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.
Of course they did. My iPad 2 worked perfectly up until iOS6 and crawled to a screeching halt after upgrading to iOS7. Constant lags, freezes, sometimes even crashes of the same apps which worked fine a week before. And to protect consumers even more, Apple blocks firmware downgrade, despite old version working just fine for years later.
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 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Yeah... you can. The party suing received $500 million. That's a win.
Yes, a settlement has to be agreed on by both sides, but that doesn't mean the party suing didn't win. It just means that, maybe they could have won more.
Where you and the parent commenter are correct is that, the result of this case is not the same as a court verdict regarding the legality of Apple's conduct. That part true - if we're talking about "was Apple truly intentionally killing their phones to get you to buy a new one", the outcome of the case says nothing about that.
But to make a statement like "they didn't lose, they settled" is just misleading. Almost every company that has ever done something illegal settled, that's not an argument either. This case had at least enough merit to spook Apple into coughing up over half a billion dollars ($500 million to the class action and $100 million to the coalition of state attorneys general who sued Apple for deceptive practices). (Again, not proof of guilt but at least evidence of the claims having some merit.) In the grand scheme of things they definitely lost.
Never mind cleaning up, you also have to understand the language just to judge and review the LLMs output. How else are you to separate good design and implementation from a bad one?
> I've done the same with my artwork over the years, hoping that someone would come along and collab or "remix" my art into something new and interesting. I don't do promotion, so it hasn't occurred, but the idea was inspired by NIN and I think it's an amazing idea that can really build a community.
You know, right this second I am listening to a MIDI recreation of the soundtrack to a very obscure German Atari ST puzzle game from '84. Something somebody recreated where I would be surprised if more than 500 people in the world ever heard the original.
Even though you might never learn of it, given the vast number of people out there, it is entirely likely that what you did already touched somebody out there. You do not need to have built a community in order to have done something of significance.
Sorry to get back to you so long after you posted, but I really appreciate your comment! Also a huge fan of Atari computers (I learned my first programming on my dad's Atari 130XE 8-bit around 1990, quite a while after it went out of popularity).
I would describe myself as strict and dogmatic about email etiquette and consent as they come, but I am with avianlyric about the subscription reminders.
Legal requirements aside — when I have an ongoing business relationship with a company, "we are about to take money from you again" is an expected, useful and welcome message.
According to Michael Tsai, they did use encrypted notification payloads. The OS just then stores the decrypted payloads in its notification database. [0]
For some people like me, iOS parental controls are utterly and completely broken. I have tried to make it work over three or four years and just as many iOS releases - no dice.
About a dozen times in those years, the system silently failed open either completely or partially (eg. some restrictions still applied, but whitelists in Safari were no longer enforced, the app store was suddenly accessible again or time limits were no longer in place). Not once was there any indication on the parent device.
Several times, the only way to reenable broken restrictions was to wipe the device, because changes to parental controls simply stopped syncing.
The opposite is also true: Apple’s parental controls fail closed in inscrutable and impossible to debug ways. Yesterday, in order to share an iPad’s location with my iPhone, I had to totally disable managing Screen Time on the device. Every time I would click “share with <my name>”, the damn thing would tell me “Location settings can’t be updated right now, try again later”. No other combination of “solutions” on the Apple support forum, the random blogspam links, or the oh-so-helpful search-AI-summary thing even made a dent. I suspect something in the underlying data model was out of sync with the UI or something. Incredibly frustrating experience from the “it just works” vendor.
Yep. After years of frustration, trying every possible way to fix it, uncountable hours of searching, I asked Claude about it: "just subscribe to an external service". This is ridiculous, Android's parental controls work flawlessly. If I knew that beforehand, I would never had got my kid an iOS device.
Another vote for the HT3. My wife and I have one each, and we are perfectly content with them — nice battery life, decent build quality, good connection to multiple (two?) sources.
The ANC is not in the same league as a $300 pair, but one certainly would not expect them to.
Ooh, it's time to pull out the classics! Please feel free to check the boxes as you see fit, as I am currently too lazy to have Claude do it for me.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
This site is designed so that the wannabees are incentivized to lie and show off to get some of the sweet VC the whales are sitting on. The ease of lying at volume is down to zero, and here be nerds trying to solve a human problem with technology. Maybe show first that you can solve spam or bot networks.
Somehow lighthearted solution: employ Unix graybeard volunteers to weed out the garbage. I'd like to see HN showoff slop like "Distributed Kubernetes Package Manager using Blackwell-Hermann CRTDs in 500 lines of Go" get past Linus or Stallman.
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.
reply