I'm not blanket defending them.

(1) I'm a right-to-repair activist, I believe that batteries should be user-serviceable and preferably end-user-serviceable. The fact that Apple refused to replace batteries in exchange for a fee is nutters to me. Apple's general disdain for third-party repair is indefensible.

(2) I want a system that tries to get as much performance as possible at all times, and that means as a consumable part (the battery) ages, less performance is available because less instantaneous power is available. This aging process begins on the first day and first charge cycle of ownership. That means if the device is always pulling the most power possible out of the battery, the performance characteristics of the device change over time, like balding tires or razor blades. A balding tire or razor blade is not defective, even if I can't take corners as tightly or have to slow down my shave to avoid cutting up my face.

(3) I would prefer a device that ramps down peak performance over time to match the capabilities of a consumable part rather than one that artificially limits peak performance early on to avoid a ramp-down. And I would certainly prefer a device that throttles at 20% capacity to one that takes a dirt nap at 20%. I had one of those, and it was awful. I couldn't rely on it to get home, for instance. The patch at issue here resolved that completely. I'd also prefer a device that is on at 20% to one that shuts down before it gets to 20% in some effort to avoid throttling.

(4) I don't think that a battery that is able to supply less instantaneous power over time is defective so long as its reduced capability is in line with expectations for the given age and number of charge cycles, and therefore shouldn't be eligible for a complementary automatic in-warranty battery replacement.

(5) Ok, say you prefer the other. Fine, don't buy an iPhone. It's not a 100 million dollar lawsuit worthy issue. It's at most a good will issue for the few folks who would prefer the other behavior, and having a switch resolved it.

Is that really such a ridiculous stance? Does this really irritate you?

And I dont mind if they have a valid argument. But most of the time it doesn't make any sense, technical, economical, or user perspective.

And most of these fans are post-iPhone Apple Fans as well.

When the first iPhone came out in 2008 Apple's rabid fan base came out just to keep saying "why would anyone ever want MMS and copy/paste?" It really didn't make any sense... I would have been somewhat interested in buying one if I could afford one, so I wasn't a hater.

I don't think you're remembering that right.

The early iPhone adopters, myself included, were focused on all the amazing new stuff the iPhone gave me over my Motorola Pebl, like a giant screen, a full desktop web browser, unlimited (albeit very slow) mobile internet in the middle of absolutely nowhere, and a buttery-smooth UI experience.

Remember the state of the art at the time was the Razr for consumer phones, Rokr for music phones, and the N900 for smartphones. Put them side by side with the original iPhone and you'll understand why copy-paste and MMS was the last thing on our minds.

There was no Android, that came out a year and a bit later. And Android 1.0 was hot garbage.

My first Mac was an SE/30 then an LC475 when I was a kid, and an iMac G4 15" (2002) and iBook G3 Snow (2003) are the machines I learned to write software on.

This right here is the reason Apple haters irritate me.

I love Apple devices and the quality improved in recent years, to the point that I will never leave the ecosystem.

But you can not have a healthy discussion about that because some people will come out and attack apple with their blood and tears. No matter ridiculous their stance is.

It’s a real shame if hate and anger are more socially acceptable than defending something.

I rest my case.

I rest mine. From your history it seems like you only log on that account to post anti-Apple comments.