3 ms·
Here’s another angle: An iPhone 4 with the “last supported OS” is significantly slower than when it had the OS it launched with. This is true across the board
by joshspankit 6y ago
Here’s another angle:
An iPhone 4 with the “last supported OS” is significantly slower than when it had the OS it launched with.
This is true across the board, which leads to this very convenient “they can buy used iPhones, but we don’t want them to use them, so we’ll gently guide them to new devices by making it inconvenient and annoying”
And before someone argues: Yes, much of the slowdown is because of new features, BUT Apple could simply allow users to disable most of them (such as ML-processing photos in the background, or deep-indexing file contents for spotlight. Those are not required for the phone to function as a phone).
If someone wanted to use the iPhone 3GS with the original iOS, not sync to the cloud, replace the battery every couple years, and install a firewall to prevent intrusion via known attack vectors, they could realistically have a perfectly snappy and solid experience in any future decade. Doubly so if they kept a 2.4Ghz AP when the industry is on some unknown future frequency.
However: Apple has taken many steps to prevent exactly that sort of thing, and they will continue to make as many as they can get away with.
- zepto 6y ago> An iPhone 4 with the “last supported OS” is significantly slower than when it had the OS it launched with. This ignores the fact that later iPhones with the newest OS are significantly faster than what they launched with, which contradicts the conclusion that this is intentional.
- michaelmrose 6y agoThe lawsuit they lost suggests that the court found it was intentional.
- zepto 6y agoThe lawsuit might have suggested that but the court did not find any such thing.
- michaelmrose 6y agoSorry they actually settled for 113 million to terminate the lawsuit. I normally read settled for 9 figures as admitting wrongdoing.
- zepto 6y agoAh, so no evidence at all was presented to support your claim that it was international, and your suggestion that the court found it so turns out to be bullshit since the court didn’t even rule.
- joshspankit 6y agoUnfortunately we can no longer look at court decisions as arguments either way. Large companies simply settle out of court in order to silence the facts. - If they are wrong and are successful in getting out of it, they might walk away with a judge "confirming" that they did no wrong. - If they are wrong and the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive, they might write a cheque and walk away. In either case the public does not have any convincing argument based on evidence. Therefore we have to go by subtext. Apple was accused of slowing down the devices intentionally. They admitted the bare minimum (low power mode), then wrote a cheque that made the rest of the accusations go away. To me, that's as convincing as a verdict by a judge.
- zepto 6y agoLarge companies and small companies settle out of court when the cost of fighting the battle isn’t worth it - nothing more and nothing less. We can deduce that there as no evidence of intent, since if the plaintiffs had such evidence they wouldn’t have settled for so little. Remember that this was a class action with a huge class, so the settlement amount is diminimis for the plaintiffs but a decent payout for the attorneys. I.e. they had no case, and Apple paid to end the inconvenience. This is obviously nothing like a verdict by a judge and provides us no information about the facts whatsoever, because no facts were presented. The presence of a court case does not provide evidence for the michaelmrose’s subtext. If it did, you would be able to reference some. Also, this further confirms that the original claim by michaelmrose that they lost a court case and that the court found intent, was complete bullshit.