this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
28 points (83.3% liked)
Apple
19425 readers
7 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe I'm entirely wrong: isn't this the forced obsolescence that Apple is famous for? If it isn't, could someone explain to me why?
Not at all trying to be obtuse, but this is exactly what is meant by "forced obsolescence".
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.
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.