> Apple literally was caught using software upgrades to make older devices perform worse.
...which if you bothered to read even the article you linked, you'd know had to do with ensuring that battery voltage wouldn't drop low enough for the device to randomly shut itself off, a result which itself became a problem due to the actual longevity of their devices.
You can certainly argue that they should have communicated this with their customers, though I'd argue that the vast majority would not notice nor care, while a lot more people would certainly notice their devices randomly shutting off.
More interesting is to look at what Google did for Nexus Phones with the same issue.
>If you're among those affected, your phone will randomly shut down and completely die, even though your battery indicator might have said you had plenty of juice left. It's not a simple system crash, because your phone will stay dead until you connect it to a charger
No, it was the fact that Apple fixed people's out of warranty phone so that it wouldn't suddenly go dead that suggests they fixed it.
Google, on the other hand, lost it's court case after refusing to fix a known defect that had Nexus phones die while reporting they had more than a 50% charge remaining, and staying dead until you connected them to a charger.
>Nexus 6P owners eligible for up to $400 from Huawei and Google in class action settlement
Apples approach to "assuming everyone's device behaves the same way" (quotes because I don't honestly think any qualified engineer would make that assumption.) was wrong.
Some people use their phones less. My father doesn't turn his phone ON unless he wants to make a call.(Frustrating though that is...)
"
For instance, you might use 75 per cent of your battery’s capacity one day, then recharge it fully overnight. If you use 25 per cent the next day, you will have discharged a total of 100 per cent, and the two days will add up to one charge cycle. It could take several days to complete a cycle. The capacity of any type of battery will diminish after a certain amount of recharging.
"
Some people used their phone a lot and had batteries replaced - either through Apple or not.
And some human within Apple signed off on a solution to effectively make everyones older phone worse.
What else could they have done? Well, from my original NPR link:
"Starting in 2018, iPhone users have been able to better control an iPhone's battery life and check on the health of the battery, along with allowing users to turn off iPhone battery throttling"
Make no mistake, Apple acted poorly. But they do better now. Whether that is because they were caught or not, we will never know.
I like many of the things Apple does. I have a lot of respect for their trailblazing. Screens seemed stuck in 1920x1080 hell until Apple unplugged screen development again.
But they are a corporation like any other and can't be trusted.
The throttling of the cpu was tied directly to the health of the battery [1], not simply by the device you were using.
There is plenty of things to be critical of Apple and any corporation for and you don't need to spread misinformation in order to do so. You can even be critical about how they approached this, but your original claim that you doubled down on is simply false.
"iOS 11.3 and later improve this performance management feature"
and
"iPhone 8 and later use a more advanced hardware and software ..[snip].. As a result, the impacts of performance management may be less noticeable on iPhone 8 and later."
My conclusion:
It is true that Apple was only targeting phones with dodgy(to a degree of approximation) batteries.
OTOH, Apple does a better job now. Both in execution and communication.
Whether Apple would have reached this achievement without batterygate is unknowable.
My apologies for spreading misinformation, thank you for your patience.
Another case of a lie--or misunderstanding due to reposting clickbait without engaging critical thinking--circumnavigating the globe at internet speed while the truth is still putting on its pants.
...which if you bothered to read even the article you linked, you'd know had to do with ensuring that battery voltage wouldn't drop low enough for the device to randomly shut itself off, a result which itself became a problem due to the actual longevity of their devices.
You can certainly argue that they should have communicated this with their customers, though I'd argue that the vast majority would not notice nor care, while a lot more people would certainly notice their devices randomly shutting off.