Car manufacturers DO that - it’s called limp mode and generally only says “take it to the dealer.” I would think if someone saw such a drastic decrease in performance of their phone, they’d do the same.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Other The myth of Apple intentionally slowing down older iPhones…
- Thread starter Al Rukh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People need to understand that batteries don't last forever and resources aren't infinite. As a battery ages, the amount of power it can supply decreases. If the chip keeps demanding the same amount of power, the battery will still provide it but will run out much faster. It was either reducing performance slightly or reducing battery life. Also the apps we use are getting more complex, so it natural to expect some slowdown.
Battery health, limited storage, or background tasks are the most likely culprits. If those are fine, it could be iOS related but it’s difficult to find studies on this; surely someone has done it by now.
It is not a myth: it's a fact. Even if it was (mostly) for good reasons.
Had Apple been clear and transparent about this whole thing, there wouldn't be a big issue, I think. The fact they were throttling down older phones - without any information to the consumers - is the main issue.
Had Apple been clear and transparent about this whole thing, there wouldn't be a big issue, I think. The fact they were throttling down older phones - without any information to the consumers - is the main issue.
Of course it makes sense: many people went on and bought a new device 💵💵💵 because their older phone became slow. Apple was subsequently fined 25 Million Euros for deliberately slowing down older iPhone models without making it clear to consumers. Case closed.
Obviously! That was my sarcastic point in regards to the other guy's silly comment suggesting that it was OK to wreck a product that *merely* cost a little over $1,000.
I don't like being told what to do.
So if we accept that you are correct because you closed the case for us all, then you can count me out. I am not included in the people you say were forced to update. Because I will not be forced, by Apple, by planned obsolescence, by conspiracy, or by anything else.
I get what I want, when I want and because I want to.
Currently my primary device is an 11 Pro Max running iOS 17, my secondary device is an iPhone 6s Plus running iOS 15 and I am typing this on a 2009 MacPro running Mojave. So count me out of the people forced.
Dealers and manufacturers don't call limp mode a fix. Apple did and here's what they said:
With iOS 10.2.1, Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone. We also added the ability for the phone to restart without needing to connect to power, if a user still encounters an unexpected shutdown. It is important to note that these unexpected shutdowns are not a safety issue, but we understand it can be an inconvenience and wanted to fix the issue as quickly as possible.
Nobody in the world understood this was code for cutting performance by 60%. That's why Apple lost so many lawsuits.
I never wrote anybody anywhere was forced into anything. You may have miss-read or miss-interpreted my text. it absolutely did encourage many to upgrade.
I didn't "close the case" either
- International & European courts have. And Apple paid the fine.fyi: I'm running 11 Pro and i'm completely happy with it still, years later (as I was with my previous phones). I remember rumours about phone throttling way back in 2013 already, and they were categorically dismissed as conspiracy theories.... until years later, they actually secretly did it (and it blew up in their faces later down the line). It all resulted in Apple being more transparent with users, and that is definitely for the better.
You stated…I never wrote anybody anywhere was forced into anything. You may have miss-read or miss-interpreted my text. it absolutely did encourage many to upgrade.
I didn't "close the case" either
fyi: I'm running 11 Pro and i'm completely happy with it still, years later (as I was with my previous phones). I remember rumours about phone throttling way back in 2013 already, and they were categorically dismissed as conspiracy theories.... until years later, they actually secretly did it (and it blew up in their faces later down the line). It all resulted in Apple being more transparent with users, and that is definitely for the better.
That's a mic-drop, meaning to you this discussion is ended and no further debate is necessary because you are right about what you said. Further discussion is therefore pointless and meaningless and anyone not agreeing with you is wrong.
Why?
Because you also said this:
Encouraged or forced (or not), I don't count as one of those statistics that upgraded because they were 'encouraged'. Maybe Apple did encourage me. I ignored it. So case closed, myth, no myth, however anyone wants to frame it, I do what I want. I will not be encouraged, cajoled, or forced. I am not Apple's statistic.
