Other The myth of Apple intentionally slowing down older iPhones…

[You’re not me]

This kind of issue is always going to cause heated arguments.

The car analogies are not good analogies.

The word "theory" gets tossed around far too often. To elevate a paranoid conspiracy idea to a theory does a disservice to science and what an actual theory means.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t know about primary purpose but it’s definitely a side effect that Apple is aware of and is not doing much to address, because it benefits them financially. If they truly cared, they would make it possible to downgrade to past major iOS versions (even if it’s the latest update for that particular major version) or at least enable new features to be disabled to enhance performance/battery.

There are good reasons beyond “truly caring” that apple doesn’t allow downgrading, even if you don’t agree with their policy.

 

[I7guy]

Okay, you’ve gone from reasonable assessments to... this. That’s it for this conversation from me.

We’ve always been debating opinions. The data point is a YouTube I posted showing battery degradation on an Xs max on an upgrade from iOS 15 to 16 (or 14 to 15) using the same use case. The results were inconclusive about “phantom battery drain”.

 

[Capeto]

There are good reasons beyond “truly caring” that apple doesn’t allow downgrading, even if you don’t agree with their policy.

What good reason is there other than security upgrades, which Apple could easily continue to push to previous iOS versions much like they already do for devices that can’t upgrade past a certain iOS version?

 

[I7guy]

What good reason is there other than security upgrades, which Apple could easily continue to push to previous iOS versions much like they already do for devices that can’t upgrade past a certain iOS version?

Maintenance of older versions is a consideration. Loss of functionality etc. Even if apple allows one, with the biggest disclaimers, to downgrade, things that go wrong are still on apple. And apple likes to control the narrative.

 

[FeliApple]

We’ve always been debating opinions. The data point is a YouTube I posted showing battery degradation on an Xs max on an upgrade from iOS 15 to 16 (or 14 to 15) using the same use case. The results were inconclusive about “phantom battery drain”.

Cool now compare iOS 12 to 17, which is the only comparison that matters. With real-world usage, iOS 12 is significantly better.

 

[FeliApple]

Maintenance of older versions is a consideration. Loss of functionality etc. Even if apple allows one, with the biggest disclaimers, to downgrade, things that go wrong are still on apple. And apple likes to control the narrative.

Let the user choose whether they can tolerate functionality loss. Why should Apple choose for us? What maintenance? Just do nothing. I’m running iOS 12 on my Xʀ and Apple offers nothing. I’m fine with that.

Just say “we do not provide support for downgrades. Proceed at your own risk”.

 

[now i see it]

Cool now compare iOS 12 to 17, which is the only comparison that matters. With real-world usage, iOS 12 is significantly better.

Well if that’s the case, then iOS 9 was worlds better than IOS 12, so iOS 9 is wayyyy better than iOS 17.
So much for progress.

The only thing better in iOS 17 than iOS 9 is safari’s ability to zoom text on websites and the ability to enter a caption on a picture in the photos app for search.

Eight years of progress — and that’s all they’ve got to show for it.

 

[I7guy]

Cool now compare iOS 12 to 17, which is the only comparison that matters. With real-world usage, iOS 12 is significantly better.

Do you have a factual comparison using the same hardware, same time frame, same use case? All that is available is done anecdotal opinions.

 

[FeliApple]

Well if that’s the case, then iOS 9 was worlds better than IOS 12, so iOS 9 is wayyyy better than iOS 17.
So much for progress.

The only thing better in iOS 17 than iOS 9 is safari’s ability to zoom text on websites and the ability to enter a caption on a picture in the photos app for search.

Eight years of progress — and that’s all they’ve got to show for it.

Yeah, I meant on the same device. There’s no device that can run both iOS 9 and iOS 17. I meant the Xʀ is a lot better on iOS 12 than on iOS 17.

 

[philstubbington]

I was talking to a friend of mine and he briefly mentioned that Apple intentionally slows down older models of iPhones - ‘planned obsolescence’ - and that it’s a known phenomenon. Let’s talk about it.

Before I carry on, I’m totally aware that he’s entitled to his opinion and I don’t think there’s a need to bash someone else’s opinion just because it differs from mine.

I have to disagree with him of course. I’ve thought about it, and on the surface it may seem true to an extend but I feel that people have manipulated the facts to suit a certain narrative. A narrative whereby Apple wants you to upgrade to their latest iPhones and to do that, they have to slow down your older iPhones under the pretence of improving your battery life. So I wanna break this down and see if you guys agree or disagree with me.

