this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
34 points (85.4% liked)
Apple
17452 readers
97 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s not really forced obsolescence unless they intentionally made it perform worse on older phones, or stopped supporting older devices entirely.
The most reasonable explanation is that iOS 17 was designed first and foremost to take advantage of the advances in the 3nm a17 chip, while supporting older chips as a secondary benefit.
It’s not optimized for older devices at launch because it’s designed for the new devices, and will be updated and patched as time goes on. Staying in iOS 16 on an older device until a few minor versions into iOS 17 will likely see better battery life on older devices.
I’ve been on a base 12 for 3 years, battery health at 88%, and iOS 17 is perfectly usable for me. I’ve been on the beta since the first public release. Battery life is a little worse, sure but still perfectly usable with no noticeable performance hits. I’m giving it to my dad when my 15 pro max gets here and it will likely last him another 3 or more years, probably needing a battery replacement in a year or so though.
What I'm suggesting is that this is exactly why performance got worse after the beta. It's a pattern seen from Apple for a long time.
There is nothing intrinsic about a smaller manufacturing process that transfers into software, unless they've secretly added new instructions to the set. What it does mean is that the new chips should be more power efficient, which means in turn that the same software on new hardware should already translate into battery life gains. What we see instead is software "tuned" for the new version to minimize gains on one side and suggest to existing customers that they need an upgrade.
Every developer develops for the newest devices first and foremost. Across the board.
Orrrrr what it means is that the software can take advantage of the more efficient hardware and push harder while maintaining similar battery life. Which is what most manufacturers typically do.
Welcome to every piece of technology ever made. If you want the latest and greatest software performance, you need to buy the latest and greatest hardware.
Being less optimized doesn't mean you need to upgrade. You may need to charge a little more often but that's the trade off for running new software on older hardware. You can still run the latest software and don't need to upgrade.
Apple supports iPhones for a minimum of 6-7 years. The iPhone XR from 2018 is supported for iOS 17, 6 years and 6 major OS updates. It will keep getting iOS patches until they stop doing OS updates on iOS 17 sometime late next year. They support security updates for even longer. They just released a security update for the iPhone 5s, released in 2013, in January this year. Almost 10 years later.
Forced obsolescence is MUCH more common with Android phones. An $1800 Pixel Fold released in June this year, 2023, is only going to get Android updates until June 2026. 3 years for a nearly $2000 device. You will HAVE to buy a new phone if you want new software after that. Which is absolutely ridiculous for Google, who develop Android ffs. An iPhone 12 Pro Max from 2020 will be supported longer than that.
A Galaxy fold, another nearly $2000 device, will only be supported for 4 years before you will HAVE to buy a new phone to get a new version of Android.
Most other Android phone makers, especially the budget ones, only give 1-2 years of support, if that.
And again, OP's case is anecdotal. I have a base iPhone 12 from the same year, and have been running the iOS 17 betas since the first public one and have seen no drops in battery life. The first beta had a little worse battery life but the following ones fixed it a bit. The last public beta from a little while back is the exact same as the release version. You don't even get a separate update for the release version if you are still on the beta profile, and if you want to leave the beta once you are on the RC, you just turn off beta updates and you will only get the release versions from then on. If OP is suddenly seeing a huge battery life difference, it isn't the version they are on because they have been on it longer than they have been seeing the issue. There are things they could look at, which others in the thread have given, and they could look at their battery health. That's a 3 year old battery and it may just need a replacement depending on how hard they have driven it over the last 3 years. Batteries are consumable parts and need replaced.
No, it isn't. It has never once happened.
Doing more demanding things to take advantage of better hardware is not "forced obsolescence". It's just progress.