shuts down when the voltage drop becomes too large (at, e.g., 40% charge, depending on the specific properties of the battery), or you reduce the maximum current draw of the processor by reducing its clock frequency.
Apple chose the latter, which probably makes sense in the grand scheme of things. However, this was still pretty bad for two reasons: they didn’t inform the user that they were doing it, and first-party battery replacements were prohibitively expensive until recently. Because of this, most users would assume that their phone was slowing down because it was old, not because their battery could no longer supply adequate power to sustain the maximum clock frequency. Worse yet, even if they did somehow figure this out, it was rarely worthwhile to shell out the $130+ Apple was charging to replace the battery (which basically just involves removing two screws and a ribbon cable).
The other problem is they didn’t give a choice to users. If I recognise I’m only going to keep my phone for another 6 months then I might prefer to just run the risk of a failure while maintaining high CPU function when the battery has sufficient charge.
And of course it wasn’t really a safety issue it wasn’t dangerous for the device to fail it was minorly irritating you just start the device again. So they basically made a unilateral decision on everyone’s behalf without asking anybody or telling them what they had done.
Apple got sued for lack of communication essentially.
Yep, Apple took one route and Google took the other. There wasn’t a great solution short of replacing users batteries which no company is going to do without being forced.
This isn’t how that happened at all and is an example of why this was such a bad marketing fail. Apple simply reduced the turbo just enough that the phone wouldn’t hitch or power off when the battery degraded. It was such a slight change it was literally only noticable by a very small shift in benchmark scores before and after a battery swap. They literally did a good thing for device longevity and got raked over the coals for it