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.
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.
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.
Alright, I did some brief research into this because I have just been talking out my ass this whole time. I think the crux of the issues is that the affected Iphones basically have a battery deign flaw and can not supply the current the Iphones needs at peak power after a year or so of degradation. It seems apple should have recalled the phones and fixed the flaw. But instead they band-aid fixed it with software and changed how the phone work fundamentally and hoped no one would call them out.
Ooooo! You got a link for that?
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay-113-million-to-settle-batterygate-case-over-iphone-slowdowns suggests they did it to drive new sales by making old devices sluggish. But it doesn’t mention a battery flaw.
It’s how I understood this ifixit article: https://www.ifixit.com/News/11208/batterygate-timeline
That’s an awesome timeline. Thanks!
If that’s the case then I finally get it. I was operating under another pretense.
You’re advocating for anti-choice, which is anti-consumer and against freedom. Just thought I’d point it out.
What are you talking about? The consumer can choose another platform if it’s such a problem.
I hate Windows. You know what I don’t do? I don’t continue buying it, find something I can’t change about it (hell, let’s say the Registry) then turn around and complain I don’t have “choice” or “freedom.”