[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.

[esskay]

Just to add, they also got fined by the EU for doing so, so it was ruled to be illegal. Bambu's changes would fall into the same category of altering the product and degrading the experience after its been sold.

[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.

[theshrike79]

It's not a matter of "charging more often". The phone just shut down when the battery was somewhere between 0-40%

Source: had two 6S's in the family. In the cold it could just suddenly shut down mid-call from 60% battery.

[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?

[theshrike79]

Users can swap the battery?

  1) open phone
  2) remove battery
  3) replace battery
  4) close phone

It just requires more tools than your fingers, like every single mainstream phone.