Fact: Apple has admitted that they lowered peak performance on iPhones with older and partially degraded battery as a way to avoid unexpected shutdowns during performance spikes.

I believe this saga surfaced in late 2017 when some tech geek discovered lower benchmark scores in older iPhones after upgrading to the latest iOS, or something a long that line.

However this saga is layered by this narrative that Apple is somehow forcing people to upgrade to their newest iPhones - it just didn’t make sense. As far as I know, these lowered performance was first noticed by someone looking for something, using a benchmark tool to compare certain metrics. A scenario that majority of consumers would never do and hence, this is not representative of a real world issue. The people that I know in my social circle, only upgrade to newer iPhones due to: expired telco contracts, just because they could and lastly, because their phones do not last as long as they did due to degraded battery health.

Degraded battery health - the very same issue Apple has been looking to remedy. None of those people I know told me that they upgraded because their older iPhones were slow. Could they have been slow? Yes, but I reckon it’s not noticeable in day to day use. I support the idea that Apple ’throttles’ the performance not because they want user to upgrade, but they want the user to be happy with their current iPhone they’re using by optimising the performance with the reduced battery health.

I think it’s much more an element of making the most of the latest technology and where it’s possible to possible to provide the same functionality to older models, than anything else.

 

[Elusi]

Spot-on, OP. I've had to explain this pretty much exactly the way you put it. Too many times!

What's annoying is that the people who bring this argument to me are usually those with some interest in tech, but they just haven't investigated the 2017 news more closely and just go with what the headlines told them.

Apple are not infallible and their philosophy of keeping the appearance of smooth operations rather than bringing a pop-up to inform the end-user bit them hard on this one. They will forever have this rumor about their phones.

Fun tidbit: I was one of the iphone 6S customers with a well-worn and degraded battery. My phone used to crash occasionally. The update made my phone work as normal again (from my PoV) and changed my mind on replacing it. First when the scandal rose did I learn about what technically happened. Needless to say as an actually affected customer I wasn't that upset.

 

[Abazigal]

Everyone knows (or should know by now) that the primary purpose of annual iOS upgrades is to obsolete older iPhones. And how do they do that? By slowing them down to the point where they’re too aggravating to use.
It’s obvious.

My observation is the opposite. Apple knows that users are holding on to their phones longer and upgrading less frequently, and so they have shifted from merely selling iPhones to selling to users with iPhones. In other words, Apple doesn't need you to keep buying iPhones, they just need you to keep using one (while continuing to earn as you spend in the ecosystem, from other Apple hardware to services to apps, even Apple Pay gets Apple a small cut).

Part of this is ensuring the longevity of iPhones by making them out of fairy durable materials that can easily last 4-6 years, as well as supporting them with many years of software upgrades (new features like widgets go a long way towards making one's device feel fresh and new again). It's also why they are comfortable doing battery replacements which in theory, discourage upgrading of iPhones. My experience with iOS updates is that performance is typically preserved. I can attest that over the 4 years that I held on to my 8+, it didn't feel slower with subsequent updates, though somewhere along the line (think it was iOS 13 or 14), battery life started to take a hit. I had no problems with running apps, just that I would need to top it off in the middle of the day when its battery life dropped to 30-40%.

But yes, it runs best on the original iOS 11. How do I know? Because the original battery swap failed and Apple ended up issuing me a refurbished 8+ running the original OS, and that had no problem lasting the day. On the plus side, it qualified for 1 free year of TV+! 😅

The same can be said for my 2018 iPad Pro, which has also received its 5th software update, and iOS 17 has made it smoother (although it also didn't really get any new features aside from interactive widgets). From this, I can surmise that iOS has certain years where Apple works on bringing new features, but the tradeoff is that sometimes these new features (coupled with the strain of meeting an annual deadline) may cause your device to feel slow and bloated because the code hasn't been optimised yet. Which Apple then either attempts to fix via subsequent patches or every few years (iOS 12 was also very notably a maintenance patch).

The last thing Apple wants to do is irritate consumers to the point where they decide to just get an android phone, because that is where Apple has permanently lost a source of recurring revenue.

