They don't state how long they will provide software updates.
45% battery on iOS 18
25% battery on iOS 26 (which corresponds to iOS 19)
...
This is 2026
https://www.ladbible.com/technology/iphone-ios-update-26-del...
(sadly got stuck with that degraded phone because the Apple Watch that refuses to pair if you run iOS 18)
Only the iPhone XR in that test is on iOS 18. It scored behind all of the models on iOS 26.3 except for the iPhone SE. But that's not a useful comparison because who knows what condition the XR's battery is in at this point, and nothing else ran on a comparable iOS version.
Not sure what point you were trying to make with that video, but it doesn't really demonstrate cross-version battery performance.
All of this is only relevant cause apple devices are often used for so long after release (5-7 years, this message typed on a 5 year old iPhone) [1] (random source, more available on google.com) while statistically few android devices last long enough in consumer pockets for this to matter (2.5-3 years is average)
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/9uha1o/android_vs_...
They started throttling devices based on battery age after "Batterygate" in 2016, after a wave of news that their phones were suddenly shutting off on high load because the batteries terminal voltage dropped. They do not "artificially slow down before a new release".
The were sued because in their typical arrogance, they neglected to _tell_ people about that. They did not lose, they settled a class action suit.
As a result, they made battery management and state a lot more transparent in iOS, as they should have done in the first place.
Claiming malicious planned obsolescence, as you did, requires facts not in evidence.
If it's not malicious, then it's gross incompetence, but at the end of the day, it will still eventually require to purchase a new Apple device, when a downgrade would have been enough.
It's not the first time even: https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/iphone-update-iss... <iPhone user sparks debate after device becomes ruined following mandatory update: 'This is just ridiculous'>
It's a long-term issue, because even if it will get fixed in two years, then the battery damages due to severe drain are permanent, and this is to be paid with your pocket, or again... upgrade to a new iPhone.
It's not the first cycle like this, slower software is deployed to all iPhones, older iPhones lag, and you have to purchase the fresh new iPhone.
==
"Apple implemented unfair commercial practices", the Italian competition authority said in a statement (after fining Apple).
The companies encouraged users to upgrade operating system software but did not make clear the increased demands that new software would make on smartphones, according to the authority.
This "caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance", which provoked users into upgrading their devices, the authority said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45963943
This is about the generic software updates.
The main issue is that you have no path to downgrade, no way to use your own OS, and your only choice is to hope for an update from Apple that will revert back your device to its normal way of working, or, purchase a new phone, which won't have this issue.
It's literally impossible that they have not noticed, so if not planned obsolescence, at least, it is intentional degradation of existing products (or that their team is not able to notice...)
It's rather the other proof around that we would like to see, that Apple did not know the impact of what they are doing. If they knew, you know what it means.
I mean... settling means you lost, almost by definition. You were sued and then paid the person who sued you. Settling is the result of almost all lawsuits where the company knows they were at fault - why would you go to trial if you know you're going to lose?
Now, don't get me wrong - your overall point could still be correct. Many companies who still do believe themselves to not be at fault, offer a settlement purely for the reason that it's cheaper in terms of legal fees (or perhaps less of a PR nuisance, or just generally lower-risk) than going to trial.
No, since "settling" is something both sides do, if it were losing, it would be both sides losing.
Settling is a decision to compromise to mitigate the cost of litigation (and in the US, which does not have loser pays as the default rule, that can be quite expensive even if you win) as well as the risk of loss. You can’t really characterize it as being more "winning" or "losing" for anyone one party without a much more detailed consideration of the specific terms and the expected costs of litigation, etc.
Yeah... you can. The party suing received $500 million. That's a win.
Yes, a settlement has to be agreed on by both sides, but that doesn't mean the party suing didn't win. It just means that, maybe they could have won more.
Where you and the parent commenter are correct is that, the result of this case is not the same as a court verdict regarding the legality of Apple's conduct. That part true - if we're talking about "was Apple truly intentionally killing their phones to get you to buy a new one", the outcome of the case says nothing about that.
But to make a statement like "they didn't lose, they settled" is just misleading. Almost every company that has ever done something illegal settled, that's not an argument either. This case had at least enough merit to spook Apple into coughing up over half a billion dollars ($500 million to the class action and $100 million to the coalition of state attorneys general who sued Apple for deceptive practices). (Again, not proof of guilt but at least evidence of the claims having some merit.) In the grand scheme of things they definitely lost.