[askariwa]

Just some of them:

- Battery Management (iPhone 6, 6s, and SE): In 2017, Apple introduced a battery management feature in iOS 10.2.1 to prevent unexpected shutdowns by throttling the performance of iPhones with degraded batteries. This led to slower device performance without informing users, which is a removal of expected performance functionality.

- 32-bit App Support: With the release of iOS 11 in 2017, Apple dropped support for 32-bit apps. This meant users could no longer use older apps that had not been updated to 64-bit, effectively removing access to those apps on updated devices = You want the new OS? -> you have less functionality.

- Pulse oximetry features were recently removed from new Apple Watches due to Masimo's patent infringement claim.

[po]

> This led to slower device performance without informing users, which is a removal of expected performance functionality.

As opposed to the device unexpectedly shutting down due to a degraded battery not being able to push enough energy to support the CPU? They didn't remove expected performance, they prevented crashes which are by definition 0 performance. All Li-ion batteries degrade over time. That's not removing a feature...

This whole thing was totally overblown.

[askariwa]

Well, they DID remove expected performance by slowing CPU performance, disn't they? People who had bought these iPhones (and not the previous ones) did so also because of the promise of a more powerful CPU, a promise broken by Apple. It is removing a feature (a better CPU) and Apple knew it that's why they did it without informing users.

[Xelbair]

the problem isn't that they've done it.

the problem is that user got no choice. Some might prefer degraded performance, others might prefer to charge their devices more often.

Also seller should have no business touching anything that they've already sold - they do might offer support, but it should be up to user to accept it or not.

[CamperBob2]

It was not overblown. Apple didn't disclose what they were doing or give the user the option to decide what was best for them. When a company chooses to behave that way, it should hurt them, and it did.

Apple's actions in this case were even worse than Bambu's. At least Bambu documented what the update did and offered the option of declining it.

[meragrin_]

> This whole thing was totally overblown.

No, it isn't. If the battery was broken and they knew the battery was broken, they should have informed the user the phone could be fixed with a new battery. They decided to gimp the device and not tell the user so they would be more likely to purchase a new device rather than simply fixing the old one.

[jillyboel]

> All Li-ion batteries degrade over time

So they know this yet they refuse to let users swap the battery?

[least]

The last one doesn’t really hold up since the feature is still available on devices that they were delivered on. My watch has the feature still.

[mft_]

The big difference is that none of these changes were part of a defined strategy to lock the user in to their products and ultimately generate more profit, as with the Bambu example:

- Battery management was to handle an issue that was encountered as batteries aged

- 32 bit support: Apple is well known for being one of the more aggressive companies when it comes to forcing users (and especially people coding apps for their platforms) to adopt required tech changes. But again, not directly profit-driven.

- Pulse oximetry: probably the closest to a profit-driven-decision, as this was driven by a patent issue, and presumably they calculated less of a hit from removing the feature than paying feed to the patent owner? Not great, but still not directly part of a user-unfriendly Apple-derived strategy, as with Bambu.

[Iulioh]

I remember one guy ranting a lot about navigation with the apple pen