This was done to keep the device from restarting in scenarios where degraded batteries were unable to supply enough power. It wasn't a nefarious scheme to get users to upgrade.

Wasn't the problem that they did it on devices which were out of warranty and could not even get their batteries exchanged (at least not for a reasonable price)? Which in turn resulted in permanently degraded performance on otherwise usable products.

It didn't trigger based on warranty, it was specific circumstances. If an in-warranty battery was sufficiently degraded, it would trigger the throttling, and an out of warranty device with a healthy battery wouldn't.

> This performance management works by looking at a combination of the device temperature, battery state of charge, and battery impedance. Only if these variables require it, iOS will dynamically manage the maximum performance of some system components, such as the CPU and GPU, in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387

This can be viewed as a battery defect, especially if it's not user replaceable. Battery usable capacity vs longevity is a tradeoff in how the BMS in configured.

a) Prosecutors in the US and EU allege that both Apple and Samsung did in fact participate in a nefarious scheme to get users to upgrade. I realize that Apple and Samsung say they didn’t do that but I don’t think they are being honest. This thing where tech workers take tech companies at face value when said companies have repeatedly demonstrated their dishonesty is... really something.

b) At any rate, “Apple deceitfully handicapped older products to cover up a more serious (but fixable) flaw, knowingly pushing customers into unnecessary upgrades” is really not any better than “Apple deceitfully handicapped older devices to push consumers into unnecessary upgrades.”

I don't see why we should take prosecutors (who have their own goals and ambitions, operating in a political environment) at face value either. There's little to lose in pursuing a company with deep pockets, and a lot to gain.

I would call this “being so skeptical that your brain falls out” since you could make the same argument (about either politics or money) with scientists, human rights advocates, programmers, etc. “Actually you can’t trust anybody and all viewpoints are equally suspect” isn’t as enlightened as you think.

In this specific case Apple and Samsung have been proven dishonest and manipulative, and they have a far stronger legal/financial incentive to lie than separate groups of prosecutors in the US and many separate EU member states. I also find a conspiracy internal to Apple/Samsung much more plausible than a conspiracy across attorneys general from 34 US states.

> “Actually you can’t trust anybody and all viewpoints are equally suspect” isn’t as enlightened as you think.

Only trusting viewpoints that agree with your personal biases isn't enlightened, either.

> "In this specific case Apple and Samsung have been proven dishonest and manipulative"

is an unvarnished falsehood. The throttling wasn't across the board, it was triggered in specific circumstances related to the state of the battery. There was never any evidence that this was a scheme to defraud customers.

What would they gain?

Well one former prosecutor recently became Vice President of the United States. In any case, District Attorney is an elected position on most places, and having a reputation for being tough on the "bad guys" is a good way to get re-elected.

This was an attempt to save the battery. Where Apple messed up was not talking about this feature.

I'm a bit tired of this Apple apologism. Do you think that a corporation with their market cap is not fully aware of these kinds of decisions that impact their sales?

This is the same company that removed the headphone jack for very cynical reasons, in order to increase the sale price of their phone by $150 (or however much the Airpods cost). The same company that repeatedly removed ports from the laptops in order to sell more dongles (so much so that there were running gags at the time about Apple, the dongle company). A company where the revenue from the sale of accessories for their devices could literally make a Fortune 1000 company (!!!).

They definitely knew what they were doing and chose to do the thing that most benefited their bottom line.

Let's stop giving the benefit of the doubt to the top tech companies. They don't deserve it like mom and pop stores.

Oblio's Law: Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity, unless the ones acting have an army of data scientists, researchers, market analysts and PR people at their disposal.

> They definitely knew what they were doing and chose to do the thing that most benefited their bottom line.

Imho there's a reasonable case that they did the thing which best protected users older devices and daily usable time, and I think most users would prefer their phone stays working for a day on a single charge, so they can make and receive calls and messages towards the end of the day.

It's possible Apple wasn't thinking of the users, but it's not a clear cut case.

It's also possible that if Apple hadn't slowed the older phones down as batteries wore out, they would have seen more sales as users needed to replace their phones more urgently as battery life dropped. So it's not obvious that the action they took favoured sales anyway.

> It's possible Apple wasn't thinking of the users, but it's not a clear cut case.

Court cases are rarely won, especially with big companies. They have the money to drag them out so most are just settled. So in my eyes any class action lawsuit a company settles for millions is a case they lost.

When will you admit that it was a clear case? They just admitted it themselves by settling!

I give up :-)

The new iPhone (12? 13? 293?) comes without an AC adapter.

Because that is good for the environment :)

Even before that, people observed phones just get slower over time and with enough OS updates. An OS update should never make things feel slower or less responsive, yet here we are.