My Apple Watch Series 5 is also just past its 4th year (though I did have to get its battery replaced last year by Apple). I also had my iPad Pro battery replaced earlier this year when it started bloating (wish Apple made iPad repairs more accessible; I ended up going to a third party repair shop).

I don’t know about primary purpose but it’s definitely a side effect that Apple is aware of and is not doing much to address, because it benefits them financially. If they truly cared, they would make it possible to downgrade to past major iOS versions (even if it’s the latest update for that particular major version) or at least enable new features to be disabled to enhance performance/battery.

I think Apple does allow this for a few reasons.

1) It gives them something to boast over Android (number of users on the latest version of their OS).

2) The more users are on the latest iOS version, the easier it is for developers to target them. For example, if say, over 80% of your user base is on iOS 17, it may be easier for the developer to say, support their app for iOS 17 (and maybe iOS 16) and drop support for the rest, which is probably a very small percentage. This makes it easier for them to maintain their app.

3) Patches do often contain security fixes, and again, it may simply be more convenient for Apple to just bundle both together, than issue patches separately to older devices still not running the latest software.

I don't think it's all financial-related, though it's definitely a bit of self-serving element inside.

 

[Shirasaki]

This baffles me. People may not notice at first, but there are many people with years, decades of iOS experience, and they keep updating... why? Why don’t they notice? Why do iOS adoption rates keep rising? At this point, people shouldn’t update as much, yet they keep obliterating devices by updating everything. I really don’t understand.

You won’t believe how often people are just oblivious about certain aspects of their life, for example how fast, or how slow their phone has become years down the line. They keep updating devices because of “security” that’s half myth half truth, and resulting heavier iOS obliterate their device with no way to go back. Whether Apple does better or not since battery drama depends on who you ask, but Apple is not the saint here.

So I guess they earned back everyone's trust?

It depends on who you ask and the perception people have towards Apple. To me all they did was a bit of token actions and a bit of actual improvements but overall stays the same.

 

[h.gilbert]

I’m of the opinion that their intention was correct and a very pro-consumer one at that.

I agree that the whole issue is overblown, but I would not go as far to say it's pro-consumer.

Apple was incentivised, to put it lightly, to not disclose that the slowing down was due to old batteries. The incentive obviously being the hope that users would just simply buy new iPhones. "Pro-consumer" would've been to slow the phone but also disclose it and say it's due to ageing batteries, letting users decide what to do - keep it, replace the battery, or buy a new iPhone.

Apple goes to great efforts to persuade you that they have the environment in mind yet they do acts like this which likely caused many people to buy a new phone instead of saving resources and replacing the battery. The only 'pro' they are is pro-profit.

 

[jonblatho]

Like, iPad 10, released in 2022, legitimately can’t run Final Cut Pro for iPad because of its super low specs.

I'll agree the 10th-generation iPad is overpriced, but not for this reason — the A14's performance is broadly fine for people in the market for a 10th-generation iPad. Otherwise, they wouldn't buy it.

You realize the app is called Final Cut Pro, right? They simply aren't targeting people who buy the 10th-generation iPad with Final Cut Pro. If you look at the list of supported iPads for Final Cut Pro, it's clear that Apple decided to switch on the "ipad-minimum-performance-m1" required device capability flag for Final Cut Pro for iPad, meaning (as of now) it'll only run on iPads with an M1 or M2 chip. (This doesn't necessarily preclude it running on future iPads with A-series SoCs if one comes about that matches/exceeds M1-level performance. The A17 Pro is getting close.)

That's to say that the 10th-generation iPad probably could run Final Cut Pro if Apple allowed it to for lower-end use cases — the A14 is still a very capable SoC — but Apple would likely have to spend time and money implementing and maintaining limitations that they simply don't need on M-series chips, with extra CPU and GPU cores plus more and faster memory and an expanded media engine.

Apple already makes a very capable iPad video editing app for most non-pros with those limitations. It's called iMovie, and unlike Final Cut Pro, it's free. That's to say nothing of also-capable third-party options. Given that, I'm sure Apple weighed making Final Cut Pro available on iPads with A-series SoCs and determined the sales to be gained weren't worth the effort.

I wouldn't characterize Apple not shipping every iPad with an M1 or later chip as shipping underpowered devices when most people simply don't need or want to pay for that much computer in a tablet, particularly given that a ton of iPads wind up as glorified web browsers, Facebook machines, or point-of-sale systems. A much stronger argument would be to criticize the current Mac base models and charging an arm and a leg for memory and storage upgrades.

