If you're buying a new phone every year, you'll never touch the battery mitigation software. Which was the whole point. You won't ever experience it in action until your phone is several years old and the battery degraded.
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
Suppose it depends on your income bracket and your love for mindless consumption, but buying a new phone every year should be something that people shouldn't do (even if its what some do). It's barely feasible for the majority at between 600 and 1200 dollars and just a terrible use of our limited resources.
The point I was trying to make is that the stunning success of Apple is due to their desire to please the customer and offer excellent customer service. No company that intentionally sets out to rip off its customers will ever succeed to that extent. That is a terrible business plan.
I worked in an Apple Store for 14 years. NOT ONCE in those 14 years was I ever told that I had to sell something. I was never once given a sales goal. (We did have a friendly competition comparing the success rates of the add-ons like Apple Care, but no reward was involved.) All we were ever told to do, over and over on a daily basis, was to "enrich people's lives" (the exact quote from Steve Jobs that continued long after his death) and do what ever was necessary to make customers happy.
Last edited:
But the lie is still being told (and believed) that Apple intentionally slowed down phones to force the purchase of new ones. That is incorrect. That did NOT happen.
And by the way, the morale issues I was talking about was not because Apple's top level bosses made a mistake. It came from an entirely different source beyond our control.
Last edited:
I don’t think it matters whether it’s intentional. iOS updates are irreversible. iOS updates decrease battery life and worsen performance, by themselves.
Apple could make them reversible, and they choose not to. Therefore, Apple is at fault. Note that I am not asking for Apple to make updates as good as original versions. Staying behind has drawbacks. But let me choose.
People are focusing on the 6s thing and while it was bad, there is something worse: this is still happening. iOS updates keep worsening performance and battery life and they’re still irreversible. There’s nobody to blame but Apple for that.
You either make updates perfect (which may not be possible), or allow downgrading. There’s no other acceptable solution for this issue. The current situation allows us to defend ourselves by never updating, which is the only good part of this, even if sometimes we are forced out.
As someone who experienced the battery issues under discussion on a pre-iPhone 6 device, I honestly had no idea that the random shutdown issues I was having were related to battery health. It wasn’t under after this story broke that I realized that the issue was a battery age issue that could have been fixed with a battery replacement. I would have gladly traded off processor performance for not having those shutdowns, myself. It’s not like I was saturating the A7 most of the time, after all, let alone the A9 in my old iPhone 6s.
Your view that every Apple decision is inherently customer-focused, no matter what, falls into circular logic. It's an unchallengeable stance where even extraordinary margins or profit-driven choices are spun as 'for the customer.' Reality is more complex. Apple's success isn't just about customer service; it's also about smart business tactics and profit strategies. Recognizing this isn't dismissing their focus on customers, but acknowledging the multifaceted nature of their business operations.
That is not true. I agree on phones with a 32 bit cou. But in the a22 and later performance is on oar and less battery life is to be expected as iOS does more.
You could blame apple but it won’t give you the ability to downgrade.
Yes for processors prior to the a12 I think you are correct.
Obviously in the current trajectory downgrading is not possible.
Do not expect that apple will allow downgrading. It will have to be a major shift in policy.
I mean that's quite beside the point of the comment that I was responding to.
It’s called over clocking the chip
That the batteries can’t handle it a year down the road.
It’s called over clocking the cpu
So much that the battery can’t handle it a year later
Considering the cost of a new high-end phone as around 3-4 dollars a day puts it in perspective. It's like a daily coffee - a manageable expense for those who value the latest tech. Upgrading every year isn't inherently wasteful. The previous year's model often gets resold or traded in, retaining much of its value and finding a new user. This cycle supports the tech economy and promotes reuse, which is more sustainable.
Spending on a new phone versus other things isn't necessarily wasteful or bad. Money circulates in the economy, fueling industries and services. It's about personal priorities and choices. As long as you're not literally burning money, what you choose to spend on, be it technology or otherwise, is just part of the economic cycle.
Yeah, it’s true that Apple probably won’t allow downgrading.
But anyway, I think I’m happy with my iOS setup right now. I use four main devices:
-An iPhone Xʀ running iOS 12 (so original iOS version, flawless performance and battery life, I really like it).
-An iPad Air 5 running iPadOS 15 (original iOS version, absolutely flawless).
-An iPhone 6s running iOS 10 (An iOS 10 version earlier than iOS 10.2.1, so no throttling, completely perfect).
-A 9.7-inch iPad Pro running iOS 12 (the only device that’s outside the perfect bubble, but it’s very decent. Like I said earlier, I see the glass half-full, and iPadOS 16 obliterated this device. iOS 12 gives me 10-11 hours of battery life - instead of 14 on iOS 9 - and almost perfect performance (I only have slight keyboard lag)).
So if you look at it like that, I have 3 out of 4 main devices that are perfect and one which isn’t, but it’s infinitely better than a fully updated one and whose only main impact is a 3-hour battery life loss, which still provides very usable battery life. I’m fine with this.
An iPad with a 10/11-hour battery life (which is over twice as good as the 4-5 hours users report on iPadOS 16, which may be even worse when degraded) and very occasional and negligible keyboard lag as the only “victim” isn’t too bad, especially considering that, like I said and unlike iPadOS 16, performance is almost as good as it was on iOS 9. I’m happy with this.
I would like my iPad to be on iOS 9 but I am aware enough to acknowledge that I have to value it for what I was able to salvage (iOS 12 instead of iPadOS 16), rather than focus on what I lost (iOS 9).
