At the same time, they could have been more obvious about it. Quietly doing that in the background seems like they're deliberately making what would be an otherwise mostly-usable device worse, so you buy a new one.

Something like popping a warning saying "Battery has degraded, would you like to reduce performance to extend battery life?" would have been better, letting the users choose to either replace the battery, and/or downrate the performance. Either way, doing it quietly was going to be a PR disaster when it came out.

Sadly, very few people seem to understand this. I'm all for seeing a big company have to take responsibility, but the way people just blindly follow this is very disheartening. You can't have true accountability without accuracy. They hear "throttling old phones" and assume the rest. The supreme irony is, throttling was the only way to keep older devices running longer. When I was doing kernel development on the Note2 and Note4, people constantly reported sudden reboots or otherwise rapidly depleting battery while using the camera. The old batteries just couldn't handle the sudden spike in demand for near 100% CPU/GPU utilization + full display brightness + camera hardware powered on + heavy RAM/IO use, all at once. So the voltage would drop, even for just a few milliseconds, then the CPU would starve, and the device would reboot. Just like pressing the reset button on a PC. Limiting the CPU was the easiest solution for everyone. Do I think they should have done it silently? No. Do I think they did it to avoid being thrust into the spotlight when more and more of their users were reporting reboots? Yes. I think modern devices handle this much better because they learned from the past. Manufacturers didn't realize back then what the degradation curve would be years into the future against acute spikes in battery demands.

Strongly disagree. Current draw is a well-known design consideration for a device like this. Unless otherwise stated, devices are generally assumed to function at full performance for the lifetime of the device. It’s expected that battery life will degrade over time, but not processing performance and responsiveness. Most manufacturers will account for degradation in peak current by limiting TDP to the peak demand for the device’s future current capacity. Throttling the SOC is not something customers expect, which is why the case has succeeded.

I don’t disagree entirely. And this article is a little light on the details… But I think the main reason behind the legal liability is the lack of transparency - which could be interpreted as having a malicious intent to push people to upgrade their hardware.

Needing to adjust performance is acceptable. Maliciously adjusting performance to motivate people to buy new devices isn’t. Pretty sure that is one of the major factors in this case.

I never wanted software updates to be handled this way. The phone works fine with the original software. There is no reason to downgrade to the latest version that doesn’t work well on the phone other than pressuring users to buy a new one.

It always blows my mind some people actually found Apple's defense convincing.

The iPhones didn't inform users when they were throttling because they had an old battery. Apple kept the throttling a secret and coincidentally it helped them upsell new phones to people with old phones. This type of functionality was also unique to Apple, it's not like this is the only choice they had and an industry practice.

I guess the good thing is that this sets precedent

Tim Apple knows what’s up.

It's like you buying a Ferrari then a few years down the line complaining that yours isn't as fast as the newer one, suing and winning. Yeah Apple was in the wrong but the punishment here fits.