 

[FeliApple]

You won’t believe how often people are just oblivious about certain aspects of their life, for example how fast, or how slow their phone has become years down the line. They keep updating devices because of “security” that’s half myth half truth, and resulting heavier iOS obliterate their device with no way to go back. Whether Apple does better or not since battery drama depends on who you ask, but Apple is not the saint here.

Absolutely, but then again, what incentive does Apple have to stop this abhorrent practice, either by allowing downgrades or by not obliterating devices through irreversible updates anymore when people keep updating regardless of how destroyed their devices are? At some point it seems like people don’t care, so Apple has no reason to stop. Why would Apple allow downgrades when people repeatedly not only don’t ask for it but they also keep hitting the update button on minute 1 regardless of how utterly these updates obliterate their devices?

 

[MacProFCP]

As a longtime Mac and Apple customer, I can say for sure that things slow down with updates after a bit. The cause could be for variety of reasons but the one that Apple acknowledged a bit ago was that they cease coding the OS to take advantage of hardware after (I think) two generations. Meaning that newer OS, while still working on older hardware, are not designed to take advantage or maximize that hardware.

I have experienced this over and over again with FCP and other programs on the Mac and certainly have seen iPhones slow down after an OS update.

I am not taking sides on whether this is Apple specifically pushing for more upgrades or if it’s just Apple being Apple and intentionally keeping the OS as efficient as possible by removing code for older machines.

I can only say that this has been a longstanding Apple practice and one that p***d people off even while Steve was in charge.

 

[eyoungren]

To give a brief example of actual use case of this, my kid has an iPad 9 and it’s only used during long trips. It’s loaded with a couple streaming services and activity apps, and it’s not used frequently because, as mentioned, it’s only for long trips. I was lucky to get an iPad that came with iPadOS 15, the version it originally shipped with. It gets fantastic battery life and performance is great for what it’s used for. I upgraded to the latest version of iPadOS 15 and disabled further updates, because I know that if I were to update to iPadOS 17 it will be slower and battery life won’t be as good. You can’t really argue otherwise.

I just want to mention that I have a 6th gen iPad bought new in 2018. Originally came with iOS 11.3. Currently it is running the latest version of iOS 17. I see no difference in functionality or battery life with iOS 17. It's still smooth and quick and battery life is still good.

And your iPad is three generations newer than mine.

That may be perhaps that I simply use mine to browse news apps at night for at most 2-3 hours. Aside from that, it gets little use.

 

[Shirasaki]

Absolutely, but then again, what incentive does Apple have to stop this abhorrent practice, either by allowing downgrades or by not obliterating devices through irreversible updates anymore when people keep updating regardless of how destroyed their devices are? At some point it seems like people don’t care, so Apple has no reason to stop. Why would Apple allow downgrades when people repeatedly not only don’t ask for it but they also keep hitting the update button on minute 1 regardless of how utterly these updates obliterate their devices?

Well, as usual, Apple not allowing downgrade is not just because of whatever propaganda Apple puts out, customer base doesn’t care, so they are also to blame the enforcement of no downgrade policy as well.

 

[Shirasaki]

To OP.
I cannot say I agree with your assessment of the whole situation, tho I can relate to some extent.
Apple, being a for-profit corporation, ultimately wants to make money, ocean-load of money should I say. It is of their best interest to get away with as little as possible so profit can be maximised.

Battery issue blowing out is not solely caused by people running Geekbench. Rather, it blows out because people notice the significant slowdown, among other things, battery appears to have gone bad, but few ways to verify it on their own, assuming such ways exist. We will never know the full picture of this blow out. But what we do know is Apple clearly is being pressured by media and great portion of user base complaining on any channel they see fit. Had the issue gone unnoticed and under the radar, the situation would’ve been completely different. Maybe Apple would never release related feature in iOS to indicate battery health, and subsequently update it to be more feature rich.

Apple being Apple, loves to maintain a rosy picture Of itself by being exceedingly selective on what they want to share, keeping large portion of information details matter to customer base hidden from the public. It’s their way of doing business and we customer base has no right to complain (all customers are responsible for Apple’s high secrecy). This level of high secrecy is ideal for conspiracy theory flying around uncontested, simply because person initiating Cannot verify their claims reliably anyway, so does most others involved, and Apple will never confirm or deny those theories unless it’s of danger to company image, or I think that’s one reason they want to clarify.

