4 ms·

I used my last iPhone for 7+ years I believe, and didn't feel forced to upgrade when I finally did either. How is that Apple have "perfected planned obsolescenc

I used my last iPhone for 7+ years I believe, and didn't feel forced to upgrade when I finally did either. How is that Apple have "perfected planned obsolescence"?

imiric 4y ago
https://www.euroconsumers.org/activities/stop-planned-obsolescence-apple-case https://www.euroconsumers.org/activities/stop-planned-obsole... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42615378 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42615378 https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/01/apple-lawsuit-portugal-planned-obsolescence/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/01/apple-lawsuit-portugal-planne... These are just the top results for "apple planned obsolescence". You've either been living under a rock or willfully ignoring these issues. Your personal anecdata doesn't make them any less true.
- savanaly 4y ago
  I had heard of all those stories, but they're not convincing to me. Having worked in tech companies similar to Apple for most of my career, slowing the phones down to preserve battery life seems like a more likely explanation than the intentional consumer harm theory. I can see how a court that doesn't know any better or folks on the internet who get a lot of utility from hating apple would lean the other way though. In any case, even stronger evidence that this particular case was one of planned obsolescence doesn't support the assertion that Apple have "perfected planned obsolescence" which is the phrase I was originally contending.
  - imiric 4y ago
    > Having worked in tech companies similar to Apple for most of my career Why do you think that gives you any authority in this argument? If anything, it makes you biased. > slowing the phones down to preserve battery life seems like a more likely explanation than the intentional consumer harm theory. It's not about intentional consumer harm. Companies are rarely that evil. The most likely explanation is that it was a business decision to boost profits. If Apple truly cared about their users, they could've suggested any of the existing power saving features, or introduced more, like a performance slider, and given users the choice to decide what they value more. > I can see how a court that doesn't know any better or folks on the internet who get a lot of utility from hating apple would lean the other way though. "Folks on the internet" are hundreds of thousands of users all around the world. And some of the lawsuits were settled[1]. Why you think your personal opinion matters more than thousands of consumers is beyond me. But I can see why it would happen on this forum. Oh, and this slowing down issue isn't the only example of planned obsolescence from Apple. There are many cases of dropping support of new OS versions or features for perfectly capable hardware[2]. I'm sure you'll tell me how there were good reasons for all of these, but let's spare ourselves the time, and don't bother. Apple didn't invent PO, but it has certainly played a role in making it the world's most profitable company. Hence, "perfected it". :) And now, flying in the face of all this evidence, they have the audacity to claim how consumer and environment friendly their devices are, and to frame this minimal effort to offer user repair options in Europe as another example of their benevolence. It's corporate gaslighting at best. It's frustrating having to defend this case in a forum surrounded by smart people, but again, unsurprising given many here have FAANG backgrounds. [1]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/08/apple-to-pay-34m-in-chile-to-settle-planned-obsolescence-lawsuit https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/08/apple-to-pay-34m-... [2]: https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-planned-obsolescence/ https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-planned-obso...

I used my last iPhone for 7+ years I believe, and didn't feel forced to upgrade when I finally did either. How is that Apple have "perfected planned obsolescence"?

imiric 4y ago

https://www.euroconsumers.org/activities/stop-planned-obsolescence-apple-case https://www.euroconsumers.org/activities/stop-planned-obsole... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42615378 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42615378 https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/01/apple-lawsuit-portugal-planned-obsolescence/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/01/apple-lawsuit-portugal-planne... These are just the top results for "apple planned obsolescence". You've either been living under a rock or willfully ignoring these issues. Your personal anecdata doesn't make them any less true.

savanaly 4y ago
I had heard of all those stories, but they're not convincing to me. Having worked in tech companies similar to Apple for most of my career, slowing the phones down to preserve battery life seems like a more likely explanation than the intentional consumer harm theory. I can see how a court that doesn't know any better or folks on the internet who get a lot of utility from hating apple would lean the other way though. In any case, even stronger evidence that this particular case was one of planned obsolescence doesn't support the assertion that Apple have "perfected planned obsolescence" which is the phrase I was originally contending.
- imiric 4y ago
  > Having worked in tech companies similar to Apple for most of my career Why do you think that gives you any authority in this argument? If anything, it makes you biased. > slowing the phones down to preserve battery life seems like a more likely explanation than the intentional consumer harm theory. It's not about intentional consumer harm. Companies are rarely that evil. The most likely explanation is that it was a business decision to boost profits. If Apple truly cared about their users, they could've suggested any of the existing power saving features, or introduced more, like a performance slider, and given users the choice to decide what they value more. > I can see how a court that doesn't know any better or folks on the internet who get a lot of utility from hating apple would lean the other way though. "Folks on the internet" are hundreds of thousands of users all around the world. And some of the lawsuits were settled[1]. Why you think your personal opinion matters more than thousands of consumers is beyond me. But I can see why it would happen on this forum. Oh, and this slowing down issue isn't the only example of planned obsolescence from Apple. There are many cases of dropping support of new OS versions or features for perfectly capable hardware[2]. I'm sure you'll tell me how there were good reasons for all of these, but let's spare ourselves the time, and don't bother. Apple didn't invent PO, but it has certainly played a role in making it the world's most profitable company. Hence, "perfected it". :) And now, flying in the face of all this evidence, they have the audacity to claim how consumer and environment friendly their devices are, and to frame this minimal effort to offer user repair options in Europe as another example of their benevolence. It's corporate gaslighting at best. It's frustrating having to defend this case in a forum surrounded by smart people, but again, unsurprising given many here have FAANG backgrounds. [1]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/08/apple-to-pay-34m-in-chile-to-settle-planned-obsolescence-lawsuit https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/08/apple-to-pay-34m-... [2]: https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-planned-obsolescence/ https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-planned-obso...