Thanks for the definition, I think it's pretty obvious what both of the terms mean. "Unplanned" is irrelevant, every piece of technology experiences this and always has. It would be PLANNED if the latest OS was not able to be installed on older devices at all; if each OS was only compatible with the latest device, that's literally planning to make the previous generation obsolete. Releasing an optimized OS specific to each older device and tailored so that it runs as optimally as possible is not making something obsolete, it's the opposite - extending its life.
What is still being overlooked is that updating to the latest OS is not a mandatory activity. Apple could do better to explain what happens when you do update relative to this scenario, and for all I know it is already in the T's and C's you "agree" to, but remaining on the OS the phone was shipped with would result only in the "unplanned" obsolescence as a result of dying tech. I use the word "dying" to describe anything getting older.
I don't see any of these court cases going anywhere. The lasting effect will be the PR.
[doublepost=1514377330][/doublepost]
That makes 0 sense. What computer runs the same nearly ten years later? If you're still running the OS it came with, then yes. New OS' have new requirements. While a computer may be able to handle it, it won't necessarily run as well as a brand new machine designed and optimized for that new software. I can't believe this conversation is happening. *facepalm*