Is the Battery issue and performance issue debacle conspiracy theory? Yes and no, but nothing stops people from speculating wildly as to what the intention of Apple truly is, if they choose to not take Apple’s statement for granted.

Regardless, one thing is certain. Conspiracy theories surrounding Apple, as well as rumours, will never cease to exist, as long as Apple and customer base choose to maintain high level of secrecy.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Planned obsolescence is an overused term. But if you change your phones battery every 18-24 months you’ll scarcely want a new phone.

Very few people ever replace batteries in their phones. Apple will continue to sell millions of new devices to people who just need a new battery.

I’m relatively convinced that old batteries or damaged screens are the cause of at least 80% of new iPhone purchases.

This and FOMO. I upgrade iPhones every 6 years or so. I went through couple of batteries with 7 plus before I upgraded to 13 PM. I expect battery life to be 18-24 months, and expect to change. I do get more than 24 Months.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Well, as usual, Apple not allowing downgrade is not just because of whatever propaganda Apple puts out, customer base doesn’t care, so they are also to blame the enforcement of no downgrade policy as well.

Does iOS devices have capability to do that with out bricking the device? Is it worth implementing for a small niche set of users? I rather have Apple focus on more important things.

 

[Rainshadow]

I was talking to a friend of mine and he briefly mentioned that Apple intentionally slows down older models of iPhones - ‘planned obsolescence’ - and that it’s a known phenomenon. Let’s talk about it.

Before I carry on, I’m totally aware that he’s entitled to his opinion and I don’t think there’s a need to bash someone else’s opinion just because it differs from mine.

I have to disagree with him of course. I’ve thought about it, and on the surface it may seem true to an extend but I feel that people have manipulated the facts to suit a certain narrative. A narrative whereby Apple wants you to upgrade to their latest iPhones and to do that, they have to slow down your older iPhones under the pretence of improving your battery life. So I wanna break this down and see if you guys agree or disagree with me.

Fact: Apple has admitted that they lowered peak performance on iPhones with older and partially degraded battery as a way to avoid unexpected shutdowns during performance spikes.

I believe this saga surfaced in late 2017 when some tech geek discovered lower benchmark scores in older iPhones after upgrading to the latest iOS, or something a long that line.

However this saga is layered by this narrative that Apple is somehow forcing people to upgrade to their newest iPhones - it just didn’t make sense. As far as I know, these lowered performance was first noticed by someone looking for something, using a benchmark tool to compare certain metrics. A scenario that majority of consumers would never do and hence, this is not representative of a real world issue. The people that I know in my social circle, only upgrade to newer iPhones due to: expired telco contracts, just because they could and lastly, because their phones do not last as long as they did due to degraded battery health.

Degraded battery health - the very same issue Apple has been looking to remedy. None of those people I know told me that they upgraded because their older iPhones were slow. Could they have been slow? Yes, but I reckon it’s not noticeable in day to day use. I support the idea that Apple ’throttles’ the performance not because they want user to upgrade, but they want the user to be happy with their current iPhone they’re using by optimising the performance with the reduced battery health.

Agree with you completely. In fact, if Apple wanted folks to experience planned obsolescence, they SHOULD have ALLOWED their phones to functionally restart or shut off when over-taxed as the report suggests. Idk about you, but I would be far more likely to upgrade if my phone tanked every now and again a few years in, than if my phone simply slowed down. I expect a phone to be slower. I don’t expect it to shut down when I need it most. And Apple could just have pointed at the physics of battery technology etc etc and the public would have yelled at them for not keeping the phone from shutting down… because Apple allowing their phones to shut down would mean (in their eyes) Apple pushed planned obsolescence.

Screwed if you do. Screwed if you don’t.

Sure, should Apple have been more transparent, of course. But it’s far from the conspiracy theory folks are peddling.

 

[FeliApple]

Does iOS devices have capability to do that with out bricking the device? Is it worth implementing for a small niche set of users? I rather have Apple focus on more important things.

What? They just sign the iOS version. What bricking? Apple routinely stops signing older versions of iOS. It’s just a matter of flipping back the switch and that’s it. It’s not focusing or not, it takes a second. And don’t you consider this important? iOS updates have obliterated millions of devices that could come back to life just because Apple flipped a switch.