[seattle_spring]

I'm sure we could also find anecdotes of some iPhone users having features necessary for them blocked or non-functional. It does not mean that the vast majority of people cannot still use the device without incident as a "daily driver."

[jeffbee]

I used an iPhone from launch to the iPhone SE3 and I can't recall there ever being a feature printed on the box or hyped by Steve Jobs on stage that did not work out of the box, or that later stopped working.

[glenstein]

Here's one about battery life:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255046014?sortBy=rank

[SideQuark]

You must have had that single magic version of Apple Maps no one else got for a long time on release.

They lost the batterygate lawsuits, right? Guess you missed that fiasco that resulted in Apple paying out over half a billion. In this case Apple deliberately degraded previous user experiences on older phones, which means previous behavior (in this case performance) stopped working, done deliberately by Apple.

yes, it didn't go to zero, but it didn't do what it once did as decided remotely by Apple).

Apple also promised user data security, sold user data, and got hauled before Congress in 2011 for that. But I guess your user data was safe in offshore data silos.

I could go on, but I think your recall on iPhone downsides stopped working.

[Dylan16807]

The only thing they did on purpose was run too close to the limits of the battery.

The battery degraded because it was a battery, and the performance had to degrade along with it because of physics.

Apple didn't decide remotely to weaken performance. That performance was on borrowed time. What Apple did wrong was not making it clear upfront that the performance was on borrowed time and wasn't sustainable.

[SideQuark]

> The battery degraded because it was a battery, and the performance had to degrade along with it because of physics.

> Apple didn't decide remotely to weaken performance.

It's amazing when people just make crap up without even looking something as simple as this up. Apple lost the "batterygate" lawsuit because they specifically did slow down performance on old phone with an update.

A quote [1]: "Apple has agreed to pay up to $500 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the tech giant of slowing down older iPhones to encourage people to buy the latest model. Apple faced a wave of criticism -- and lawsuits -- after acknowledging in 2017 that its iOS software slowed down the performance of some older iPhones."

All the court docs [2]. Knock yourself out.

If you're going to shill, at least take a moment to google a claim before making up nonsense.

[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-to-pay-up-to-500m-to-...

[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6431809/in-re-apple-inc...

[Dylan16807]

Okay there's an asterisk on the "had to", which is "unless you want an unstable phone". There's plenty of evidence for that.

Apple lost because they did a bad thing, but I disagree with your characterization of what the bad thing was. In particular I will note that your quote says that they settled and what they were accused of, which is very different from a verdict.

[SideQuark]

Simply read the court docs, which I linked. Or go read proper legal sites where the case is laid out with evidence. Stop making assumption you want to be true, which has been this entire thread.

They settled because discovery pulled out docs showing they knew full well what they did, on purpose, and they settled for a half billion dollars because they stood to lose far more in court if a jury saw that evidence. There is no "we were trying to be nice" defense that would counter their internal documents and discussions demonstrating otherwise.

Apply doesn't hand out half billion payouts for touchy feely reasons.

[kaba0]

> They lost the batterygate lawsuits, right? Guess you missed that fiasco that resulted in Apple paying out over half a billion. In this case Apple deliberately degraded previous user experiences on older phones, which means previous behavior (in this case performance) stopped working, done deliberately by Apple

Let’s not share this absolute misinterpretation of what happened.

Apple fcked up big time on communication, that’s for sure, but it was an absolutely well meaning feature for an old device, lengthening their lifespan. They saw a bunch of random poweroffs due to degrading batteries not being able to output enough power to the CPU, and pushed an update that decreased the CPU clock down a bit. This of course degraded performance, and not having informed the buyers, making it a choice, they lost a lawsuit. But if they would actually do the communication well, it could have been an excellent positive PR, them fixing a bug for a 4 or so years device!

[SideQuark]

> Let’s not share this absolute misinterpretation of what happened.

Let's not spin what happened, which has concrete and irrefutable evidence. Here's all the court docs [1]. Apple got caught, most definitely did degrade performance without warning and on purpose, and certainly people at Apple knew some of those device owners would upgrade. That they spun it as a feature once caught is classic spin. Apple is no idiot at marketing - if they thought people would see this as positive PR, they would have announced it and touted it. They did not. The 7 million+ pages of Apple discovery made all this clear. This is why Apple settled for a half billion - they were certainly going to get hammered in court.

Read the court docs, not Apple PR.

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6431809/in-re-apple-inc...