2 ms·
> It's THE argument From people I've talked to, it seems like the VAST majority of people are under the impression that Apple does this as a planned obsolescen
by culi 3y ago
> It's THE argument
From people I've talked to, it seems like the VAST majority of people are under the impression that Apple does this as a planned obsolescence practice.
In fact, this thread is the first one I've come across where most people seem to get the point of the feature
- mrguyorama 3y agoThe planned obsolescence was when Apple put a small battery in a flagship phone that could no longer produce the required voltage and/or current to keep up with hardware demands despite being only moderately used. Apple is the same company that brags about forever years of software updates, but plenty of people were running into this issue after only a few years, including my own mother who's iPhone couldn't even make a single phone call despite the battery reporting 90% state of charge. Notably, this will no longer be an issue on modern iPhones because they have much more reasonable batteries. Apple underspecced the batteries in iPhones and then hid the software kludge they made to hide that fact. That's why the reaction is warranted.
- culi 3y agoThis is a tangent to the original point, but I'll play. Apple iPhones have long had some of the highest battery lives of smartphones on the market despite having some of the smallest batteries. Since they only have to worry about a single OS, they can optimize away to achieve this. Smaller batteries means less environmental harm, lighter phones, and more space for other parts. There are endless reasons to bag on Apple, but the fact that they can achieve much better battery life with much smaller batteries is not one of them