Apple probably does know better than majority of users about their combined preferences. They can track user behavior around power management and see what they actually do versus what they say they want and design against it.

On the rare days..."

They don't design for rare days though, all good product managers design for the majority of use. Why would they put extra effort into adding a functionality, which could be confusing or inelegant to most users, which is only used rarely by a superuser?

I've had many friends complement my utterly midrange phone for feeling so snappy; it's because the stupid animations that only serve to slow down UI transitions are off.

This patronizing attitude of hiding all complexity from users is getting beyond ridiculous these days.

This sort of begs the question - if your phone is shutting off suddenly at 40%, is the battery really at 40%?

People have certain preconceived expectations when they see a percentage. The best analog I can think of is a gas tank. People know that how they drive affects their fuel consumption, but they also know that when their gas tank is 40% full, their car's not going to shut off suddenly.

Perhaps we need to look at using a different measure than percent to indicate remaining battery life. Having said that, I don't know what that different measure would be.

If you had only puttered around town (putting only a light load on the engine), you could have fully used the remaining 40%. So the gas tank does still have 40% capacity remaining at that point, it just can't deliver surges like it used it.

AFAIK, most of the battery degradation on phones can be attributed to heat and suboptimal operating temperatures. An EV will heat up / cool down the battery, treat each cell as an independent unit during cycles etc. They will degrade a lot slower compared to phones. Most EVs even after years of use have decent battery performance and some manufacturers (like Tesla and BMW) even go with 8-10 year battery warranty programs.

I think they don't see much abuse like the tiny phone batteries.

As a battery degrades, the time is reduced.

Regardless of what the initial voltage is, a plot can be drawn based on measurements of the voltage to see how quickly it's approaching the cut off voltage.

So the battery capacity should really be where the voltage is relative to the last peak when fully charged compared to the cut off voltage.

If Apple is reporting a battery at 40% capacity when it cuts off then they're fudging their numbers.

I started buying LED flashlights when the first couple of designs with high efficiency voltage regulator circuits showed up. The one my buddy had was only fit for a reading light for the last couple of hours of use.

People used to understand that things got dimmer or slower when the battery was almost dead. Due to circuitry these flashlights kept going even though the battery voltage had dropped below the shutoff voltage for an LED. Shouldn’t we maybe have built on that familiarity? Couldn’t we still?

I recall when they switched to non-replaceable batteries in MacBooks, they boasted how their battery lives were the best and would last x years. Is this how they did it?

And frankly now that sudden shutdown isn't a thing, I don't think it matters much. Apple just has to communicate the situation better when processor throttling reaches severe states.

Those cars have the extra problem of having batteries out in the cold too.

This isn't philosophy. This is marketing sold as philosophy.

Let's be real: yes Apple has distinct knowledge about design. But also, users have knowledge about what's best for them.And without that knowledge, Apple wouldn't be able to design a good phone. And they know it. they do user research,etc.

But in a sense, that's how all luxury marketing works: convincing people that some object bears great significance, because of the sheer talent of it's creators.

> Throughout iOS, people—not apps—are in control. An app can suggest a course of action or warn about dangerous consequences, but it’s usually a mistake for the app to take over the decision-making.

See also various UI guidelines from Microsoft at times when not a single MS app that was profitable followed those guidelines.

Of course implying that there are only two possible solutions to this problem is exactly what Apple wants you to think. It's kind of like Kevin Spacey raping minor boys and saying "okay, you caught me - I'm gay," to avoid any real consequences. It's misdirection.

There are two real solutions to this issue, none of which is being offered or hinted at by Apple:

1) increase battery size to match that of competitors (so up to 2x from what it is now), making the lower battery life over the years a much smaller problem for users

2) compromise a millimitre of thickness and allow users to replace the battery on their own, especially now after Apple gained more space by giving up the audio jack.

But of course Apple doesn't want you to think of any of these. Instead it wants its customers to keep fighting over the "Battery or Performance* faux choice.

I get caught out with a low battery too often. And having to remember to turn it on every time... if I could remember to do that I’d just remember to plug the damned thing in instead.

You mean Apple can't stop jerking around, and for once be useful for the user rather than their bottom line?