Apple created this problem themselves, by letting their CEO "admit" wrongdoing. Tim Cook never should have come out with the "I'm Sorry" nonsense. Apple should have stayed silent on the issue, and when pressed should have commented "How and why Apple manages the CPU performance of Apple Silicon is absolutely no one's business outside of Apple engineering"
People in the Western World are increasingly falling into the trap of believing in grand conspiracy theories. They tend to read greatly into things that are either completely coincidental, reflect an inconvenient reality, or are simply bad luck. This especially applies to things that don't work in their favor. There is an increasing amount of research on this subject. So the fact that people believe the "myth" is not at all surprising
With that in mind, Apple's real mistake was that they did something which may very well have been in the best interests of their customer, but that the customer was not aware of and didn't have choice in. It would be a complete non issue if Apple had put in a simple switch in the OS that allowed users to turn the throttling on and off. People don't like being patronized, even if it is a benign or well-meaning type of paternalism. People might choose to do something that someone else would objectively say is bad for them, but they don't want their freedom of choice impacted. I used to think we should do more to protect people from themselves but now am strongly in the camp of let people choose and then let them reap their own consequences if any apply.
With that in mind, Apple's real mistake was that they did something which may very well have been in the best interests of their customer, but that the customer was not aware of and didn't have choice in. It would be a complete non issue if Apple had put in a simple switch in the OS that allowed users to turn the throttling on and off. People don't like being patronized, even if it is a benign or well-meaning type of paternalism. People might choose to do something that someone else would objectively say is bad for them, but they don't want their freedom of choice impacted. I used to think we should do more to protect people from themselves but now am strongly in the camp of let people choose and then let them reap their own consequences if any apply.
Apple said only a small number of iPhones had bad manufactured batteries but lists a long list of affected serial numbers. https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/28/apple-how-to-check-iphone-6s-battery-replacement-serial-number/
Tim Cook's apology wasn't nonsense; he expressed regret that customers might believe Apple had ulterior motives beyond user interests. The core of his apology was acknowledging Apple could have been clearer about why they managed performance in older iPhones, which was to prevent unexpected shutdowns caused by aging batteries. His statement was an acknowledgment of communication shortcomings, and he reiterated there was no malicious intent.
Suggesting Apple should have remained silent and dismissive oversimplifies the situation. Your approach would be hiding behind technicalities. Rather, Apple's leaders excel at understanding customer relations and market dynamics. Keeping up with these nuances is crucial, not just for those at Apple, but for anyone interested in engaging in non-stupid tech discussions.
Yeah, I think mine wasn’t there. The one I have that’s on iOS 10 has always been on iOS 10. The one I had on iOS 9 suffered the same fate as my 9.7-inch iPad Pro, but unlike the iPad, it was forced into iOS 13 instead of iOS 12, which obliterated it, and it has henceforth been in a drawer ever since. I use the one on iOS 10.
I reckon there’s also the issue of how you’re determining whether the person needs protection in a given situation. It’s probably too easy to rationalize “I must protect people from their wrong choices about X” (where X is political candidate, philosophical choices, religion, etc.) once you’ve decided you should protect people from themselves. Paternalism always has the problem of imposing your values onto someone else who doesn’t necessarily share those values.
Additionally, when it comes to throttling, while perhaps Apple should’ve been more transparent upfront, I still think making throttling the default (and not opt-in) was the better choice. How are you going to communicate the benefits of throttling to the users most in-need of it, especially if they’re not particularly cued into the tech news cycle? And even if Apple had been upfront about it and even if there were a toggle from day 1, you’d still have people cynically suggesting that Apple’s just using throttling on older phones to sell new phones. You’d still have people pushing the same planned obsolescence angle they’re pushing in this very thread. It was very much a “screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t” situation.
How do we know "most people never noticed any performance hit"?
What? What do you mean "no resolution"? Battery health stats have always been available to Genius Bar staff even before throttlegate - it's shown as a scatter plot graph. But this battery health info was never made available to customers until iOS 11.3. If customers visited an Apple Store, the Geniuses would have determined the battery was in the red and likely causing shutdowns. What nobody knew (including Apple Store staff) was the downclocks associated with a bad battery.
The difference is the battery is a consumable and will, with certainty, degrade over time. Lowering performance by 60% is definitely something users should be made aware of.
Nobody is saying crashing the OS is healthy.
iOS today allows the user to choose between peak performance (and potential shutdowns) vs. degraded performance (fewer shutdowns). This works and makes sense. It should have been implemented on day one with iOS 10.2.1, not a year later in iOS 11.3 after Apple was caught with its pants down.
Users don't need to be "cued into the news cycle." All they needed to do was read a support page. Notice how well Apple explained how batteries work here? It's something they should have done on day one.
iPhone battery and performance - Apple Support
Understand iPhone performance and its relation to your battery.
Nobody would have suggested Apple wanted to sell new phones if Apple had been upfront on day one. Replace the battery to maintain peak performance - it's as simple as that. Back then, Apple even allowed third-party batteries without any nagging messages.
Why is it that Apple was so keen to let people know about third-party cables? But not about degraded performance and batteries?
Warning about third-party cable and accessory = best interests of customers
Warning about degraded performance and unreliable battery = not in the best interests of customers
As a customer who has replaced batteries in each iPhone I've owned at around 18-30 months, this option has saved me a lot of frustration, as well as a considerable amount of money. As an AAPL shareholder, however, it's in my best interest for people to buy a new iPhone when they begin to experience a slow and quickly dying phone!