There was a legitimate issue - they needed a visible battery health indicator – but you’re right that it’s been substantially exaggerated. There’s a certain amount which is probably explained by “iOS versus Android” but I think most of it comes back to the tech press being funded by ad impressions: mention a top brand in a story like that and you’ll get a lot of clicks with very little effort.

It’s both. They absolutely should’ve been clear about what was happening and should’ve given people the option to turn it off and had more obvious battery health notifications. It’s not a conspiracy to sell more phones imo.

If you want someone to blame, the mostly popular apps on the App Stores get more and more bloated every year.

Perhaps your usage doesn't challenge the throttling, i.e. you use it for calls, imessage, and apps you haven't updated (thus not as much CPU-demanding) for a few years. I have a Philips stereo on which I can plug/dock older iphones (3-4-5), and for that I got a very old 5, with Spotify. The phone is docked (and charging) on the stereo 24/7/365. So no complaint for that. But if I were to use it for other purposes, it would be super painful to have super slow performance or battery dying on me.

The courts outright have proven that Apple lied and forced them to pay out damages, how can that be "misrepresented and exaggerated"?!

That is an incredible claim. Please link to this court judgement.

After appeals were rejected, Apple is making payments to affected customers: https://www.smartphoneperformancesettlement.com/

You can find links to litigation there.

I had a quick scan but I can’t see it. Can you quote the bit where the court said Apple lied?

Edit: Document is here: https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.SmartphonePerfor...

> The Court did not decide the case in favor of Plaintiffs or Apple.

This does not support your assertion that the court decided that Apple lied.

Perhaps finish reading the said sentence - the court didn't decide the case because Apple decided to pay out money for their actions.

Your assumption that Apple's settlement to avoid guilty verdict somehow means that they didn't do the action (which they agreed to pay damages for) is the wildest instance of corporate boot licking I've seen this week :D

If the court decided that plaintiffs didn't have a case, Apple wouldn't settle.

I’m not sure how you failing to provide proof of lying makes me a corporate boot licker? Deciding to settle is a business decision which may or may not be related to what they did. This is the difference between a legal system and a justice system.

Have the courts actually proven that, or did Apple settle, avoiding the courts proving anything one way or another?

What's the difference? Apple appleals were rejected and then they started to compensating customers for their actions.

Seems like it was proven enough that the corporation admitted to wrong doing and is paying damages to customers.

If you don’t appreciate the difference, you should refrain from making statements like your original one since it might get you in trouble.

Please explain what kind of trouble are you threatening me with by claiming that corporation paying damages for their actions is kind of a good proof that those actions actually happened?

I am not threatening you. I’m saying if you assert that an entity is lying and you fail to provide proof then it can have consequences. It may make you the liar, since you are making false statements.