Been reading bit of this thread though not completely so might be a bit off topic but on the headline topic of slowing down the device.
Bringing to my surprise some results of a benchmark results of geekbench of my xs max:
All of them are first and only run only but.
Gpu: 9788 points, average 8012
Cpu: single: 1293, average: 1270
Multi-core: 2872, average: 2556
Now to my surprise gpu has quite a bit of difference of the average, single core small difference is expected though multi-core sees a bit of a bump.
Now i dont know what the health of all of this average iphone xs max are but im on 69% 4 years of battery, no replacements.
So im quite surprised im within or above average on basically most things. Its quite rare to see batteries bellow 70%. Now i have felt some hickups here and there, specially since IOS 16 which is the version am currently in on the latest.
Im a bit of a technician myself though i dont normally repair apple stuff. Just bough yesterday a new battery (think it is a genuine, brand new) which im going to replace myself. I am expecting to se some bump in performance as the SoC will definitelly benefit from the battery being able to deliver the necesary peak performance more often specially in sustained performance.
Though im not much of a bench guy just did this out of curiosity reading this post, and im quite surprised about the results specially in the state my battery is, even though this tests are synthetic.
Bringing to my surprise some results of a benchmark results of geekbench of my xs max:
All of them are first and only run only but.
Gpu: 9788 points, average 8012
Cpu: single: 1293, average: 1270
Multi-core: 2872, average: 2556
Now to my surprise gpu has quite a bit of difference of the average, single core small difference is expected though multi-core sees a bit of a bump.
Now i dont know what the health of all of this average iphone xs max are but im on 69% 4 years of battery, no replacements.
So im quite surprised im within or above average on basically most things. Its quite rare to see batteries bellow 70%. Now i have felt some hickups here and there, specially since IOS 16 which is the version am currently in on the latest.
Im a bit of a technician myself though i dont normally repair apple stuff. Just bough yesterday a new battery (think it is a genuine, brand new) which im going to replace myself. I am expecting to se some bump in performance as the SoC will definitelly benefit from the battery being able to deliver the necesary peak performance more often specially in sustained performance.
Though im not much of a bench guy just did this out of curiosity reading this post, and im quite surprised about the results specially in the state my battery is, even though this tests are synthetic.
Would be interesting to see how many of the people who upgraded did so because battery life wasn’t enough anymore or performance wasn’t adequate anymore. And of those people, maybe some wouldn’t have if they could’ve downgraded. Of course, this is all speculation, but it would be interesting to know.I never wrote anybody anywhere was forced into anything. You may have miss-read or miss-interpreted my text. it absolutely did encourage many to upgrade.
I didn't "close the case" either
fyi: I'm running 11 Pro and i'm completely happy with it still, years later (as I was with my previous phones). I remember rumours about phone throttling way back in 2013 already, and they were categorically dismissed as conspiracy theories.... until years later, they actually secretly did it (and it blew up in their faces later down the line). It all resulted in Apple being more transparent with users, and that is definitely for the better.
In my case, like I said, there is an activation issue on iOS 9 for A9 devices. All A9 devices on iOS 9 are deactivated by Apple’s servers and forced to update. My 9.7-inch iPad Pro was on iOS 9 since purchase until September 2019, when I was hit by the issue and I was forced to update to iOS 12.
While it wasn’t the only reason I upgraded to the Air 5 (I kept my 9.7-inch iPad Pro, though), I would be lying if I didn’t say it was a significant factor in my upgrade. My 9.7-inch iPad Pro was perfect, and it would still be perfect if Apple hadn’t forced it out.
Had a look last year on ios 15 around this time of the year and there was like 800 something on like 74%, cant say for sure the health tied to this cycles.
The way to see it changed on ios 16 so im not able to see the cycles as i could in analitycs. Haven't seen the way to do it for ios 16 yet so i cant tell current cycles. But i can imagine they are well over 1000.
I literally posted a a link to a BBC article explaining the court decision (and how case is closed).
Phone throttling is not a myth but a proven fact, why would there be any doubt about it?
