They artificially slow down the software and drain the battery before new release though (they have been sued for that and lost)

▲ kajman 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I like to keep phones a long time. Before I finally slotted in a sketchy new third party battery, my last android would suddenly shut off at anywhere from 15-30℅ battery remaining because of the voltage drop. I think they deserve a pass for that "scandal".

▲

meatbundragon 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I've never seen this with Pixels

▲

rvnx 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

https://youtu.be/YfnfhM4O_S8?t=202

45% battery on iOS 18

25% battery on iOS 26 (which corresponds to iOS 19)

...

This is 2026

https://www.ladbible.com/technology/iphone-ios-update-26-del...

(sadly got stuck with that degraded phone because the Apple Watch that refuses to pair if you run iOS 18)

	▲	panopticon a minute ago \| parent [-]
		The timestamped part of the video shows an iPhone 15 and 17, both on iOS 26.3. 45% on the iPhone 17 and 25% on the iPhone 15. Only the iPhone XR in that test is on iOS 18. It scored behind all of the models on iOS 26.3 except for the iPhone SE. But that's not a useful comparison because who knows what condition the XR's battery is in at this point, and nothing else ran on a comparable iOS version. Not sure what point you were trying to make with that video, but it doesn't really demonstrate cross-version battery performance.

▲ dmitrygr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Old batteries' internal resistance rises and they become unable to deliver high current. If you try, thanks to V=IR, the output voltage will droop and you'll brown out. Limiting CPU speed prevents high current draw and random device resets. The alternative was to let it run fast and have it randomly reset under load even when battery is 50% full.

All of this is only relevant cause apple devices are often used for so long after release (5-7 years, this message typed on a 5 year old iPhone) [1] (random source, more available on google.com) while statistically few android devices last long enough in consumer pockets for this to matter (2.5-3 years is average)

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/9uha1o/android_vs_...

▲ janfoeh an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

No, they do not, and they did not.

They started throttling devices based on battery age after "Batterygate" in 2016, after a wave of news that their phones were suddenly shutting off on high load because the batteries terminal voltage dropped. They do not "artificially slow down before a new release".

The were sued because in their typical arrogance, they neglected to _tell_ people about that. They did not lose, they settled a class action suit.

As a result, they made battery management and state a lot more transparent in iOS, as they should have done in the first place.

Claiming malicious planned obsolescence, as you did, requires facts not in evidence.

▲ wavemode 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> They did not lose, they settled a class action suit.

I mean... settling means you lost, almost by definition. You were sued and then paid the person who sued you. Settling is the result of almost all lawsuits where the company knows they were at fault - why would you go to trial if you know you're going to lose?

Now, don't get me wrong - your overall point could still be correct. Many companies who still do believe themselves to not be at fault, offer a settlement purely for the reason that it's cheaper in terms of legal fees (or perhaps less of a PR nuisance, or just generally lower-risk) than going to trial.

	▲	dragonwriter 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I mean... settling means you lost, almost by definition. No, since "settling" is something both sides do, if it were losing, it would be both sides losing. Settling is a decision to compromise to mitigate the cost of litigation (and in the US, which does not have loser pays as the default rule, that can be quite expensive even if you win) as well as the risk of loss. You can’t really characterize it as being more "winning" or "losing" for anyone one party without a much more detailed consideration of the specific terms and the expected costs of litigation, etc.

▲ rvnx an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Try iOS 26, you'll see what it means in practice, you will get a phone with worse battery life, slower operating system and no path to downgrade, only way is to upgrade your phone to the next big thing.

If it's not malicious, then it's gross incompetence, but at the end of the day, it will still eventually require to purchase a new Apple device, when a downgrade would have been enough.

It's not the first time even: https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/iphone-update-iss... <iPhone user sparks debate after device becomes ruined following mandatory update: 'This is just ridiculous'>

It's a long-term issue, because even if it will get fixed in two years, then the battery damages due to severe drain are permanent, and this is to be paid with your pocket, or again... upgrade to a new iPhone.

It's not the first cycle like this, slower software is deployed to all iPhones, older iPhones lag, and you have to purchase the fresh new iPhone.

  "Apple implemented unfair commercial practices", the Italian competition authority said in a statement (after fining Apple).

  The companies encouraged users to upgrade operating system software but did not make clear the increased demands that new software would make on smartphones, according to the authority.

  This "caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance", which provoked users into upgrading their devices, the authority said.

  https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45963943

This is about the generic software updates.

The main issue is that you have no path to downgrade, no way to use your own OS, and your only choice is to hope for an update from Apple that will revert back your device to its normal way of working, or, purchase a new phone, which won't have this issue.

It's literally impossible that they have not noticed, so if not planned obsolescence, at least, it is intentional degradation of existing products (or that their team is not able to notice...)

It's rather the other proof around that we would like to see, that Apple did not know the impact of what they are doing. If they knew, you know what it means.