Re: Jobs....
BS because:
1. Users of all the other rechargeable battery devices do not have the problem you're saying Apple eliminated any more than people who use old iPhones do.
2. In fact friends claim old iPhones have shorter battery life than most competitors. (I'm in Canada, reception tends to be poor here, which means the phones up the power of their transmitters more often. Conditions may well be different where you are.)
3. Many users could circumvent the reduced battery capacity by re-charging more frequently, but Apple chose not to offer them this obvious option, the option every other manufacture implicitly presents its users, and which people accept without complaint.
4. Apple made its money selling new models to fanbois using slightly older models -- not people switching to Apple from other brands.
This is a civil matter and proof beyond reasonable doubt (the level for criminal matters) is not needed. Apple's business plan, profits, and executive stock options depended on its phones making customers dissatisfied after a period of only a year or so's use. I argue that not just the balance of probabilities but also the preponderance of evidence is that Apple's business model is why Apple intentionally slowed down older phones without informing users that they had a choice to replace their batteries.
And now that the cat is out of the bag as far as the slowing down the processor when new models come out trick, they're having difficulty moving iPhone X.
"Apple throttled the processor performance to match what the battery could provide, which in principle is fine. What they forgot to do, is tell users they were doing it. And then when the 'slow' iPhone was brought into an Apple store, they 'forgot' to mention that a new battery would solve the speed problem; and presumably tried to sell the punters a new iPhone instead."
Biting the hand that feeds IT
