Edit: thinking about it, this gives them an excuse to reduce the number of years they support phones. Instead of 6-7, can we now expect that to become only 5 years?
If they wanted to limit support to 5 years, they could’ve done so already. Apple never guarantees any support length, so they’re just committing to the minimum this new UK regulation requires. This is probably nothing more than a formality.
You mean the company that repeatedly lies about being eco-friendly? The one that lied about refurbishing traded-in phones that they sent off to be crushed? The one that constantly lies about repairability, citing “privacy and security”?
The company they used for recycling services only deconstructed like ten percent of the phones due to the very complicated machines they use for deconstruction. They crushed (and then recycled) the rest. OP (that you responded to) is just making stuff up to get reactions.
Thank you for the article, but after reading the entire thing, all fault lay with the shitty recycling company not correctly following regulations and instead selling off phones, not on Apple since Apple has no way to recycle their devices themselves. I’m not an Apple dick-rider, but what you are saying and what the article is saying are two different things.
Can you please elaborate on where you determined Apple was fucking around so I may use it to spread the word? Because, no offense, but you sound like you are full of bullshit like everyone else in the internet. Please do not take this as a non-sequitur I’m really passionate on giving Apple the middle finger and you’re not helping.
What the recycling company did with the phones is completely irrelevant. The point is that Apple was advertising that these devices would be refurbished when they were sending them out to be destroyed.
When the lawsuits came to light, first reported in late 2020 by the Logic, a Canadian news outlet, industry observers were stunned. It wasn’t just the shocking scale of the purported heist; the incident implied that Apple was forcing a recycling partner to shred tens of thousands of iPhones that were apparently in prime condition for refurbishment. The timing was awkward: That same year, Apple had publicly committed to reaching 100% carbon neutrality across its product life cycle by 2030 and specified in an environmental report that “reuse is our first choice.” The shredding, critics said, contradicted Apple’s green marketing and was likely a way to keep cheaper used hardware from interfering with sales of new products.
No one even knew about this until Apple sued said recycling company because they were not destroying them. They dropped the lawsuit because of all the bad press it was bringing them.
Apple was advertising that these devices would be refurbished when they were sending them out to be destroyed
When did Apple claim that? Sure if you send them a one year old phone, they will refurbish it (they will also pay you several hundred dollars to take the device off your hands). But they’ve never refurbished several year old models. Those have always been recycled (destroyed) regardless of what condition they are in.
Just give me a performance slider so I can slow my phone down myself when I need it.
Anyway I have an android, battery lasts 2-3 days with normal usage (like 3h SoT per day for 3 days usage) so I don’t think I’ll have to worry about battery - and batteries are getting better with every new model, we’ll eventually reach a point where they’re a non-issue
I think the main issue (amongst the tech community) was that they did this with out making it known to users (patch notes don’t count - especially with autoupdates, who reads them?) the device just started getting slower.
If there was an option that was presented to users once the device got below 80% battery health to slow down the system to make daily batter life longer, then that would be an actually welcome feature.
The problem was Apple just went a did it, and to a normal non-technical user, that means their phone is dying and they need to upgrade.
Because in the world of auto updates, patch notes aren’t presented to users, and the average user isn’t seeking them out to read them. They essentially just wake up to a new OS.
A what’s new pop up or something would be more effective.
We know what Apple claims the issue was. You can’t blame someone who doesn’t believe Apple when they give them explanations of why their old devices suck when Apple goes to such great lengths to ensure planned obsolescence.
A battery that lasts 8 hours and is a little slower, or a battery that lasts an hour… huh that’s a pretty easy choice, but yeah it can always be swung to make someone look bad.
Dude. Relax. This is definitely new, in that Apple never publicly committed to these updates in the past. They just did them. I would expect them to continue doing them.
This isn’t new at all. Apple has been consistent with long term updates for a while.
iPhones have been getting at least 5 major annual updates sense the iPhone 4. The average is 6 updates.
If anything, it gets to a point where the old hardware can barley handle the newer OS.
This is the equivalent of them promising to be called Apple in 5 years - it changes absolutly nothing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history
Edit: thinking about it, this gives them an excuse to reduce the number of years they support phones. Instead of 6-7, can we now expect that to become only 5 years?
