No, it’s not “the same thing”. Apple throttled the phones because the alternative was the phone shutting off. It wasn’t a software bug. It’s physics that when a battery got old and you tried to run the phone at full speed, the battery couldn’t handle it.
You're repeating Apple's PR talking point, but we know it's not true.
Why? Because we have a counterfactual observation: in France there's a law against "planned obsolescence" and to comply Apple never pushed their update here. And not only French IPhone kept working, but everybody could disable the speed nerf by switching their location to France on their phone. And it turns out that the phones handled it without issue.
Battery do degrade over time, but the phone speed nerf was spread to many phones were battery degradation was far too little to cause the kind of disruption you're talking about. A theoretical concern that was marginal at best in the actual fleet of phone was used as an excuse for shady behavior (And that shady behavior got them a fine in France before they reverted the patch here).
Also, I don't understand why you're linking to an article that contradicts you. It reminded me something I had forgotten though: that eventually Apple (partially). caved and made this behavior opt-out for everyone.
> Well first you said it didn’t happen in France - and it did.
It did, shortly, then Apple got fined and then the feature was removed, yes, there's no contradiction whatsoever with anything I said.
> No one has ever accused the EU of being tech literate.
First it has no link with the EU, and then you said it wasn't about tech but “physics”. And surely Apple would hire lawyers familiar enough with physics to be able to explain it…
> And that feature is still part of iOS…
But now at least it's opt-out because Apple was forced to do something against the backlash. Nobody would have called that shady if they communicated clearly about the throttling and made it opt-out from the get go (or even better: wait before such a issue gets triggered once before throttling the phone, and explicitly tell the user when it happens…). And surely that's what company that cares about user experience as much as Apple would do … if they weren't trying to screw their customers.
> First it has no link with the EU, and then you said it wasn't about tech but “physics”. And surely Apple would hire lawyers familiar enough with physics to be able to explain it…
So now are you back to saying that rechargeable battery degradation is not a thing? It is literally physics
No that's not what I'm saying, and you know it, you're just falling back to this absurd argument because that's all you have.
What I'm saying is that Apple's army of lawyer failed to justify how this behavior was indeed justified by laws of physics, and obviously you cannot do better than them. Your argument is just one of a fanboy coping against facts.
So in other words, unlike Google that made perfectly good phones worse, Apple did an update that made iPhones with aged batteries not completely shut off.
They emailed us in advance of the update being pushed out saying it would lower battery life, and offered compensation options ahead of time. It wasn't reactionary. If it were a buggy update the email wouldn't come before the update.
Like I said, they emailed us ahead of time and THEN pushed the update. Before the update was pushed, they said the battery life would deplete and offered compensation options.
They haven't said why they did this, like if it was a battery defect issue or what.
