Sounds like a false dichotomy. Another way could be to let the user turn on low-power mode, or accept the diminished battery capacity. I know that doing what Apple thinks is best is Apple's way, but maybe in this case it's the wrong way, especially if done in a way that seems surreptitious.
Why should Apple provide an option to pick a worse experience to people, 99.9% of whom aren't going to be able to understand the difference, even if it is explained?
The engineering behind the problem is insanely complex, even for tech-inclined people to grasp, and the engineering solution that was used was brilliant, and now is going in the garbage to suit the complaints of 0.1% of engineers who agreed with it but thought Apple should've been more up front about it, and legions of tech commentators who don't even remotely understand any of the actual solution but just ran clickbait headlines about "Apple slowing your phone INTENTIONALLY!" totally omitting the fact that it was beneficial to the user experience and to the long term viability of the device, and not only that, but REVERSED ITSELF if you had the battery replaced, even if it was by a third party dealer.
Sorry to rant, this just makes me so angry.
LET THE DOWNVOTES RAIN IN! I'm not going to apologize for it, this whole thing was blown massively out of proportion, by possibly well meaning but ignorant people who do not have a GLINT of understanding of the tech involved, many of whom shouldn't be allowed to program a DVR, let alone design smartphones.
No they don't. Those issues are very rare and indicative of faulty batteries. When you sell hundred million devices a few hundred can be defective. Not a big deal. Generally, Samsung phones (or any other manufacturer tbf) do not start shutting down randomly after 2 years. They also do not slow down the CPU. So they must be doing something which Apple hasn't discovered yet or (more likely) hasn't implemented because this way they can force users to buy $1000 every year.