I was working at an Apple Store during that entire saga. Here's exactly what happened:
Because the iPhone 6 had the bigger screen, that was the one that many, many people decided they wanted to keep as long as possible, preferably YEARS. But after about 2-3 years, the batteries naturally weakened (laws of physics) and we suddenly had a rash of customers coming in all day long complaining that their phones shut off right in the middle of a call/text/browsing session etc. It was becoming a huge problem.
SO, an IOS update made it so that your ancient, cracked screen, scotch-taped together iPhone would NOT shut off completely without warning by ending non-essential tasks and minimizing power usage of essential functions like phone calls. And yes, that meant your phone would run a bit slower until you recharged it.
But the story of the benchmark geek finding out that the phones were running slower hit the media, and just like "Antennagate" and "Mapsgate" and "Bendgate" it caught on like wildfire. And the zeitgeist became "Apple is ripping people off by slowing down your phone so you HAVE to buy a new one!" (And yes I agree that some better communication MIGHT have helped; the Battery Health setting was born out of this crisis.)
The irony is, we COULD have told the customers "Sorry, it's your battery, you're just going to have to buy a new iPhone" and COLLECT HUGE SUMS OF $$$. But Apple DIDN'T do that. The software update EXTENDED the amount of time you had to choose to either 1) have us replace the battery for $79, a STEAL that gave you two more years with the phone, or 2) yes, deal with the inevitable and just buy a new freakin' iPhone already!
So as a compromise, we offered all customers a $29 battery replacement that damn near ruined the morale of the entire Apple Retail staff worldwide. It was AWFUL. Our store did about 100 a day for MONTHS. But we did it FOR YOU. THAT'S why the company is now worth $3,000,000,000,000.00 and I have retired early thanks to the ESPP.
Because the iPhone 6 had the bigger screen, that was the one that many, many people decided they wanted to keep as long as possible, preferably YEARS. But after about 2-3 years, the batteries naturally weakened (laws of physics) and we suddenly had a rash of customers coming in all day long complaining that their phones shut off right in the middle of a call/text/browsing session etc. It was becoming a huge problem.
SO, an IOS update made it so that your ancient, cracked screen, scotch-taped together iPhone would NOT shut off completely without warning by ending non-essential tasks and minimizing power usage of essential functions like phone calls. And yes, that meant your phone would run a bit slower until you recharged it.
But the story of the benchmark geek finding out that the phones were running slower hit the media, and just like "Antennagate" and "Mapsgate" and "Bendgate" it caught on like wildfire. And the zeitgeist became "Apple is ripping people off by slowing down your phone so you HAVE to buy a new one!" (And yes I agree that some better communication MIGHT have helped; the Battery Health setting was born out of this crisis.)
The irony is, we COULD have told the customers "Sorry, it's your battery, you're just going to have to buy a new iPhone" and COLLECT HUGE SUMS OF $$$. But Apple DIDN'T do that. The software update EXTENDED the amount of time you had to choose to either 1) have us replace the battery for $79, a STEAL that gave you two more years with the phone, or 2) yes, deal with the inevitable and just buy a new freakin' iPhone already!
So as a compromise, we offered all customers a $29 battery replacement that damn near ruined the morale of the entire Apple Retail staff worldwide. It was AWFUL. Our store did about 100 a day for MONTHS. But we did it FOR YOU. THAT'S why the company is now worth $3,000,000,000,000.00 and I have retired early thanks to the ESPP.
Interesting take, but it was more a (annoying for employees) fix for a misstep in transparency than a cornerstone of their $3T market cap.
Your top level bosses made a mistake and the small potatoes at the store suffered.
All Apple had to do was explain with a simple dialog box in iOS. Batteries age. Your phone may slow down or shut down again if you don’t replace the battery. It’s your choice.
Rolling out iOS 10.2.1 with a silent performance cut was the worst decision by Apple in the past decade. Many people felt the slow performance even without benchmarks. Apple decided to let the media take control of the narrative.
