I bought my Apple Watch in July 2015, and it was never useless. It was fantastic out of the box, but it was sluggish for some things. Not in any way that made me want to return it, but I was happy when, only a few months later, Apple took the performance training wheels off and let things run at full speed. The performance was excellent through 2016 and 2017. Only when I installed OS4 did things slow down again. I could have decided not to install OS 4, but I figured I would upgrade soon anyway. Perhaps Apple was being too conservative by throttling the performance with watchOS 1, but I guess they were concerned about battery life in real world use.While I'm sure they tested extensively, there are some things you just won't know until thousands of non-Apple employees are using your product. Developers would make poor test subjects because they do not use the Apple Watch the way a normal consumer would.
My wife still has an iPhone 6 that runs just fine. Mine was suffering badly because it had a used up battery and was being throttled. Her battery is still in great shape after several years because she never uses her iPhone as much as I use mine. She uses her iPad much more. Apple should have given us the option that now exists, to choose performance vs stability with old batteries, instead of throttling performance. They should have at least released a statement saying "We're throttling some iPhones, and here's why. We will soon release an update that allows customers to decide."
As far as new visual effects in new operating systems and old hardware: Apple does provide ways to boost performance by disabling visual effects and features. Whether or not these settings make much difference depends on the age of the iPhone.
I agree with you there. Two things I always wished Apple did better: Make batteries easier to change, and include a card slot for storage expansion. Apple hardware in general, including macbooks and iMacs, are notoriously hard to work on for replacements, upgrades, and expansion. Yet people still buy them because there are many positives to outweigh the negatives. I have never owned a Mac computer (I build my own PC's) but I still think iPhones are worth it.
How many Windows computers have you upgraded, because I can think of some major headaches that came out of upgrading Windows operating systems. Some versions more so than others, but I've installed and upgraded Windows on thousands of computers over the last 25 years in the IT business. Most of that was done using deployment tools in mass, but there were also many manual installations and upgrades. If the hardware was less than 5 years old it generally wasn't a problem, and the same is true for Mac hardware. Older than that and you will probably encounter some performance issues, and much older and you run into compatibility issues with some hardware. Wndows has gotten better at running on older hardware, including automatically modifying display and performance settings to work better with older hardware. It used to be a lot harder.
Mostly I would say that the apps/software make more of a difference than the OS. I believe this is true with iOS as well, at least it was until iOS 10 or 11 and throttlegate. Prior to that, with all my iPhones going back to the 3G, I found that iOS updates didn't slow things down much. It was third party app upgrades that slowed things down. Much like new versions of Microsoft Office and Adobe suites would slow down older computers more than the new OS.
Huge differences, actually. With computers the design compromises always become more significant as the form factor gets smaller. Is Apple any worse than Samsung, Sony, or Dell?
Most people upgrade their smartphones every 2 to 3 years for the same reason most computers are upgraded every 5 years: Technology is a competitive industry that is driven by innovation and most businesses budget for replacing about 1/4 to 1/6th of their desktop/mobile hardware every year. I work with a wide variety of technology users and business cases, so I do see cases where businesses get much more out of hardware.
- Most companies i have worked with replace laptops every 3 to 4 years, and desktops every 4 to 5 years. A few, especially those that do not depend on the latest tech or even tech much at all, get far longer out of their technology. The problem is they don't budget for regular replacements and instead pay for repairs as needed for out of warranty hardware. They rarely have any money for more than a few new purchases every year. They use one-time money since they don't budget annually for it.
- Consumers are more likely to use a device until it stops working, or until they are dazzled by the new. People don't upgrade home computers nearly as frequently as they used to. Computers reached a point of being "good enough" for most home use in the early 2000's, and I still see people with Windows and macOS computers that are from 2005-2010. Mac users prided themselves on hardware longevity even before that. While Macs had a reputation for being more expensive, they also had a reputation for having a longer useful life than Windows PC's at the time.
- Most computer and electronics hardware gets surplussed/recycled in perfect working order. Maybe they won't run the latest software, but everything still works. Batteries are the primary exception. While hard drives and memory fail more frequently than other parts, I have examples of late 90's machines that still boot to an OS. If you want to score some cheap computers, go to a state surplus facility and buy a pallet of used desktops. They might be missing some hardware (hard drives are often destroyed and memory pulled for replacement parts) but you can probably cobble together a few working machines of 6-year-old hardware for hardly any cost.
- Yes..we are paying an environmental price for this stuff, but it's not just computers. Look at how frequently all consumer electronics get replaced or upgraded these days. Many appliances simply stop working within a few years of their one-year warranty. At least Apple makes it a point to have a recycling program, but in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure what difference it will make.
- I have a thing for lugged steel bicycles... partly because that's what I grew up riding (and occasionally racing) in the 1980s. My commuter bike is 15 years old. I still have my racing bike which is now 30 years old, and my other bike is 10 years old. People sometimes ask me why I don't have bikes made with newer materials like carbon fiber since I'm so into biking. Part of it is that I grew up admiring the craft of handmade steel frames, but I think there is also something about the longevity that appeals to me. I have gone through so many electronic gadgets and computers in the last 28 years. The disposable nature of this stuff makes me feel a bit ashamed, so I like my old bicycles. Someday I hope my kids will too. Steel bicycles can last for generations, but riding old carbon fiber bicycles is risky business.
Anywho... I get what you're saying, but I don't think Apple is any worse than other companies. In some ways they are better. I've never owned a Mac, so I'm definitely not an Apple person... but I do think iPhones, iPads, iOS, Apple Watches, and watchOS are the best mobile devices for me at the moment.