This could be a huge loss disguised as a win
If they wanted to limit support to 5 years, they could’ve done so already. Apple never guarantees any support length, so they’re just committing to the minimum this new UK regulation requires. This is probably nothing more than a formality.
Didn’t Apple push updates to older devices that made them slower so that you’d buy their newest?
Depends how cynical you want to be and whether or not you trust Apple.
They claimed to slow things down so the aging batteries could run for close to as long as they could when they were new
You mean the company that repeatedly lies about being eco-friendly? The one that lied about refurbishing traded-in phones that they sent off to be crushed? The one that constantly lies about repairability, citing “privacy and security”?
Why wouldn’t you trust them?
My guy, I never said whether you should trust them or not. I simply said “whether or not you trust Apple.” That is up for you to decide
My dude, that’s what we call a rhetorical question. It wasn’t some sort of accusation.
Got a source for us on this?
The company they used for recycling services only deconstructed like ten percent of the phones due to the very complicated machines they use for deconstruction. They crushed (and then recycled) the rest. OP (that you responded to) is just making stuff up to get reactions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-18/apple-iphone-recycling-program-has-secrets
Thank you for the article, but after reading the entire thing, all fault lay with the shitty recycling company not correctly following regulations and instead selling off phones, not on Apple since Apple has no way to recycle their devices themselves. I’m not an Apple dick-rider, but what you are saying and what the article is saying are two different things.
Can you please elaborate on where you determined Apple was fucking around so I may use it to spread the word? Because, no offense, but you sound like you are full of bullshit like everyone else in the internet. Please do not take this as a non-sequitur I’m really passionate on giving Apple the middle finger and you’re not helping.
What the recycling company did with the phones is completely irrelevant. The point is that Apple was advertising that these devices would be refurbished when they were sending them out to be destroyed.
https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/18/100000-iphones-stolen-instead-of-scrapped/
No one even knew about this until Apple sued said recycling company because they were not destroying them. They dropped the lawsuit because of all the bad press it was bringing them.
When did Apple claim that? Sure if you send them a one year old phone, they will refurbish it (they will also pay you several hundred dollars to take the device off your hands). But they’ve never refurbished several year old models. Those have always been recycled (destroyed) regardless of what condition they are in.
Just give me a performance slider so I can slow my phone down myself when I need it.
Anyway I have an android, battery lasts 2-3 days with normal usage (like 3h SoT per day for 3 days usage) so I don’t think I’ll have to worry about battery - and batteries are getting better with every new model, we’ll eventually reach a point where they’re a non-issue
It was more that older batteries can’t handle the power draw, so they would shut down if the power draw spiked by an expensive operation.
It was a really bad user experience so Apple throttled so phones wouldn’t crash.
If only they made their batteries easier to replace so this would be a non issue.
Oh I thought it was just to get some extra juice out of the batteries, thanks for the info
Never forget the iOS 4 update for the iPhone 3G and iPod Touch 2G.
This myth keeps propagating online and it seems people never try to even Google what the issue was.
I think the main issue (amongst the tech community) was that they did this with out making it known to users (patch notes don’t count - especially with autoupdates, who reads them?) the device just started getting slower.
If there was an option that was presented to users once the device got below 80% battery health to slow down the system to make daily batter life longer, then that would be an actually welcome feature. The problem was Apple just went a did it, and to a normal non-technical user, that means their phone is dying and they need to upgrade.
Why in the world do patch notes “not count”? The whole point of those is to communicate changes to the users.
Because in the world of auto updates, patch notes aren’t presented to users, and the average user isn’t seeking them out to read them. They essentially just wake up to a new OS.
A what’s new pop up or something would be more effective.
We know what Apple claims the issue was. You can’t blame someone who doesn’t believe Apple when they give them explanations of why their old devices suck when Apple goes to such great lengths to ensure planned obsolescence.
A battery that lasts 8 hours and is a little slower, or a battery that lasts an hour… huh that’s a pretty easy choice, but yeah it can always be swung to make someone look bad.
Public commitment to what? That’s two years less than Google’s latest Pixel.
Dude. Relax. This is definitely new, in that Apple never publicly committed to these updates in the past. They just did them. I would expect them to continue doing them.