The thing is, even Apple Store reps were clueless about the degraded performance. So between you and a customer who came in with a slow phone, what would be the obvious solution? The purchase of a new iPhone. The sale was natural.
Last edited:
I would like to show why I’ve been complaining about Apple forcing my 9.7-inch iPad Pro from iOS 9 into iOS 12. Remember: Apple deactivated my iPad on iOS 9 and forced me to update in order to use it again. I did NOT update it willingly. I would LOVE to go back to iOS 9. Apple will not let me. This happened due to a bug on A9 devices on iOS 9, in which ALL devices with an A9 chip were forced out.
This is the battery life I got on iOS 9:
11 hours, 33 minutes of screen-on time to 28%.
This is the battery life I get now, and this is the battery life I’ve gotten ever since Apple forced this iPad into iOS 12:
That is exactly 8 hours of screen-on time 100-28%.
Do I really need to say anything else? Ah, yes: I was FORCED to update and I cannot downgrade.
PD: This is insanely good battery life when compared to iPadOS 16. An iPad in these conditions, fully updated, would probably struggle to get 5 hours on a full charge.
I will let the numbers speak for themselves, nothing else to say.
This is the battery life I got on iOS 9:
11 hours, 33 minutes of screen-on time to 28%.
This is the battery life I get now, and this is the battery life I’ve gotten ever since Apple forced this iPad into iOS 12:
That is exactly 8 hours of screen-on time 100-28%.
Do I really need to say anything else? Ah, yes: I was FORCED to update and I cannot downgrade.
PD: This is insanely good battery life when compared to iPadOS 16. An iPad in these conditions, fully updated, would probably struggle to get 5 hours on a full charge.
I will let the numbers speak for themselves, nothing else to say.
Seems like your iPad's battery life issue is more a case of age, use, and natural degradation, rather than the leap from iOS 9 to 12. Batteries don't age like us; they lose their zest over time.
I knew somebody would bring that up... Not true. This difference was apparent immediately after updating, and battery life has been stable ever since it was initially forced into iOS 12. It’s not battery health. I get the same battery life now than the one I got immediately after updating. And like I said, I noticed immediately.
One second: 14 hours. iPad forcibly deactivated, forced to iOS 12. The next second, 10-11 hours. I can’t be clearer than that. It’s iOS 12.
If it was an immediate battery drop post-update it’s likely due to the new OS background activities like reindexing, common after an update. It's often a temporary hit, not a permanent change.
What? The same false recycled arguments again... so it’s been reindexing for four years? This happened in 2019. Battery life is the same now as it was back then, after being forced out of iOS 9.
It never recovered. Just admit for once that iOS updates decrease battery life. They bring features and compatibility, sure, but they take away performance and battery life. This has been the case, this is the case, and this will be the case.
Last edited:
When you say “Apple should have been more transparent” because you think they were a little transparent about slowing down the phone? and that we needed an added amount of transparency to the previous one? I’d say they were opaque about it and all we needed back then is an added "Important Battery Message" so we can replace the battery without buying a new iPhone in order to restore normal performance.
Sometimes the line between Apple PR team and regular users is so thin I can’t tell them apart.
I get your point about the reindexing not lasting years. My intention is to suggest that there could be multiple factors contributing to your iPad's battery life changes, not just the iOS update. Yes, newer iOS versions introduce more background processes, like app switching and the like, but other elements like screen brightness, streaming quality, and changing usage patterns also play a role in battery consumption.
The variation in usage patterns among users makes it challenging to conclusively pin battery degradation solely on an OS update. It might be coincidental or influenced by a combination of factors.
Regarding the screenshots you shared, they don't provide a direct comparison due to differing data from each OS.
I'm genuinely interested in this topic and have been searching for studies on the impact of iOS updates on battery life. So far, I haven't come across any concrete studies. If you find any reliable data, I'd be keen to review it.
That’s a very cynical point of view. It is not a secret that Apple wants us to upgrade every class of devices we have, year over year but to insinuate that they purposefully and secretly make poor quality products just so we the dumb customers would upgrade often, is quite low level arguments.