Apple slowing down devices to extend battery life when the battery itself is low or degraded is awesome.

All the lawsuits coming out of this over recent years are uncalled for. Users that “suffer” from this likely need to simply replace the battery.

I expect an OS (and/or kernel) to manage resources. iOS/macOS actively doing so by adjusting its behavior when the battery’s shot is exactly the kind of magic people want in Apple products—so why is the opposite true when it comes to to this subject?

It’s wild to me that someone would be so upset as to sue over this.

Edit: I’m not arguing that Apple is superior or that everyone should happily go along with buying Apple products. The way a lot of these comments are written make it sound like they’re the only smartphone manufacturer and living with their software is forced upon you. If Apple makes you angry or unhappy, I happily encourage you to seek alternatives; I don’t believe any one company can make the perfect product for 100% of people.

  • railsdev@programming.devOP
    212·
    1 year ago

    In that case is all opinionated software bad?

    I raise this question because as a programmer that’s how I interpret your logic.

    It makes me think you want every single little switch in the OS to be there for users and personally, I’m very much against this. I want the OS to take care of the little things and spend my time using it rather than configuring it.

    I remember in the olden days I switched from Windows to Mac OS X and found myself bored because I didn’t have to maintain the Registry, defragment the hard drive, etc. In my mind Apple makes the opinionated software and Windows is configuration hell.

    • Synthead@lemmy.world
      12·
      1 year ago

      It’s not necessarily opinionated. Making the phones slower drives sales of new phones. They’re not doing it to be charitable to your hardware. Case in point: they are the only vendor that is doing this, and it’s not because it’s innovative.

      • railsdev@programming.devOP
        16·
        1 year ago

        I have to disagree on Apple’s motive. Going on the assumption they’re greedy:

        1. It would make more sense for the device to simply fail (shut off) when the battery can’t hold a stable charge (prompting users to upgrade)
        2. One of their primary metrics in marketing is battery life, so it makes sense to slow the OS to meet that target as closely as possible (even when a component is failing) as often as possible (by not simply dying)
    • colourlesspony@pawb.social
      4·
      1 year ago

      I think if your changing something very fundamental then you should give the user some way to opt out of it. It’s not necessary for example, a security patch (that doesn’t meaningfully impact performance) or a new feature because users can just not use them. In the battery gate case, the performance of device impacts everything you do on it.

      • railsdev@programming.devOP
        26·
        1 year ago

        We’re talking about a battery that is critically low and/or is failing. Who’s expecting their phone to operate at full capacity under such circumstances?

        The fact that the phone is trying to stay powered on for longer (albeit with degraded performance) keeps access to emergency services more readily available, access to critical apps, etc. Where’s the benefit of operating at 100% if you’re only doing so for a limited amount of time?

        It feels like people just can’t be bothered to either charge their battery or replace it if it’s bad.