Apple slowing down devices to extend battery life when the battery itself is low or degraded is awesome.

All the lawsuits coming out of this over recent years are uncalled for. Users that “suffer” from this likely need to simply replace the battery.

I expect an OS (and/or kernel) to manage resources. iOS/macOS actively doing so by adjusting its behavior when the battery’s shot is exactly the kind of magic people want in Apple products—so why is the opposite true when it comes to to this subject?

It’s wild to me that someone would be so upset as to sue over this.

Edit: I’m not arguing that Apple is superior or that everyone should happily go along with buying Apple products. The way a lot of these comments are written make it sound like they’re the only smartphone manufacturer and living with their software is forced upon you. If Apple makes you angry or unhappy, I happily encourage you to seek alternatives; I don’t believe any one company can make the perfect product for 100% of people.

  • Synthead@lemmy.world
    12·
    8 months ago

    It’s not necessarily opinionated. Making the phones slower drives sales of new phones. They’re not doing it to be charitable to your hardware. Case in point: they are the only vendor that is doing this, and it’s not because it’s innovative.

    • railsdev@programming.devOP
      16·
      8 months ago

      I have to disagree on Apple’s motive. Going on the assumption they’re greedy:

      1. It would make more sense for the device to simply fail (shut off) when the battery can’t hold a stable charge (prompting users to upgrade)
      2. One of their primary metrics in marketing is battery life, so it makes sense to slow the OS to meet that target as closely as possible (even when a component is failing) as often as possible (by not simply dying)